Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive499

User:Oren.tal

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.

---

Note: Closing this, as no one seems to have any useful input on this editor. --Smashville^talk 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was advised by a user that he had removed a discussion from his talkpage, so I started checking diffs when I came across these: [1] [2][3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8]. After looking at the talk page and reading the edit summaries, I realized two things: a) the IP and Oren.tal are clearly the same person and b) this was a blatant WP:POINT edit. It is important to note that I have never made an edit on the page and actually had never heard of the subject until yesterday. Therefore, I left a note on Oren.tal's talk page. He then leaves me this message on my talk page about how other users are "breaking Wikipedia law". I inform him again that adding 19 sources to an infobox is disruptive - and that it messes up the formatting of the infobox. He then accuses me of lying and saying he didn't add 19 sources to one line in the infobox. Therefore, I provide him the diff and add a template to his talk page to let him know that falsely accusing editors of lying is a personal attack (I went to level 3 - he clearly wasn't new and it was clearly a bad faith accusation - he knew I was not lying). He responds by again saying I was "falsely accusing" him. He then tells me again on my talkpage that I have "falsely accused" him and then decides to claim that he only added 9 (which would still be disruptive, but it's also not true) and again accuses me of lying. So, I give him a final warning (I realize I actually 4im'd him, but the template means the same thing at that point). I also ask him if it is possible that someone took over his account, as I was really not sure what he was going for. Again, he calls me a liar and says we need to have "other administrators decide the number". Again, the number isn't important. I let him know we are going to ANI because he's being disruptive (and I don't want to be the one to block him at this point). At the same time, he tells me again on his talkpage that he did not add sources and again accuses me of lying and then demands an apology. Gwen steps in on my talk page and lets him know that she actually counted 20. Again he makes the claim that he only added 9.

So I recognize that's kind of long and a little confusing since it's taking place in two separate forums. But there you are - plenty of Wikidrama for everyone. --Smashville^talk 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... this is Thursday: drama is for Fridays. ►BMW◄ 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a bit of a content issue as well as a small clique rejecting mainstream input backed up by reliable sources (I've yet to understand why). Oren.tal noted his erroneous counting so I believe this post is pure drama and counter-productive (see also: WP:NAM). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the conduct of the user. His edit history and interaction with everyone shows consistent bad faith accusations and incivility. Also, as I have mentioned, I have never edited on that article. --Smashville^talk 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but the only mastodon is Oren. Read Talk:Haaretz#Political allegiance. He's the WP:POINTy editor who's added 16 references to Gush Shalom and won't abide by the Talk page consensus that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having bad faith in this instance, where reliable references are being rejected on the discussion for non-contentious material, is not a far fetched response. There seems to be a bit of a battleground issue with several of the involved editors and I've yet to understand where these "per policy" statements are coming from. I would suggest bringing everyone involved under notice for the Wikipedia:ARBPIA and it's declared principals. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) fix Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Gwen Gale seems to have acted already blocking Oren.tal (talk · contribs) for 48hrs. Despite some point to this block, I'm not sure if it were the correct choice of handling this incident. Clearly, fellow editors were edit-warring on more than one article as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is evidence of a history of further personal attacks, incivility and bad faith accusations since he came on Wikipedia:

• Calls a user an idiot
• Tells admin who blocked him to leave him alone and grow up
• Starts a thread entitled "Idiot I am former religious Jew"
• Threatens to report a user if they remove a link, while making it clear that their religion is why he will report them
• A less than friendly 3RR notice
• Accuses an editor of lying and says he will tell on him
• Calls another editor racist...for no reason
• Asks a user if he knows how to read
• Accuses an editor of making personal attacks when they have not done so
• Accuses an editor of having an agenda
• Accuses an editor of having an agenda for trying to explain BLP to him
• "maybe you need a lesson in English"
• Refers to Malcolm Schosha as "Malik" (in response to being reminded of WP:NPA
• Makes a sockpuppet allegation
• Accuses Malcolm Schosha and Malik Shabazz of being sockpuppets of each other
• Continues sockpuppetry allegation
• Addresses Malcolm Schosha as "Malik"

The edit history of this user shows that previous blocks have not served as any deterrent to the behavior he continues to engage in. And again to Jaakabou, this is a user conduct issue, not a content issue. --Smashville^talk 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you removed your "snarky" comment ... you have a right to be snarky after that brutal non-call on the Burrows hit intent to injure/charge ►BMW◄ 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If only he had referred to JP as sloppy seconds...he would be so gone... --Smashville^talk 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: adding his comments from June 2007 (i.e. Calls a user an idiot) to support an 48hr block in December 2008 is down right ridiculous.... but I'm open community input if you think I'm wrong here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you ignore the "evidence...since he came on Wikipedia" part? What we have here is a user with a history of personal attacks, and incivility who has continued despite multiple blocks. The fact that he continued to attack me today should have been enough for a block. This is a user who has continued to POV push and edit war since he came onto Wikipedia...I'm wondering if we need to do a little more than a 48 hour. --Smashville^talk 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't mean to hang the scarlet letter over people for year and a half old comments. If there's a recent pattern -- and I'm not talking about borderline replies to incivil comments towards him -- please present this. Your calling him the t-word when he was adding more than proper content to Haaretz (which was on the page with a consensus for many months) makes me wonder if we need to re-assess your "uninvolved" status in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian articles.

p.s. I'm aware that he re-added 19 references, but that was after a smaller number of references was deemed "unreliable". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I had a hard time believing he is not a troll. I said it in response to you saying it was a bad idea to open this ANI. I opened the ANI in response to his comments. He was already blocked when I said that. He can hardly be excused for making repeated personal attacks on me because of a comment I made after he attacked me repeatedly. Contrary to your descriptor, the response was to you. The reason I opened this ANI is because his actions seem trollish. And for the last time, this has nothing to do with content on an article I have never edited or a subject on which I know nothing about. The fact of the matter is - again - he added 19 sources to a one-word descriptor on an Infobox. I asked him not to do it. He called me a liar, said he didn't do it, demanded an apology, etc. I don't know how I can be more clear with this - personal attacks are not acceptable. And a user who has a long history of them is a problem. Accusing me of having an agenda is a) absurd, considering I have never edited any article related to any of these subjects as I have no knowledge of them, b) bad faith and c) completely irrelevant because for the last time, the content of the article is not an issue as I have never edited the article. A disruptive edit is a disruptive edit regardless of the subject of the article. --Smashville^talk 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to stop (he seemed to agree) or getting peeved that he said you were wrong for counting 19 when he counted 9 is hardly a concern of mine. I am concerned that a small clique just "messed up an article" (I'm exaggerating a bit) with some unclear concerns (as well as a false claim to a past consensus), and an editor who's trying to fix the issue is being aggressively singled out and "handled" for some "pattern" of minor incivility which was mostly towards people who were mocking both his earlier civil approach as well as reliable sources and the relevant policy. I noted you already on your first approach to the issue that Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has an ongoing problem and yet it seems the focus is on a very minor incivility and personalization approach by everyone involved. I can't figure out why you'd be posting a complaint even after he realized his miscount (18:53, 11 December 2008 -> complaint posted at 19:22) and when coupled with the t-word and links that go back to 2007, it just feels like a "campaign" to justify "climbing up that mountain" in the first place (mind my "personalized" phrasing). Last sanction on Oren.tal seems to go back to 10 months ago, so the alleged pattern doesn't seem like a real issue for the project, certainly not when coupled with other editors who play games with him on the Israeli-Palestinian articles.

Closing note: I think there's some point in the block but this action is counterproductive if not coupled with bringing everyone involved (in edit warring and personalization of the dispute) under notice for the Wikipedia:ARBPIA. A couple articles I've noticed as mentioned and relevant are:

• Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit warring and removal of sourced (and mainstream acceptable) content by a couple of editors.
• Gush Shalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same issue.
• There was mention of others but I don't know which.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reviewed and it seems to be a very closely related issue. 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I left a message on Jaakobou's talk page [9]. Instead of replying, he has made more accusations here. What I did was remove the description of Ha'aretz as

political = liberal left-wing

My general view is that info boxes should contain only information that are outside issues of balance. Since there is certainly more than one view of the character of Ha'aretz political leanings that should be discussed in a balanced way in the article (not in the info box). If the newspaper had been, for instance, L'Unita which was owned by the Italian Communist Party, including "Political allegiance" in the info box would be justified because there is no doubt about their location on the political spectrum.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your general view is supported by any policy and/or reliable sources and while it is not necessary to support the "Liberal left-leaning" with 19 sources, there's no clear reason to remove the (wholly mainstream) content itself^removal and simply cut down on the number of references (see also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It would also seem, based on the lack of response to my note of this removal,[10] that edit-warring and making claims of "other perspectives exist" (when they do not exist) has become the norm and I would again reiterate the involved parties need to be advised to the arbcom ruling. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC) +diff 14:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be venting over something, but I do not understand what. The content you say was removed is in the article: Haaretz#Editorial policy and viewpoints. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to your statement: It would also seem, based on the lack of response to my note of this removal,[11]... I did not reply because (if I understand correctly) that discusses an edit I did not make, and was a question not even addressed to me. I do want to compliment you on your wiki-lawyering. Very impressive sounding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. Oren's edits at Gush Shalom have been pointy and contrary to the Talk page consensus. Other editors feel that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede. Oren refused to abide by that consensus; he kept putting the phrase back in the first sentence and piling on sources — until he got to 16. Please note that nobody disputed the fact that Gush Shalom is leftist.

I'm not going trying to minimize my role in the edit war at Gush Shalom, but there is a difference between reverting to a consensus version of an article and disrupting the process to prove a point. Oren doesn't seem able to recognize consensus, nor does he understand WP:POINT. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple editors suggested Gush Shalom might not really be left-wing so now the intro looks something like "X, Y, Z, T, K and J [all mainstream sources] describe it as left-wing" instead of just "is a left-wing group". The might not really be left-wing has no sources or policy backing it up (see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT).

I've also noticed a few improper comments, similar to the one above us (Sagi Nahor "compliment"), by more than a single editor.

I've repeated my perspective enough times for this post but Wikipedia:ARBPIA had a clear ruling and editors who engage in activity that is in contrast with the purpose of the encyclopedia should be noted to comply.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) clarify some 20:19, 12 December 2008 (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.

Death threat

This needs taken care of. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also each of the IPs contributions are the same. Grsz¹¹ 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Account blocked. Will leave to others to request oversight if deemed warranted. — Satori Son 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reported at https://tips.fbi.gov/ Please don't oversight as the edits may be evidence in a criminal investigation. Fred Talk 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty scary - the number seems genuine, though unsubscribed. This reminds us of just how many net-folk are very unhappy clowns. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the phone number make it obvious that this is just badgering and not a serious death threat? Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way? It appears to be a Verizon number based out of Mount Pleasant, Michigan.[12] What am I missing? — Satori Son 17:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Geolocate suggests the IP may be from Michigin too which makes one wonder. Be that as it may, I remind editors not to presume the number is really the person posting, it could easily be someone hoping the person who's number it is is harassed, which is why if not oversighted I suggest the comment is at least deleted. (I once came across a case when someone posted a long rambling racist commentary with name and phone number which I strongly suspect what not his/hers) Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Edit: Actually I suspect what Looie is saying is that no one would be stupid enough to post their phone number on a public website for others to call them to discuss killing someone. This is probably true but of course we should always tread such matters with care Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering RedPen's interaction on that talk page, I'm gonna bet this is a signed out user. Grsz¹¹ 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

68.79.101.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another IP. Grsz¹¹ 18:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by Yamamoto Ichiro. — Satori Son 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a range block from 68.79.101.242 to 68.79.102.96 affects up to 1,024 addresses,[13] so not a good option at this point. — Satori Son 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't know if it's the same person, I see redpenofdoom has been harassed for a while [14] [15] [16] [17] (this IP looks up to Canada). If this continues I suggest a re-protection of the talk page Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• According to User:Sidonuke/RedPenOfDoom, this is a consistent problem. It may be time for an email to be sent to the abuse contact for the ISP. - auburnpilot talk 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The ones listed by Nil Einne don't look the same as the other 68.79.xx.xx edits as none of them include the phone number or the other silly bits that they seem to think necessary to include. Other than a one day spree in Novmeber it's not happening very often. I've been deleting the necessary revisions but I see that they are now being oversighted. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use violation

Two editors are pushing to have fair use logos pushed onto the The Game (Harvard-Yale) article where for four years no such fair use existed before. This is the version prior to the effort, and this is the version they are trying to push. The article was perfectly illustrated with free license content before, and nothing is added by adding the logos. This is a violation of WP:NFCC #1 and #8.

Supporters of including the fair use are insisting that since there is no consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem they can force this use onto articles. The status quo had been no fair use images on the article. I pointed out that they are violating WP:BRD, but to no effect.

Some help please, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Seraphimblade has stepped in and removed them. I don't believe there's any reason for the logos to be in the article. I believe you're quite correct in your observation that the use of the logos violates WP:NFCC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And they're getting re-added without discussion outside of edit comments during reverts. 11 reverts altogether over this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• And it's bleeding over into other articles now. See history of [Big Game (football)]. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• The real reason is forcing people to find non-free content. Fair use is bad, baaad, BAD *gets a rolled newspaper* BAD EDITOR, BAD! --Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Block of Ashley someone or other

Resolved

IP softblocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|1=194.72.9.25|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".|3=Elonka|4=1248271}}

I am requesting unblock, which has affected me, when imposed on another editor. (PMJ) but I'll sign as the IP I am using (194.72.9.25 (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Because of this person it seems like I have also been blocked despite not even editing from an IP range while writing this.

And this is the message I get:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person.

The other user was blocked by Elonka for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".

This block has been set to expire: 20:52, December 13, 2008.

Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.

Not that I am not the user, or its sock. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is PMJ, and I am posting this as an IP because I can only edit my talkpage, and I thought it would be resolved quicker here. 194.72.9.25 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Autoblock affecting logged in Wikipedians who have BT as their ISP. --NE2 09:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the same. Users can log in via the secure server and edit, but may get a pop-up message asking to confirm each new page they view (highly annoying). This block needs to be reversed ASAP as it is causing problems for people who are entirely innocent of the offence the block was imposed for. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine is OK now thanks to Luna Satin. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC) The autoblock that caused this has been removed.

However it seems that all BT customers are coming from the same IP again. Viridae^Talk 12:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been softblocked by User:Aervanath, once again, in order to disable autoblock there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor Elonka is getting some harsh words at User_talk:Elonka#Autoblock for doing something any administrator could have caused. Can some other admins monitor there as well to make sure it doesn't get too out of line? either way (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would someone at least look at what happened and why? I for one was blocked twice which sort of implies a failure to check second time round. Information would improve understanding --Snowded TALK 15:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted some information about this at User talk:Elonka#Autoblock school. For more information, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Autoblock. --Elonka 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting removal of 'speedy-delete tag'

Please remove the deletion tag from poster which I intend to use after creating the 'Double Cross' page.At the moment ,it is used for the Negar Khan article, but that does'nt mean it should be a candidate for speedy deletion. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that images of posters, just like screencaps, should not be used to illustrate actor/actress bios. They are acceptable on articles about the movie or (in the case of screencaps) characters. I also changed the ibox on Negar Khan to the actor ibox, rather than the wrestler ibox. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mantra

TheRingess has deleted a large chunk of text from Mantra article on 19th October without discussion or consensus. It would be a lot of work to reinstate the material and nobody should have to do this. This is not the first time this user has done this kind of thing. Would someone please give him a rap over the knuckles and tell him to stop being so arrogant? Discussion is always fruitless.

Sardaka (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There are discussions ongoing at User talk:TheRingess, and I don't see any need for admin intervention in this content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:213.197.27.252 - open proxy for IPv6

Can we have a review and discussion of this? This IP is blocked one month but given that it's functionally an open proxy at present, it should likely be an indefinite block. It's a translation address for any people that choose to use internal IPv6 addressing, and allows them to connect out to the Internet. However, there could be any number of people coming from behind that IP. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nanotechnology Fail-Safes

• Nanotechnology Fail-Safes

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

• and a diff of my recent article edit

This article seems to be the product of a class project at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, produced by what may be a role account (hard to tell). Unfortunately, while the actual topic is encyclopedic in nature, the article itself has issues (many of which, but not all of which, I corrected in the above edit); the user above also created a massive number of mostly inappropriate redirects, many still linked from their userpage.

Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that this article is likely to have continuing problems of the "but my professor told me to do it his way, not your way" variety, so I'd appreciate if people could keep an eye on it. Meanwhile, if anyone is willing to help this project meet Wikipedia policies, that would be very much appreciated; while there are POV and crystal-balling issues with the article as it stands, the actual topic is suitable for an article. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reads like OR and an essay. I'm not sure if the topic is at this point needing an article; merging sourced content to Nanotechnology, Implications of nanotechnology and/or Regulation of nanotechnology might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone should check on any role concerns, but the article is "decent", but needs cleaning. It could actually probably be made significantly better and longer, given all the scientific and general press and writing on the subject. It shouldn't be redirected, but just fixed. It could actually be a great article, for the topic. rootology (C)(T) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; one of the reasons I've posted this is to avoid having the work they put into the article wasted - the core of a useful article is there, just not written by someone familiar with our policies. By the way, is there any sort of class project welcome template out there that I'm missing? I used a template plus a custom message, but this happens often enough that we ought to have a welcome for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

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

Would someone please take a look at this edit from Inclusionist and his extensive block log and tell me what it takes to get indefblocked around here? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

While Steven was posting this ANI, creating unnecessary wikidrama, I took the time to answer my own question about the uniqueness of the holocaust, which dozens of scholars have written and argued about.

I invite Steven to civilly discuss controversial issues that he may not necessarily agree with.

And unlike Steven, I am not suggesting that anyone be banned simply because I disagree with a sincere question.

Because of the intolerant reaction, and since I already found my answer, I am deleting the question. Inclusionist (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Several of those blocks seem to have been self-requests, for whatever reason, performed by user:Xaosflux, who may know more about this user. This edit by Inclusionist about hypocrisy in Holocaust denialism seemed to me to be off-topic to the page, but I wouldn't ban anyone for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I planned on deleting the question, but Steven already deleted it,[18]

Several admins have blocked me too at my request. Inclusionist (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Extreme personal attacks

How in the world is 86.40.99.86 (talk · contribs) still editing here after this and this? I realize he got a warning, but my God. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were over 12 hours ago and his edits since then were less incivil. Unless he continues again there really is no grounds for blocking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a block nonetheless. The user's comments since the warning (at 1338 UTC on 11 Dec) have been rather incivil in my view, such as: "Your understanding of art is fundamentally scewed", and calling editors "nihilistic partisans who see no problem in blatant child abuse". The first comment also suggests the IP doesn't understand WP:BATTLEGROUND. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Except a block may be worse than pointless, since there is no evidence that this is a static IP, meaning that the person who committed the attacks would be free to edit via some new IP, and innocent users may be blocked instead. The reason we don't block stale IP vandalism is precisely for those 2 reasons. Blocking a stale IP address is not considered merely for the content of their vandalism, only on the effectiveness of stopping that vandalism... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call this stale; the IP's last edit occurred less than 10 minutes before this thread was created- less than 4 hours ago. Also, I didn't mean to suggest an indef block; I think a 12 or 24h block would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although the issue is likely stale now, I do not believe it was so when submitted, and a short block would have been appropriate. Further uncivil behavior should result in an immediate block: we simply cannot tolerate this level of discourse. — Satori Son 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the IP of this discussion in any case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The account master of this IP (User:DenisHume) has been blocked indefinately. Please see the talk page of that account and respond to this blatant abuse of power with some conviction. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.222.9 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP is editing here, and back on the page that got them in trouble, in evasion of the block[19] - shouldn't those comments be removed and the IP blocked, at least temporarily? 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

DenisHume is blocked from editing his own talk page. Keeping it blocked while simultaneously blocking IP addresses he can use has the effect of silencing him completely, except for email. Given that the IP block will expire in two days nothing needs to be done about it now but I recommend lifting the talk-page-block within a reasonable amount of time. The original block of DenisHume was 1 week, it seems reasonable to lift the talk-page-block on a trial basis at that time. COI disclaimer: I am actively involved in this discussion and I probably have some personal feelings invested in the matter, so you should assume my recommendation is not without bias. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC) He is now allowed to edit his own talk page. He is also showing signs of wanting to become a responsible editor in 2009. His block remains indef, which, as someone recently said elsewhere, is no the same as infinite. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to mark this "resolved?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

Resolved

This article is currently protected under the guise of "consensus" (interesting when consensus means something has to be protected). I contacted the protecting admin: he is not willing to do anything.

This is silly: the woman is notable hands down: her own article on Rolling Stone [20] [21] (two of many), MTV [22] [23] (two more of many): and 421 notes on google news archive: [24].

I don't understand why we can't go through the proper channels for this (AFD): it certainly doesn't qualify for A7 non-notable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the articles you've provided here as far as I can tell don't really establish the subject's notability independent of the band Paramore. This is per the caveat at the end of WP:MUSICBIO; unless we can establish the subject's notability independent of the band, via either membership in another band, solo releases, or some other notability outside of music (e.g., major roles in films I would think might work), the current status quo is to redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It establishes it per WP:BIO. She has become notable independent of that - "multiple non-trivial references by the media". Are you really going to say that half a dozen articles in Rolling Stone and she's not notable and that this satisfies a7? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here and not the article's talk page? As I stated on my talk page, establish consensus at the article talk to establish the article, and then it can be unprotected. Right now, the consensus (originally established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramore and never overturned as far as I can see) leans towards keeping it as a redirect for the same reasons Mendaliv outlined above, either way (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that Articles for Deletion. Must have typoed; will take to DRV or elsewise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

abusive edit summaries and comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShentino&diff=257830789&oldid=257367441

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.42.67.181

also, see the edit summaries for the Heidegger (disambiguation) article.

I don't have a clue who this user is, but whoever it is, they are being very rude.

I have a hunch that it's mtevfrog, but I can't be sure. Perhaps a checkuser is in order to confirm the IP?

Just to be fair, I should probably comment that a related article, Martin Heidegger, is currently under edit protection following an edit war between mtevfrog and some other user who's username starts with a J (can't remember). If indeed it is mtevfrog behind the IP in question, then this would indicate a pattern which needs to be addressed.

Disclaimer: I am unfamiliar with procedure. If I've made a mistake, please move this complaint to its proper place.

Shentino (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are unfamiliar with procedure and ought to have read WP:DAB before creating that page. It is also poor form to throw around accusations of vandalism against valued contributors and not to inform them when you start threads about them at ANI. Warn the IP for personal attacks; if they persist, step up the warnings and report to WP:AIV if they continue making personal attacks following a final warning. Skomorokh 04:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers.

Shentino (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused... The IP user last edited on December 1... and yet Shentino warned him about his incivility about 4 hours ago, and within 3 hours he became active again... I am not sure we need a block yet, but I will warn 24.42 about being incivil. If this continues, a short block may help, but as yet I don't think the user is aware of the disruptive nature of his incivility... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Time is running out....

I blocked Cheers dude (talk · contribs) for repeated changes of "is" "will be" to "is expected to be" in the lede of 2009, 2010, and 2011. I request review of that block, as I also reverted him on one of those years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how that can be a reason to block. Seems like a sound edit. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:YEARS, and the discussion at WT:YEARS on the removal of the {{future}} template from future year articles, all state that anything in the future is subject to change, and that fact need not be included in articles. (I thought there was a WP:FUTURE project and a general comment that all future events are subject to change, and that need not be stated in Wikipedia articles, but I can't find those disucssions.)

And it's not just once, but 3 or 4 times in each article. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For a discussion of Cheers dude's bizarre behaviour, see Talk:2009#removal_of_will_be. Also feel free to take a look at his contribs list, as well as mine for edit-summary discourse. The point is, he's making these types of edits multiple times across three articles. Not to mention that he reverted a talk-page entry of mine (I responded with a warning that if he did that again, I'd take it to ANI, but since we're already here, then what the heck.) If requiring a citation-needed tag for the fact that 2009 will start in a few weeks isn't WP:POINTy, then I don't know what is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @Arthur: No more than three times, actually. Since you are involved and hereby confirm that you have an opinion on the matter, you should not have blocked. It is discussed on talk, no reason not to let that run its course. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW – and I'm not involved and have never had anything to with WP:YEARS – he's now removed my original warning as a "personal attack". – iridescent 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is, and he is allowed to. That's what you get if you don't respect an editor you don't agree with. Errr... you are clearly involved. You reverted him on two of the three pages. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're quite wrong. I never said he violated WP:3RR, only WP:EW. Edit warring can be one edit if against clear consensus (and the editor is aware of the consensus). He made at least 10 of essentially the same edit on the 3 articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said you said, thanks. So far, I don't see a consensus, at least one user agrees with him. Anyway, since he initiated the discussion, a block is counter-productive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Will be" is a statement of fact, and hence as the editor in question points out, if that is the case, there should be a cite for it. To use the argument "Do you seriously think that the world might come to an end in the next two and a half weeks?" is not on as per WP:V. The question could have been asked on 10/9/2001 "Do you seriously think that the World Trade Centre will be a pile of rubble tomorrow?" Unless someone has that WP:CRYSTAL ball who can prove that 2009 will actually come to fruition, then "expected to be" is quite warranted I feel, for no-one knows what the future may bring, even within the space of 24 hours. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec, and note that Guido edited some of his comments to have, IMHO, a significantly different meaning)

The dude made a statement on talk, but continued reverting before anyone had a chance to reply. The previous discussion is so old it's fallen off the relevant talk pages (probably including Talk:2008). Cosmic Latte opened discussion in an appropriate WikiProject, as the issue deals with more than one article. CL probably should have pointed the dude to that WikiProject, but apparently he found and blanked it. That would be grounds for a 'final warning and subsequent block even from an involved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor who "agreed" actually made a different related edit. The change from "will be" to "is a future" is a related edit. I'd have to look at the history to see if the discussion relating to the removal of {{future}} covers that or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(Points to the editor right above Arthur's post.) No, that would not be a valid reason either. Cosmic Latte's contribution was significantly below the belt. And if you still have to check the history, then declaring consensus for your point of view was premature, and pointing to the current version of WT:YEARS was unhelpful. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers dude was getting carried away with the "crystal ball" rule. Unless some unknown entity alters the way we calculate the calendar, or unless the world comes to an end (in which case there won't be any wikipedia), changing "will be" to "is expected to be" is silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, did you just agree with me about something? Maybe the world is coming to an end. – iridescent 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I won't let it happen again. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion about the removal of the {{future}} template from these articles anywhere, except an April 2007 reference in Template talk:future. Perhaps the matter really does need to be discussed. (I doubt it, but perhaps the dude should be requested to bring up the matter in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years when his block expires.) I doubt the result will be any different, but that is probably the best venue for discussion, rather than the individual article talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the block for the user has long since expired, although Cheers Dude claims that he's still blocked. I'm not seeing an autoblock, either. seicer | talk | contribs 04:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs said it perfectly above. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. This is not Conservapedia; there is no need to play to apocolyptic fears by giving serious thought to the idea that the earth isn't in for another revolution around the sun. On the other hand, this project isn't so liberal as to take seriously the possibility (unless verified) that the Gregorian calendar will be done away with any time soon. In other words, WP:UCS. Also, this is the English Wikipedia. The English language has a future tense. It is therefore peculiar to over-interpret WP:FUTURE (aka WP:CRYSTALBALL) by inferring that the word "will" should never be used, or that every single instance of it must be cited, or that there is somehow a greater need to cite a future-tense ("2009 will be a year") than a present-tense ("2009 is a future year") rendition of exactly the same idea. In other words, once again, WP:UCS. As for Russavia's World Trade Centre analogy, we are not talking about man-made structures here; we are talking about the Earth and the sun. As Bugs pointed out, if they disappear, then Wikipedia will disappear too. So, if my assertion that "2009 will be a year" is ultimately proven incorrect, at least there won't be anyone telling me, "I told you so!" Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User 24.187.112.15 persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks

After failing in his months-long campaign to have the word "conservative" removed from the first paragraph of the Drudge Report page, anonymous editor 24.187.112.15 is repeatedly making personal attacks on the Talk:Drudge Report page. He has started a new section purely to attack an editor (me), and despite having the attack removed as per WP rules by me and another editor, he simply keeps re-posting it.

• 24.187.112.15 posts attack [25]
• Reverted by me with warning to his user talk page
• 24.187.112.15 posts attack again [26]
• Reverted by me by me with warning to user talk page
• Posts attack again [27]
• Reverted by editor SheepNotGoats
• Posted again [28]

Warnings placed on his Talk page are simply ignored and removed: [29]

He also ignored the consensus decision of a RFC on the Drudge Report page recently and tried to edit out the consensus text. Perhaps a long ban is n order? ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 24 hours. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine this anon will be likely be back here soon enough. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and related POV-pushing from User:Romano-Dacis

Said user has edited the Ion Antonescu article, erasing text backed by sources and pushing in a version that minimizes Antonescu's murderous contribution to the Holocaust. There is only one source cited in one part of his version, and that source is problematic to say the least this was pointed out to him on the talk page, where he has earlier stated his rejection of mainstream sources in an inflammatory post (the reply I refer to is here. I was concerned by this, and I do recall wikipedia has a zero tolerance attitude toward this kind of attitudes. Yes, both versions have problems, but erasing an article section and replacing it with such an extremist opinion should not be any kind of option. Please also note his whitewash edit on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Dahn (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, my edits are perfectly in line with modern historiography. I have not stated anything you would not find in the Wiesel Commission. Furthermore, saying Romania is "directly responsible" for all the deaths when the Wiesel Comission says the area was not even entirely under Romanian control and many deaths were caused by the SS and Ukranian Einstazgruppen.Romano-Dacis (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no Holocaust denial as such here, just the sadly usual Eastern European nationalist bickering over who was responsible for which massacre. That is a content dispute and does not belong on this messageboard. Please pursue dispute resolution and use the article talkpage instead of this space.  Sandstein  18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(From my talk:) We have two other noticeboards dedicated to such issues: WP:POVN and WP:CCN.  Sandstein  11:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The solution for such issues is not to send our good contributors from one noticeboard to the next or expect them to waste their time "discussing" with such elements. The solution is to block, block, block. Nationalist tendentious editing is not a content dispute, it is ipso facto blockable disruption. Short warning block of 24hrs for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF IP proxy

Is this IP still being used as a filter on Wikipedia? I thought IWF lifted its ban? 194.72.9.25 (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's happened - I had my "old" BT IP address back the other day, but this morning it's all through the same IP address as everyone else (as it was in the Virgin Killer days, which is at least visible to BT customers once again). 194.72.9.25 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears the all BT customers are once again coming through the same IP - I have just removed an autoblock on that IP twice. Viridae^Talk 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone using BT please try and view the Virgin Killer article (obvious warning - controversial album cover containing nude underage female) and report back to see if they can see it or has something else been blocked? Viridae^Talk 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[30]. The page/image aren't blocked but the proxies are still active. -- Mentisock 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mentisock. Viridae^Talk 13:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have complained at the IWF homepage, once I found the means to do so, that their action of a few days ago is still having repercussions regarding the ability of WP to allow ip editing while attempting to combat vandalism. I have no great expectations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Has someone tried contacting BT? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The proxy is still active for Be customers too, even though VK is no longer filtered. Of course it's possible that other wikipedia pages are still on the IWF blocklist. Did the IWF ever say they weren't listing any pages on wikipedia, or just that they weren't listing the VK one? --fvw* 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they ever listed anything else before otherwise there would have been this rerouting problem already. Now they said that both the VK page and the image were blocked so they needed to unblock both for IPs to return to normality but it seems they did, since they're both visible again, so it must be another connected problem (cache retained by the ISPs maybe?) -- Mentisock 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

Resolved

 – Template vandalism reverted- please clear your browser cache if still a problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I appears that somebody hacked into your system and valdalized the Holocaust article--Woogie10w (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Someone vandalised one of the templates on the page; it has already been fixed. You may need to clear your browser cache if it does not appear fixed for you. CIreland (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, you don't need to "hack into" anything to edit an article :-) ♪BMWΔ 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Blatant sock

Resolved

 – contributions indef blocked along with its socks (contributions, contributions, contributions) by Chris G. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this users userpage User:YoMamma6188. He has a list of user's on there that's name's are close to the others, there obviously all his. This user has also been uncivil. Could an admin please look at this, and is a WP:CHECKUSER needed here? SteelersFan-94 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he admits to all of his alternate accounts on his main page, and there is no evidence that any of those have been used abusively, I don't see a HUGE problem over the multiple accounts; there are other indications this user may not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, but the sock issue seems like a non-starter so far... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted something on his userpage that called "every wikipedia users bitches!". So I know were your coming from. Couldn't we just block those and then go from there? It won't take an admin 10 seconds to block them. What do you think we should start out doing? SteelersFan-94 05:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Open a dialogue with the user. //roux   05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? SteelersFan-94 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Start a conversation with the user, politely asking why he has so many alternate accounts. Read WP:SOCK first. //roux   05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K, Thanks. Should I report what happened here for you or Jayron or another admin to comment on? SteelersFan-94 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I tried to assume good faith, and be civil. If it looks wrong please don't hesitate to say something. SteelersFan-94 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening following user

Resolved

 – No threat, no problem. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass (A administrator) appears to be "threatening" a fellow user who is up for ARBCOM elections because they disagree on a D.Y.K. proposal. (See diff here). Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a start, that wasn't a 'threat'; Gatoclass immediately went had already gone to the candidate's page and cast his vote. Apparently something about the candidate's statement caused Gatoclass to believe s/he was ill-suited for Arbcom. "If you don't do X I'm opposing you" is a threat. "I'm opposing you because of Y" is an explanation. -- Vary Talk 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud ... that's not a threat, that's a spat. As noted almost immediately afterward, people are allowed to cast their votes for ArbCom for whatever reasons they want, even personal grudges. I'm sure at least of the few of the record-breaking opposes here were payback. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But in the middle of a discussion that could influence consensus? Thats rather uncalled for and taints the consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Vary and Daniel Case; no one "threatened" that user, Gatoclass just expressed his opinion about that user's remarks. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected until 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC); future issues should be reported to WP:RFPP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recommend protecting the page, having a rash of similar vandalism from multiple IPs. Ndenison ^talk 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please file future reports at WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun latest unblock request

This user has requested an unblock on their talkpage. For an unblock discussion on AN/I from November, see here. As the previous issue was discussed and consensus reached, perhaps it would be best if this request was similarly discussed rather than handled by a single administrator. Skomorokh 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I might kick off the discussion in a minute, also notifying of AN/I thread. — neuro^(talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

At minimum, given that his block was mainly about abusive sockpuppetry, we ought to involve a checkuser in this discussion (ping Alison! ping Thatcher! ping Luna Santin! etc.) to check out his claims that he has behaved for the past month. Before we get into a discussion over whether to let him back, it would be helpful to know this information... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like a check-user to be run to see if he is being honest about not editing during the last 30 days. As the blocking admin, I shall say that while BBHS now appears to be genuinely sorry for his sock puppetry and the other editorial behaviours for which he was blocked, I'm not sure if we can trust him not to commit the same offenses again (Links to evidence of which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175#User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks.... and from User talk:Be Black Hole Sun#Blocked onward.

It is my personal feeling that he has had enough chances to behave and enough chances to explain himself, and should continue to stay blocked. I said when I blocked him that he can be a good editor, which is evidenced by his GA and FL contributions, but that is not enough to just overlook the rest of his behaviour.

That said, if the CU comes back clean and community consensus is to allow him back then I will not oppose the request (I may not be able to unblock personally as my available time here is limited at the moment).

If he is unblocked I think this really does have to be his final chance (He's had 2 already). Also, as I said at the last AN thread, some restrictions would have to be imposed such as:

• Be given mentors, adopted, and/or placed on editor review
• A 3 month soft topic-ban on music related articles and templates, and must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved.
• Must only edit using the User:Be Black Hole Sun username. No IP edits, no sock edits.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following the unblock, followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any violations of the above or WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK (the original blocking reasons) to result in a permanent WP ban, with ABSOLUTELY NO MORE CHANCES.

Of course, these are just suggestions. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No - He screwed me around many times. He's socked before and then apologised for that (with the Wellwater Conspiracy or something) and then he continued socking with BBHS. He's had last chances before. If one takes a look at those archive links up there you'll see that he was socking just hours (between 2-3) before writing up his first unblock request. We're going to be repeating the past if we unblock now. And to repeat again: He's had socks before, he was found out, blocked, and then apologised and then was unblocked. Isn't this just way too much now? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For more info on previous second chances see User:Wellwater Conspiracy. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I haven't been involved with this case personally, I do think there's such a thing as too many second chances. Would giving him another one here really be likely to benefit wikipedia as whole? --fvw* 17:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Request declined. Tan | 39 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review on my own action

Resolved

Introduction:
PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) has been without mentorship since his last mentor nominated him for community ban. Since then, there's been several instances where I felt he should replace his last mentor (Ryan Postlethwaite) or possibly even be placed under sanctioning for several offenses (such as calling fellow wikipedians "racists" and suggesting an editor is a war criminal).
My action for review:
I've noticed some pretty strong soapboxing (per: "highly partisan supporters of an illegal policy condemned by the bulk (I think) of Israeli opinion and virtually every significant opinion in the world.") and noted him to try again without it.[31] I'd appreciate some review on this since I feel like I may have over-stepped the boundary as I am not his mentor (though, I understand he currently does not have one anymore).
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can remind another editor to comply with WP:Civil and WP:AGF civilly. Mentors are just another editor that has hopefully established a relationship with an editor who sometimes violates those policies and can be more successful in persuading them to comply - however it is the editor with the problem that needs to make the effort. If PalestineRemembered is estranged from their mentor then that is their problem, as is any continuing incivility. Continue reminding them, and if they persist warn them and afterward bring it back here to see if any action needs taking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Your action was to delete PR's talk page comment. I've taken the liberty of reverting it, per WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments; I think it's best not to edit others' comments except in extreme circumcstances. In general, a preferable alternative is to simply ask the other editor to modify their comments, without deleting or editing them yourself; it's best if an editor strikes out their own comments if inappropriate.

In this case, while I'm not familiar with the whole debate, PR's comments which you deleted do not appear to me to be soapboxing, but to be discussing the reliability of sources for the article, which is exactly what article talk pages are for.

I would like to repeat my earlier suggestion that you and PR avoid each other as much as possible. I see no need to keep bringing up a 15-month-old discussion about mentoring. Where you need to interact on articles, I suggest focussing on article content, and not criticizing each others' behaviour but leaving it to others to do that. I think things will go more smoothly that way. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered's post was sharply worded,[32] but I'm not seeing any policy violations there. Seems like an appropriate thing to leave on the page. --Elonka 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

91.127.65.47

User:91.127.65.47 is a vandal-only account. Help? SimonKSK 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the appropriate venue for this if he persists beyond that final warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

User:Pixelface legitimately is concerned with issues with fiction on WP, however, the user's behavior is known to be a problem in terms of his/hers attitude and tendentious editing. The user often challenges the core pages for fiction (WP:NOT, WP:FICT) by directly changing them and challenges the assertions that long-standing text has/had consensus. Generally this resolves to talk page discussion. However, just recently, Pixelface has boldly altered both WP:WAF (a "stable" guideline considered under WP:UPDATE) and WP:NOT and WP:N, stripping mentions of sites housed on Wikia under the pretense that we should not be even mentioning Wikia due to a "conflict of interest" (which I will note there are other discussions around that refute this claim) among other aspects. Those changes have been reverted, but instead of following WP:BRD, the user continues to revert back to their version. This is more than just a one time 3RR - Pixelface has approached this point many times in the past, and generally after some fiction-related incident comes up that raises high concerns for the user. (In this case, it appears to rise from his/hers strong opposition to User:Sgeureka's admin candidacy as you can see by the rant posted here).

I have in the past put a WQA for Pixel's tendentious editing which was resolved, but this recent rash of behavior (including the consistent claims of COI for Wikia without any evidence) is becoming disruptive to the currently active and positive discussion at WP:FICT among other places, and more than just etiquette but appropriate editing behavior. Yes, the user may not like how policies and guidelines result in the change of how we cover fiction, but there's a point where attacking the policies at the nitty-gritty details (eg, the current complaint on WAF is that it was only proposed for 18 days, and then made a guideline, despite not being challenged for 2+ years, and that the editor that created it is no longer present); Pixelface uses a similar approach to try to strip WP:NOT#PLOT despite strong consensus every time it comes up to keep it.

Despite the fact that Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation in the present situations for WP:NOT and WP:WAF, I think there needs to be some type of admin action here, because this is a repeatable pattern, and the continual challenges to things shown to have consensus are disruptive. --MASEM 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's summary. For months now, Pixelface has continued to be disruptive and pointy in his/her continued campaign to removal limits on fictional content and against the mention of Wikia within Wikipedia. From his own talk page, he seems to feel Wikipedia is in some kind of competition with Wikia and that almost implies that there is a grand conspiracy to drive traffic to Wikia to up people's bottom lines. He even notes that "Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Wikipedia policies and guidelines." As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR, but usually only by waiting days or even weeks, then reverting again there by "avoiding" 3RR. Such as his recent edits at WP:N: bold change on November 9 which was reverted, November 24th] Pixelface reverts despite having no consensus at all in the talk page discussion, again on November 26th despite still having absolutely no consensus at all, and finally on December 12th after discussion had already stopped. At WP:NOT, he continously removed the WP:PLOT section, which eventually resulted in an AN/I. He first removed on October 21st, was reverted, reverted on same day. Change was reverted again, and Pixelface re-reverted for two, then stopped until November 3rd where he returned and again removed the section despite no consensus for this removal. His nearly systematic attacks on anything he feels is limiting fictional content on Wikipedia is disruptive (not to mention downright aggravating). There is a difference between legitimately questioning existing guidelines and just continuing to attack them and edit them despite the continued lack of consensus for his many changes.

He's also displayed various bouts of incivility during his discussions, in his edit summaries, and while defending/promoting his views. In a recent AfD, he responded keep then questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site[33] His remarks during the recent Jack Merridew discussion really speak for themselves[34]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had trouble with Pixelface's obsessive behaviour before now, too. The Wikia thing is really a Wikipedia Review meme - Wikia is a legitimate way of removing cruft form Wikipedia without being excessively WP:BITEy. Fanboys are not going to go away, so best to divert the excesses of fandom to somewhere more appropriate. I don't see this as a problem, as the Wikipedia community (which writes the guidelines) has no financial relationship with Wikia. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Has there been a user conduct RfC on this before? I'm not sure that immediate adminstrative action is required, though it's certainly worth having a discussion about potential solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not exactly alone in the shall-we-say-colourful-exchange department WRT the whole notability/fan/tv/etc. issue...oh heck, I am doing a million other things at the moment and now I have to go and read more...(sigh)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but not from lack of certification. He's always seemed to be a bit obtrusive and annoying to me. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I check in on the Fiction wars every once in a while, and it seems to me that Pixelface is engaged in long-term edit warring and is unwilling to accept any consensus that is contrary to his own opinions. He (and many others) have been cautioned by Arbcom before (though not by name) to stop edit-warring and incivility, and it seems to have had little long-term impact on his behavior. An RfC would at least allow the community to better determine the extent of the disruption, and if the poor behavior does not stop the evidence may be used later to determine appropriate remedies. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Pixelface is allowed to propose or oppose anything he likes, regardless of consensus. I feel that Masem is trying to make a point by initiating this and the last the last complaint he has made against Pixelface. Their vague and generalised nature means that they can neither be proven nor repudiated. The complaint that "the user's behavior is known to be a problem" seems to me to be an example of weasel words, and is not substantiated in any way. This discussion is little more than a thinly disguised personal attack and this matter should be closed without further delay. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse Gavin's statement that this is an improper attack upon Pixelface's legitimate lobbying on matters of policy. More generally, our policy/guideline pages seem to be too open to the addition of prescriptive rules contrary to our policies WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and we should not seek to stifle the natural opposition to the ever-growing thicket of supposed rules and regulations here. Open debate and challenge is required to provide a proper check and balance. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Pixel's allowed to argue against any policy/guideline he wants (though his tone and nature are bordering the edges of being civil, but that's not actionable on ANI), and making a single bold change to a policy/guideline to see if it sticks is completely fine per WP:BRD. But this is not the first time that Pixel's reverted a reversion to one of his bold changes that occurred within minutes of the change, and reverting to the point where a 3RR warning can technically be given should not be done - as an experienced editor he should be aware of this. This is the specific concern that may have required administrative action that I brought here. --MASEM 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Masem (07:16) "Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation"

Ok, was aware of 3RR, and didn't. Take it to RfC, not ANI.

Collectonian (08:05): "...questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site...[35]"

Looks ok to me. Read WP:NPA. Behavior is commentable, and questioning unusual behavior is not incivil.

Collectonian (08:05): "As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR..."

Hm, looks like you did a 3RR tango on Nov 27 [36]. So, your complaint is inclusively that you have stepped over the 3RR line, but Pixelface didn't quite do so. Pot-Kettle.

JzG/Guy (09:50): "Pixelface's obsessive behaviour"

Pot-Kettle.

JzG/Guy (09:50): "is really a Wikipedia Review meme"

Pixelface is an awesome investigative researcher. Trust me that you do not want to drive him/her to WR – or much worse, into the arms of the mainstream press that has already raised global eyebrows on Wikipedia's hand-waving of higher-ups' COI issues.

←Perhaps I can be most helpful toward dispute resolution by explaining why Pixelface is being made an example for a larger-but-suppressed fiction-content dispute at Wikipedia.
• A known WP anti-contemporary-fiction clique (cabals are secret) includes higher-ups who cling to a faded vision of Wikipedia as a trustworthy academic competitor of Britannica. (As things have turned out, competitor yes, trustworthy academic no, for several reasons.)
So, they reason, WP must do as Britannica does and doesn't. Britannica doesn't do contemporary fiction, so this particular clique is on a mission to marginalize contemporary fiction at WP. The problem is that as-Britannica vision is not what a large percentage of WP readers want to read. The reason is simple. Britannica readers statistically skew older, and Wikipedia readers skew younger.
The limited evidence suggests to me that up to 40% of Wikipedia editors strongly to moderately disagree with the fiction guidelines and policies, perhaps another 40% don't care, and maybe 20% are strong supporters of the fiction-limiting guidelines and policies. Among this anti-contemporary-fiction 20% are clique hard-liners connected all the way to the top. All such connected cliques in every organization get a lot of mid-level plus rank-and-file support. The younger pro-fiction 40% don't have connections, and I've watched at least one pro-fiction editor go silent as soon as he got connected. (Maybe it's the classic right-left political mix.) If such a 40-40-20 percentage mix is fairly representative of WP's contemporary fiction situation, under other circumstances a large opposed minority would be considered a WP "no consensus", and a compromise might be brokered. None has been, and suppression of contemporary fiction interests continues - the latest being ill-considered transportation of swaths of contemporary fiction editing effort to Wikia.
• Not to criticize Masem who may not have known the suppressed backstory, but this ANI-excess case against Pixelface is another hierarchy-bias railroading of interests of maybe 40% of editors: pro-fiction, younger, less connected, for whom Pixelface indirectly speaks.

The larger consequences of scapegoating or ignoring Pixelface:

A. Sooner or later Wikipedia is going to be hurting for donations. Maybe not this year or next, but inevitably. Why should WP simply hand those donations over to Wikia in the form of ad revenue - in the name of some snooty pretense that Wikipedia has not outlived the original Britannica vision? (Insert pseudo-academic argument about how anti-contemporary-fiction principles trump money. 9>9)
Rather than evicting thousands of editor-hours of in-universe marketable hard work to Wikia alone, recognize the suppressed reality that there's no fiction consensus on Wikipedia. Compromise by forming a WikiFictpedia. If editors and readers there want to write and read individual articles on every notable character ever written, so what? (WP:NOTPAPER) Think! Let them do it and help collect Wikimedia Foundation donations for the servers here.
B. Pay more serious attention to Pixelface's and others' conflict-of-interest warnings. The press has already seriously trashed Wikipedia for COI - root it out before the bashing gets worse and donation good will takes a more serious PR hit.
• At the wikilawyer detail level, how often is Pixelface allowed to challenge the policy/guideline status quo grip of the anti-fiction clique? Once a month? Two? Three? How about an annual fiction policy/guideline consensus day by global IP fiction fans every May 15th?
• How about the higher-ups wise up and initiate consensus structural reforms before Wikipedia has to install figurative castle battlements, moat, and a drawbridge? In case anyone hadn't noticed, WP has accumulated many serious offsite opponents, both vandals and intellectuals with plausible grievances. This is a bad combination: the vandals justify their actions as retribution for the plausible grievances. WP reforms are needed to cool off the intellectuals. Officially sponsored consensus surveys of contentious issues (say, modeled on WP:ATT's) of editors, admins, and IPs would be an excellent start. Milo 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Except in as much as you make the laughable claim that agitation by detractors amounts to anything worth a hill of beans. Sure, Kohs and Bagley and a few others are shit-stirring with some known long-term anti-Wikipedia journalists. Big fat hairy deal. Pixelface's problem is edit warring and relentless argumentation against consensus, end of. Ah, but wait: I remember you now from the spoiler wars, when you and Pixelface were on the same side and your view failed to gain consensus. Perhaps that provides context for your pitching in here when you are otherwise not a very active Wikipedian at all. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is the $64 question as to who speaks for the wikipopulace at large - certainly Pixelface is outnumbered in many debates, my impression is that there are often 2-3x as many deletion-minded as inclusion-minded at these dustups, and to me this in part explains a higher number of reversions. What I don't know is moving beyond the cluster what sort of proportions we have...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always found this to be one of the more interesting statements issued when people are discussing the Grand Deletionist Cabal. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, if there's four times as much support for one side of any given debate (all other things things being equal, and with no clear appeal to policy or precedent to separate them) it's generally understood that this means it's where a majority of our contributors want the project to be going. In this case, however, this is taken as evidence that anyone who argues to delete articles on a regular basis is part of a massive meatpuppetry engine designed to skew deletion rates far beyond that of which the silent majority would approve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Casliber, we are all inclusionists, otherwise we would not be here at all. We just have different inclusion thresholds. Some have a threshold so low as to undermine the project's fundamental principles, believing that anything they have heard somewhere, read on some website, or observed when watching the programme, including their own interpretation thereof, is valid. Almost all our plot summaries for items of current fiction are written direct from the primary source by people with no obvious qualification for deciding the appropriate level of summarisation or what constitutes a significant plot element in context rather than just one they think is k3wl. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Shall we archive this now? It is quite large and covers alot of material with the inevitable tangents...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because the problem has not been addressed. I suggest the initiator start an RfC, and then we can archive. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

←Very well, I agree the problem has not been addressed.
Instead of acknowledging that Pixelface may have uncovered an issue that an ongoing commercial transwiki abandonment of valuable content is costing Wikimedia Foundation financial support – instead of working for a compromise that could work to everyone's benefit and reduce conflict – find a way to increase conflict by scapegoating and suppressing Pixelface?? Tsk, tsk.
Since this is now about potentially big money lost, keep at this long term and Pixelface has the potential to become another divisive symbol like Giano II.
Casliber (12:46): "What I don't know is moving beyond the cluster what sort of proportions we have"
The proportions I mentioned came from five editor polls done circa May of 2007 which are archived at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. There was also an external poll of Wikipedia readers taken ("Wikipedia dumps spoiler warnings" 2007Jun13-16) which confirmed a reader unpopularity of the spoiler notice removals by a combined 61% margin. Interpretations of these polls are found in the archives of Talk:Spoiler. It's one of the largest ever Wikipedia debates, on the order of two million bytes. A shortcut is to search for "Milo", and read my analyses, which are still not short. But if you really want to know how Wikipedia ownership works and doesn't – no cabal, it's mostly laid out there in signed posts. (Even Jimbo contributed to the early archived debate – long prior to the 45,000 spoiler notice mass-deletion event circa May 15, 2007.)
I tried to determine the logical reasons motivating every debate position in the Spoiler Conflict – which later turned out to be part of the larger Fiction Conflict.
What it mostly resolved to was a generational conflict of older Wikipedians who had an established hierarchy of group power over encyclopedia inclusion and format, versus younger Wikipedians' inclusion tastes and format preferences for mass fiction entertainment. In addition to the power challenge, the older group also took personal umbrage toward habits of younger Wikipedians who tended to expressed themselves both disrespectfully and unconventionally such as by using fragments of l33t-speak in text spoiler notices. ("SP01L3RZ!!!" - seems nostalgia cute now)
In the alternative, it may be easy to fix this conflict win-win with something like WikiFictpedia. It would give the older Wikipedia generation someplace to transwiki content they insist on excluding here, gives the younger generation a place to edit and include details of contemporary fiction with less deletionist conflict, and it's a valuable content for younger readers that's retained under Wikimedia Foundation donation banners. Milo 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested block for Martha Runs The Store

Disruptive edits, possible vandalism. He creates nonsense pages, adds speculation and fan fiction to episode pages (mostly List of Martha Speaks episodes), and destroying wiki-tables. A list of contributions can be found here. Elbutler (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you're looking for WP:AIV. — neuro^(talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this may be time to deal with this here ... there is a long history of such actions by the editor, and all the niceness in the world has not helped. ♪BMWΔ 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "long history" goes back three days, and involves less than 20 edits (most other edits are to the user page). This editor is clearly being disruptive, but has not yet received a really serious talk-page warning, just the "friendly advice" sorts of things. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(I guess in some ways I needed to clarify my sock beliefs, but thankfully y'all caught on. I'll try and be less cryptic) ♪BMWΔ 12:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Any connection between this user and highly disruptive blocked user and Martha Speaks fan User:Simulation12. Elbutler might have a better idea if there are similarities. --Leivick (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked indefinitely, following from an AIV report, pending some sort of satisfactory response on the talkpage. I also took the step of removing article material from the user page, and replace it with a template, after notifying the editor of the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • LHvU, thanks. I would also like to suggest a checkuser between this user and blocked user User:Simulation12. There are definite similarities. In fact, if it's not Sim12, I'm wondering if it's (also blocked) User:The Chubby Brother. If it's not one of those two, I'll be fairly surprised.GJC 04:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a note: I opened a checkuser request for MRTS, Sim12, and Chubby. I don't know if they're all the same person, but I'll bet two of three match.GJC 04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The check user came up positive, "the chubby brother" is "martha runs the store", but Simulation12 is unrelated. I guess Riley is accepting her block without trying something sneaky. Elbutler (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

--does the cabbage-patch-- Go Gladys, go Gladys, uh-huh, oh-yeah...--pats self on back, dislocating shoulder in process-- (/unseemly display)GJC 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise (Misuse of Admin Privileges

Resolved

 – I sense an upwelling of anti-user:Bosniak sentiment here, so let's close this generic "rouge admin abuse" complaint and leave things to WP:DRV, which is the right venue. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin user Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the whole article Anti-Bosniak sentiment and I lost all my hard work! Only 1 section was preserved. He didn't warn me before deletion. He alleges I am trying to put same article as deleted one. WRONG! All I am trying to do is to rebuild the new fresh article with credible source. This is wrong guys, this is wrong. And of course, you will do anything, because he is administrator, right? This is sad. Bosniak (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct way to appeal an AfD is to go to WP:DRV, not to just recreate the article. It's a speedy deletion candidate if you do that, so you shouldn't be surprised that it speedily gets deleted. --fvw* 08:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For admins who want to check: the page recreated today by Bosniak can be seen here: [37]; its previous incarnations (through various deletions, moves and cut-and-paste forks) are here and here. See also my comment to Bosniak on my user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak, that is literally the same page (including the same headers). Other than a difference in reference markup, some minor grammatical changes and other things, it's the same. You've been trying to get that exact same article through in some way or another for almost 18 months. You lost at AFD. Go to WP:DRV and follow instructions. It is your job to convince others to keep the article. Keep on this track and you'll likely get in trouble yourself. Also, does anyone see a need for Talk:Anti-Bosniak sentiment? It's not exactly useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We can delete that once it's clear that the article deletion has stuck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"You lost at AFD" is probably a poor choice of words. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

86.11.172.114

The past few days, myself, Rodhullandemu, and several others have been having an issue with 86.11.172.114 (talk · contribs) on the IWF incident's subpage, who insists that the VK image should be removed because the IWF found it "potentially illegal" and had police guidance in doing so. Since then, despite warnings from other users to stop posting the same arguments everyone there has debunked at least thrice each, he has persisted.

Since this isn't clear-cut vandalism or an edit-war (as there's been no reversion taking place), I'm bringing it here and asking for a short block for disruption. Everyone there is tired of countering his weak arguments or even seeing them, and Rod's twice told him to pipe down ([38], [39]). I'm not blocking because he would cry foul. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I believe the image should be removed given it has been ruled by the Metropolitan Police to be indecent and the IWF has said it is potentially illegal. I welcome other editors expressing their opinion, and indeed some other users have been civil and discussed several points. Indeed one user is usefully exploring information requests from the police on what exactly they said. I am only responding to comments in anycase in a civil and friendly manner, and hope others can do the same. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your manner isn't the issue; it's the fact you keep bringing up the same debunked arguments again and again, as I told you on your talk page, and it's starting to get disruptive. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any disruption. This is an important issue (of which I am in the minority), and is essential that users are allowed to state the facts of the case without being attacked. There is a real risk of prosecution for UK users viewing this image, and many users have said they would not have it on their machines (including Jimbo Wales). Let's have a proper discussion rather than attack the minority. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking the minority. I'm making a complaint that your repeated posting of points that we've all debunked several times already is getting disruptive. To say it any other way is dishonest. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it best I don't respond further to your comments as I have no wish to upset you. I am happy to continue discussion with others willing to consider other people's opinins. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been a sort-of participant in the said discussion. Despite reading over your comments, Jéské's comments, and the notes of many others, I cannot understand what your point is. It seems to be that you're standing up for what the IWF originally said (they've reversed their opinion, which is what we're all fussing about now). You have been proved wrong on many of your stances, and it’s not just us pretending to know a lot. You’re saying things like ‘‘potentially’’ and ‘‘believed’’ to be, etc. etc. I respected your opinion and statements at first, but it’s become apparent that you’re just trying to make our lives a little harder now. Icy // ♫ 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest anyone willing to discuss this with 86.11.172.114 should do so on his talk page, and any further posts from him to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action be moved to that talk page, where interested parties may gather. This, I think, would quickly indicate the value, if any, of repeated discussions, and there would be no need for any blocking. --Rodhullandemu 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification please

I looked at the image on the right and there is a statement therein that:

• WGA has given permission for use of images on Wikipedia.

Do I understand that to apply to all images on the entire WGA [40] site? If so, can we use those images in Wikipedia after download? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you post this question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I posted it there. Therefore I will look for responses there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cicero hoaxer again

Bigguy03j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an obvious sock of indefblocked User:Cicero Motors. I tagged the user as a sock and posted it on AIV but apparently that wasn't worth my time.

See here and here for the previous incidents.

His latest act of vandalism: [41]

--Sable232 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

More appropriate for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? Icy // ♫ 23:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Block him. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Has anyone seen the state of SSP lately?? (I hadn't, til just now.) There are currently eighty-three cases in the queue; some of them may have been explored already, but most of them are still awaiting attention. If I had the slightest scintilla of aptitude for detecting socks, I'd have pitched in immediately, but alas, in this realm I am most clueless. All the same, until that's cleared up, I'd recommend that any cases brought to AN or AN/I should, if at all possible, be dealt with then and there, rather than adding to the backlog at SSP. I know that's not how it ought to be done, but IAR and all that. GJC 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP is essentially hopeless, and has been for a long time. The only way I make any use of that board is as documentation: I fill out the SSP, file it, and then notify an admin and ask him directly to process the report. Just filing the report and expecting anything to ever happen is useless.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)_I've indef-blocked him. Anyone who objects, please feel free to reverse the block. GJC 00:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

O_o Sorry Gladys, not familiar with SSP so just stupid opinion. Icy // ♫ 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "there's no such thing as a stupid opinion", but Rod Blagojevich still has an 8% approval rating, so apparently there still IS such a thing as a stupid opinion. But yours isn't (unless you also support Blagojevich, which in this case is immaterial anyhow.) :) The moral of the story: SSP is a mess. GJC 02:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Punkox, again

Resolved

 – NrDg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) indef blocked the user --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Punkox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it again. Hopefully, someone will just indef him this time. The previous discussion was here.

Today, he is continuing to edit war by using anonymous IPs in an effort to cloak himself. 200.121.197.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Punkox's talk page to delete warnings. Then, 200.121.234.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to reinstate of one of Punkox's edits that he had been specifically warned against, and reinstated edits by one of his earlier IP socks.

I've lost what little hope I ever had that this editor could be reformed. He socks to evade responsibility, he socks to edit war, and he's edit-warred so hard that six articles are semi-protected to get things calm. I think it's time for a lengthy block, and few weeks of semi-protection on

• Take My Breath Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Public Affair (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Reality Tour (Jessica Simpson tour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

to complete the set of Jessica Simpson articles. Hopefully, with his main account blocked and every article he edits semi-protected, we can be rid of this problem for a while.

Just for easy reference, the remaining articles that are already semi-protected because of this disruptive editor are:

Irresistible (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Public Affair (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Think I'm in Love with You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Belong to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Wanna Love You Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Kww(talk) 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I identified and tagged a number of IP socks associated with this user. Behavior is pretty blatant and user shows no indication, after multiple warnings and attempts of guidance, to stop his disruptive edits. I blocked the user indefinitely and extended protection on all his IP sock targets as listed above. --NrDg 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100

Following complaint posted unsigned by Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100 is obviously a sock puppet of an established or banned account. NoCal100’s use of the complaints procedures has been phenomenally fast for a ‘new account’. The method of attacks on Calton at Sellick666 in tandem with MegaMom (one wonders how many sockpuppets she's bred) to gain status is suspect and typical sockpuppet behaviour.

NoCal100, often, promotes POV by insisting that there is consensus in his/her attempts to flout the rules for dealing with POV. NoCal100 stalls improvements to articles through false claims of consensus, these are rightly ignored as disruption of the encyclopedia, alternatively, NoCal100 might insist that there is "no consensus" for changes that bring an article's text more closely in line with the rules for dealing with POV.

Acting in tandem as a tagteam Nocal100 and Jayjg accounts should therefore be considered one.

This is not a dispute of content. NoCal100 uses the technique of edit by deletion and then claims that consensus must be gained for anyone to be able to have information inserted thereby initiating edit wars. NoCal100's actions are incorrect, the wiki policy is that consensus should be gained before editing. NoCal100 turns up on an article that he has no previous experience of editing therefore he should seek consensus prior to making an edit, he does not do that. When NoCal100 needs to be adopted and his edits vetted until he learns to use the references in an NPOV manner and not be allowed to remove any material until he has learned to edit sensibly and not an "I don't like it" manner and to control his wikistalking. NoCal100 edits (both deletion and insertions) show that NoCal100 is editing for a POV and not NPOV.

It is a dispute over the inability of NoCal100 to edit constructively. NoCal100's edits have generally been to reduce the information available, to remove links that he/she finds not to his/her Ideological liking using a myriad of nonsensical spurious arguments. In the pursuit of an ideological goal he/she has become the antithesis of the founding principal of the ethos of wiki the "access to information". That is Edit by deletion without consensus in a manner that places inaccurate and misleading information in wikipedia [42]

a) Banias

With no other editor involved. NoCal100 with no previous edits on that subject deleted with no attempt at consensus. Wiki Policy clearly states that consensus should be reached before editing with interested parties. (deletion is an edit) NoCal100 made not such attempt. examples below.

i) NoCal100 repeated removal of sourced material here

His/her argument being "Not directly related to Banias".

John Francis Wilson, the academic and author of Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, (2004) ISBN 1850434409 thought that the incident was of such note to Banias that he included it in his book on page 178. (the Wilson (2004) book has been repeatedly used throughout the Banias article and as the book is available electronically one must assume that NoCal100 must have read it before editing on the wiki article that he/she recently wiki stalked his way to)

ii)NoCal100 repeated bad faith edits here

repeated reversion to "by mutual agreement"...it is a facetious statement; in that all agreements, if made, are by the fact, of an agreement being made, obviously by mutual consent. In this instance, no agreement was made therefore there was no mutual consent. His edit is only to try to repeatedly expound his/her ideological POV of the myth of Israel as the peace maker whereas the reference given pointedly show that it was a Syrian offer that it was rejected by Israel, as shown in the references supplied.

b) Shaufat

again NoCal100 bad faith edits here

NoCal100:-

No one was yet living in them.

quote from reference supplied by NoCal100: At least two of the houses destroyed Monday were occupied by families; the others were empty. The Abu Kweiks moved into their one-story, four-bedroom house four months ago, the family said, after saving and scraping for five years to build it. Members of the family have lived in the Shuafat camp since fleeing their original home–in what is today central Israel–during the Jewish state’s 1948 War of Independence.

NoCal100 makes a blatant false statement. Nocal100 either doesn't read or is only cherry picking to suit his own extremist ideology.

c) NoCal100 Bad faith edits in Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing here where he/she removes work that is supported by the reference that he supplied.

From Lucy Dean (2003), The Middle East and North Africa, 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847 p 915

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

NoCal100 uses the reference to remove all sentences (which had citations) to the previous behaviour of Israeli troops a removal of which is 180° at variance with his own reference.

The bombing came 10 days after Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.

d) NoCal100 bad faith edits In the Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Removal of category nationalism by substitution of category here I can only assume because it mentions Palestine and nationalism which would fall under the category of an "I don't like it" edit to an Ideological extremist.

e) NoCal100 bad faith edits [43] category removal..while on Palestinian subjects category additions [44] [45] blatant POV

f) NoCal100 bad faith edits placing POV [46]

g) NoCal100 bad faith edits puts 1965 rather than 1930s because the initial cause was increased Jewish immigration into Palestine [47]

The allocation of the Jordan's headwaters began to be taken seriously in the 1930s when increased Jewish immigration into Palestine created a need for sustained water management for agricultural development and drinking.[48]

h) NoCal100 bad faith edits here calling University papers in the public domain "original research"...

i) NoCal100 bad faith edits [49] the group was known as the Stern Gang, historical fact. (in the English speaking world it was only known as Stern gang).

j) NoCal100 bad faith edits here removal of pertinent material.

k) NoCal100 bad faith edits here again edit by deletion without gaining consensus for edit.

l) NoCal100 bad faith edits here the article is about the Semitic use of ADN from ancient to modern not just the Hebrew variant.

m) NoCal100 bad faith edits using I don't like it delete technique here

n) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem and still break 3RR here on 19 Nov 2008 (no penalty from admin)

o) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem again claiming consensus where there obviously is none. here on 19 Nov 2008

p) NoCal100 I don't like it edits POV edit here King of Jordan is not relevant to the Arab league (where the King of Jordan speaks of his hands being tied by the Arab league) yet NoCal100 finds that the mufti in Germany prior to the conception of the Arab league is relevant, strange edit basis.

q) NoCal100 bad faith edits

Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Wikipedia will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people.

Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here

NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

original here

And then on 1 December 2008 NoCal100 changes his mind on definition of massacre here

Scorpion pass is referred to as an ambush by the majority.

• Lipman ambush
• Israel Misard Ha-huts ambush
• Nissim bar-Yaccov Incident
• Eedson Louis Millard Burns Incident
• Liliental attack
• Morris massacre
• Oren massacre
• Middle East Institute ambush
• Ovendale ambush
• Hutcheson ambush
• Higgins incident
• Love massacre/ambush
• Neff ambush

or killing: The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 101

r) NoCal100 bad faith edits here. Use of the word terrorist..complete POV. The perpetrators were never caught, the main conclusion from Jordanian and UN investigations was that it was robbery, Israel's evidence was found to be incorrect and the Jordanian and UN version confirmed when ID from the robbery was found in Gaza several years later. How can you tell the motivating force without confirmation from either a group claiming responsibility or evidence, apparently NoCal100 is able to.

s)NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in collusion again here making controversial edits. The fact that the West Bank article has sections about alternative names one wonder why Nocal100 and Jayjg want to place a controversial name in the lead?

t) T stands for tag team NoCal100 and Jayjg here

The term "Judea and Samaria" is also highly controversial in Israeli society itself, and is often employed specifically as a collective reference to the Israeli settlements in that area, historically and presently, especially by Jewish settlers and their supporters. Left-wing Israelis prefer "HaGada HaMa'aravit" (הגדה המערבית "The West Bank" in Hebrew) or "Hashetahim Hakvushim" (השטחים הכבושים, The Occupied Territories). Many Arab Palestinians object to this term as a rejection of their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the term al-Yahudiyya was-Samarah is used by Arab Christians in reference to the Bible.

NoCal100's Previous history of bad faith disruptive and vandalism in his/her editing and stalking pattern:-

[50] [51] [52] [53] and identified as a wikistalker tracking both Nishidani and CasualObserver'48 here

• 15:17, 29 October 2008 CasualObserver'48 (Talk | contribs) m (7,597 bytes) (misc grammar, technical)
• 19:30, 1 November 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (28,427 bytes) (chur) (undo)
• 15:06, 2 November 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (29,743 bytes) (→British Mandate to contemporary: not directly relevant to banias) (undo)

Gilo [54]

• (cur) (last) 17:34, 16 October 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (11,840 bytes) (→Shooting incidents: fixing phrasing) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 21:57, 16 October 2008 Ashley kennedy3 (Talk | contribs) m (11,842 bytes) (→References: condense refs) (undo)
• 01:55, 17 October 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (11,673 bytes) (→Land dispute: ref does not mention Gilo) (undo) (again after no previous record of editing gilo)

Palestine Liberation Organization [55]

17:27, 30 October 2008 Nishidani

17:53, 30 October 2008 NoCal100 with no previous record of having edited PLO

previously exhibited stalking behaviour on non-ME articles and strong sockpuppet behavioural pattern.here

[56] Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. _GB^T/C 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP is down the hall, first door on the right ... ►BMW◄ 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But with 73 open cases dating back over a month, who the hell considers WP:SSP to still be even remotely worthwhile? Except in the most blatantly obvious cases (two users named User:JohnQPretty and User:JaneQPretty editing the same article), nothing gets done...yes, I'm off topic. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I could mention WP:RFC/USER, however that process isn't exactly without it's faults either. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU seems like the proper place for this sock allegation.

p.s. I added a note at the top to register Ashley kennedy3 who forgot to sign their complaint.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have no idea who NoCal100 is a sockpuppet for RfCU is inappropriate as it would then require a fishing expedition to find the account of the operator. I did sign it at the bottom 3 minutes prior to your post jaakobou but at the head is a better position due to the length, thanks..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even remotely the right place for this -- a bitter content dispute masquerading as a sock report (which, even if true, isn't against the rules). IronDuke 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As IronDuke notes, this is actually a content dispute. What Ashley K somehow forgot to mention is that he is just off a 5 week block- one week for egregious personal attacks against me, and an additional 4 weeks for block-evading sockpuppetry. During that 5 week block, he continuously monitored my every edit to Wikipedia, compiling on his Talk page a list of "bad faith edits" - i.e - every edit he didn't like, and as soon as his block expired, put that list here on AN/I, under the guise of a "sock puppettry" report - for which he of course produces no evidence. This is a thinly disguised attempt at some sort of retribution. I might add that since the block expired, he has followed me around to at least 3 articles, including a new one I created and successfully nominated for DYK, to undo my edits there; canvassed editors to pile on at this AN/I report; and continued his personal attacks against me, on my user page and Talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's about blatant POV from an obvious sockpuppet deletionist. If he knew anything about a topic he would add to wiki...If you care to read the incidents it is about bad faith edits by NoCal100. It is not about his sockpuppetry of which his behavioural pattern is indicative...His/her bad faith edits are about NoCal's inconsistencies...pure and simply put he/she is using double standards....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Banias

I just blocked Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring with NoCal100 (talk · contribs) at Banias. Ashley was at 3RR,[57][58][59] then an anon, 208.246.78.90 (talk · contribs) came in and reverted her for "pov pushing",[60] Ashley reverted again,[61] and I blocked Ashley for 1 week. I'm torn on how to handle NoCal100's involvement. Even if the anon was him, he did not violate 3RR (just barely, by a couple hours). Ashley kennedy3 has a hefty block log,[62] and just came off a one month block for abusing multiple accounts, so a block of Ashley's account was obviously reasonable. However, NoCal100 hasn't been blocked since October.[63] He has, however, been repeatedly accused (by Ashley) of socking/meatpuppetry, apparently connected to Calton (talk · contribs) and Jayjg (talk · contribs), though I'm unaware of any conclusive evidence.

So the options are:

• Block NoCal100 and the anon for edit-warring; or
• Request CheckUser confirmation; or
• Give NoCal100 a stern warning, and potentially a formal notification of WP:ARBPIA sanctions; or
• Something else? Any other admins have an opinion here?

--Elonka 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's already notified of the ArbCom sanctions. I guess a short block could be justified, considering he was edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Block him for... possibly editng while logged out, though he didn't violate 3rr and there's no evidence it was him? And is there a purpose in repeating what are so far baselss allegations by a user with a huge block log here? If edit-warring is a concern, warning NoCal would be the first step, and letting him explain. This is quite premature. IronDuke 23:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did post a note at NoCal100's page to notify him of this thread,[64] and ask him to comment. --Elonka 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were for the edit-war alone, I would suggest to unblock Ashley and warn both editors. However, that is not the case (tone of the 2nd revert, for example). Still, if Ashley makes a note of finally understanding why she is repeatedly sanctioned. i.e. WP:NPA violations such as this one: NoCal100 is a suspected sockpuppet he gets no points, then I would consider supporting an unblock request with favour. Ashley needs acknowledging the problem though (I suggest WP:NAM). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As a creative ArbCom sanction, how about a 1-week topic ban on NoCal100 from editing articles in the Palestine-Israel topic area? He would still be allowed to participate at talk, but not to actually edit the articles. That would be lighter than a block, and would be comparable to the block that Ashley kennedy3 is under. Does that sound fair? --Elonka 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that NoCal has, from evidence presented, done absolutely nothing wrong, a topic ban would be quite excessive. Even-handedness is not a good in and of itself, one must take cognizance of the actual behavior of the participants in question. IronDuke 06:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry IronDuke, but isn't edit-warring wrong? My last block for 3RR in September 2007 was doled out even though I had made only 3 reverts in 24 hours and I was the one who had filed the 3RR report (against an editor who later turned out to be a sockpuppet). What happened to there is no excuse for edit-warring? Tiamut^talk 16:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can say with confidence that WP:edit war is an open invitation to confusion, incoherence, and bad feeling. I looked at your block and... I disagree with it. (Surprised?) Indeed, I find such blocks will lead to greater disruption, as users are less likely to file 3rr reports when they can get blocked for making one. IronDuke 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

reposting this from my Talk page, where I have already responded to Elonka's earlier questions. I want to commend you for not jumping to any hasty and unwarranted conclusions while I was offline. My comments are simple: I am not the anon IP who reverted prior to Ashley's 4th revert. I have no problem with you blocking that IP address, or running a checkuser to confirm what I am claiming. If you'd like, I can also e-mail you, in private, my IP address and how to validate it without needing a CU. I realize I was drawn into an edit war and reverted more than I probably should have (though, as you note, I did not violate 3RR, nor did I revert after your warning on the Talk page) - due in part to being quite upset at having Ashley come off his 5 week block for personal attacks against me, and immediately continuing his personal attacks - calling me a vandal, and a sockpuppet, without a shred of evidence. As a gesture of goodwill, I am willing to withdraw from the Banias article for the duration of Ashley's block, so it does not seem like I am taking advantage of his block to "win" the content dispute. I am totally opposed to a topic ban, which is excessive, and goes against the rule that blocks are preventive rather than punitive. I did not ask for Ashley to be blocked , let alone have him blocked for a week, and it is unacceptable that I should be subject to some 'comparable block' just because he was blocked, when I did nothing similar to what he did. NoCal100 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

'As a gesture of goodwill, I am willing to withdraw from the Banias article for the duration of Ashley's block',

Translation. 'To show what a nice chap I am, I will wait till the person I wikistalk is out of gaol before going after him again.' For the record, NoCal is a stalker though making the point is futile, knows nothing of I/P articles or background, and goes after good editors with persistence. He does not discuss the merits of edits at any length if at all, mainly reverts, and, as in the most recent instance, and elsewhere at articles like Shuafat, seems to have anonymous I/P editors who back his moves. He keeps his nose clean, but has bloodied those of many experienced editors sick and tired of his behaviour. I don't know whether he's a sockpuppet. I like many others with strong informal knowledge of the flow from article to article, are 100% convinced he edits to no good, but simply to scalp or take out pro-Palestinian editors. Nothing can be done about this, since most of us are fed up with his behaviour, which cleaves to the rules, while tripling the amount of time we waste in defending articles from his delapidations. We're fed up with the excruciatingly boring waste of time remonstrating through the labyrinths of arbitration to prove the obvious. I personally suggest taking NoCal and co to book should never be adopted. At the same time admins with a fair degree of area knowledge of our respective behaviours should begin to use discretionary warnings when these obvious patterns of abuse repeat themselves, without having to be tipped off by 'grassers' or 'pimps', which only leads to obnoxious partisan duelling at Arbcom pages. My advice to Ashley is to leave Wikipedia, until some rules on overseeing abusive editors who do not contribute substance but track about for fights are in place. My advise to administrators is to look at Ashley's actual contributions to wiki pages, as opposed to his short fuse, which people like noCal persistently light. He is, like Ceedjee, a very good content editor, and it is a shame that content editors, sick and tired of bureaucratic bickering and wikilawyering which make sensible levelheaded edits an obstacle course, are dropping out. In Ashley's case, these abuses have seen him punished twice, while the harasser cruises on, without a bruise to his record. At the moment, working on I/P articles is farcical, thanks in good part to the solidarity NoCal and others enjoy from people who should have more sense, and see beyond the legalese to the actual quality of what editors bring or fail to bring to the project. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Nish,

Is there possibly something you'd like to strike through from the above message for WP:NPA's sake? I note you to "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.".

Sample considerations:

• Translation. 'To show what a nice chap I am, I will wait till the person I wikistalk is out of gaol before going after him again. (see also: Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility)
• NoCal is a stalker (see also: Ad hominem)

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not back, and will not be back to edit unless something is done to cancel that warning on my page. I read occasionally, and am ashamed to see a very constructive editor punished successively in this manner, while a useless editor gets off with his gaming scot-free. I don't care for civility or ad hominem links. I see civility in the way people edit, i.e., knowledgeably and collaboratively, not in their watching their p's and q's while they drive hardworking editors up the wall with tendentious stalling and stalking tactics. Anyone can see what is going on. I have clashed strongly with Ashley, with Ceedjee and several others on my side, and I would suggest Israeli/Jewish editors begin to take a leaf out of our book, and notch up our respect by showing they too can deal with abuses on their own side, without involving everyone in administrative review processes. The way Ashley, Ceedjee and a few others challenged each other consolidated a very good working rapport, also with Israeli editors on key articles. This is a matter of record.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, you were given a 3rd level warning for making a personal attack[65] and I believe it would be beneficial for the project if you choose to amend this current "p's and q's" issue.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cordially reminding you that you admin-shopped to get me warned, and that the admin is a mathematician with a zero-grade ability, to judge from the the way he reviewed the evidence, in interpreting English. Apart from what appears to be a gesture of ethnic solidarity with you. I've no intention, if that is what you are worried about, of further contributing to wiki when ethnic sympathies govern administrators, in addition to an inability to construe simple evidence. So there's no need to continue this conversation, since I am only back to register a protest on behalf of a fine editor, (with his faults) who has again received poor treatment over the last 5 weeks, while those who don't contribute substantively are thriving. Old men, who in their real lives have never had the question of their civility raised, dislike these jejune and mechanical reminders, especially from the younger generation. Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting statement: "... the admin is a mathematician with a zero-grade ability, to judge from the the way he reviewed the evidence, ..." .. Could you please explain how this is not another personal attack?

It looks to me here that you are not willing to set an old statement aside, and try to work either together, or try to keep away from each other. There is no need to state these remarks (personal attacks) over and over again. You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have to keep on stating that here (and one can even question if it needs to be stated anyway). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you find my statement interesting. I might say the same for yours. Of course you have a right to your opinion, even if it has nothing to do with the issue, here, concerning NoCal, and why he is driving out editors of substance. My remarks were directed at NoCal's behaviour. They were interrupted by an interested party who has a vested interested in pushing the view that I indulge in personal attacks in order to undermine the opinions I ventured on NoCal. Naturally, in defence(since posting these wikiquette comments endlessly has an instrumental function, that of building up over time the impression that a repeated insinuation must have some truth to it) I reminded that person of the circumstances regarding my own case. Since you evidently haven't any knowledge of the background to either dispute, and evidently have not studied (I don't blame you) the page where I demonstrated that Arthur Rubin failed to construe straightforward English in context, I fail to see why you thought this comment necessary. To call a spade a spade, or a failure to read a simple English statement a 'zero grade ability' to construe that language may be hyperbole, but it is not a personal attack, anymore than noting that a person who crashes cars when he drives is an atrocious (instead of a bad) driver is a personal attack. This is about NoCal, not me. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found that my name has been used and feel I should speak for myself. I had already posted the following at Banias, where I have been active. I neither know how to, nor care to[provide links to these sockpuppet investigations]; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way.

I think I ran into NoCal100 first at Hasbani River, when he made these 2 edits[66] and I tried to correct them[67]. The POV I objected to was the change from a Lebanese river to one in Israel. I had sourced that, it is still a Lebanese river. NoCal100 made a slew of edits, after I left the scene; it all ended with the article looking like this[68]. Back to a river in Israel, so much for sources, NPOV and other wiki-stuff for NoCal100. Frankly, sometimes this all seems like a waste of time, but then....

I am also quite suspicious when things like ‘un-needed quotes’ are used in an edit summary, since I have learned about that little ball to play with, [here].

I do believe NoCal100 has followed me around, because it seems quite often now to bump into him. This [69] is the start of one that goes on for four additional edits and is current. I am sure there were more in the past

My pov is different from the NPOV I use in making edits. If you feel that this is soapy, then please consider this edit[70] or this one[71]; you might get a hint of the NPOV problem Wikipedia has in the I/P area. The fact that both of these have been able to sustain themselves over time, [no-diff] and [72] indicates that there was something either hidden or not fully discussed. Trust me, it is the long-time modus operendi, or at least a style. These are only two of many Black holes within Wiki’s I/P universe. We shall see how long these last, after mentioning them here.

I have little to say in what you do or don’t do about NoCal100, but he will absolutely continue to pull this un-Wiki-like stuff, if you do nothing. Best that you do something, draw a line, just say no, whatever. Something that at least shows your eyes are open. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment; however, can you be more specific about "un-wiki-like stuff" or "draw a line"? We can't put a restriction that says, "Don't do stuff". Restrictions are more often worded as, "Don't revert more than once per day on an article," "Don't remove citations to reliable sources", "Don't edit these three articles, but you're still allowed to participate at talk", "If you add anymore unsourced material, you will be blocked," etc. What is it that you think would be most helpful? --Elonka 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

why are we looking to this editor for recommendations? what he has described above is a straight forward content dispute (and it is instructive to look at the content of that dispute - he wants to call a river that flows through 2 countries a 'Lebanese river', whereas my edit, fully explained on the talk page, offered the neutral "the river is a tributary of the Jordan, which flows in Lebanon and Israel) - which was discussed on the article's talk page.
User:CasualObserver'48 has himself edit warred on numerous articles (see some recent examples here - [73],[74],[75], [76],[77]), followed me around to several articles to revert my edits - (see User:NoCal100/CO) and edited with an obvious POV - will he be subject to the same recommendations you are asking him for with regards to me? NoCal100 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because we are asking for recommendations does not mean we will follow them. And you (NoCal100) are also welcome to make specific suggestions on how administrators can help to stabilize the articles in this topic area. As for the diffs, it looks like one of the articles appears to be fairly quiet at the moment, but I'll try to take a closer look at Anti-Zionism to see if an admin presence there would be helpful. --Elonka 20:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Elonka, I am getting out of my depth in this reply, because I am talking about both the NoCal section immediately above and his activity at Banias, as a continuum. I believe you can read "un-wiki-like stuff" to mean the various complaints/incidents that I, and others have mentioned above about the editor in question. This editor has obviously caused some questions to arise over time, or else his name wouldn’t be directly above at ANI. Now, you have that same editor in a new specific article where revert-warring occurred. That would seem like another incident. Please correct me if I mis-understand, why I am here.

"Draw a line" simply means make a decision, but it has more to do with the NoCal section immediately above. How that line is drawn, is entirely up to the people in the ANI section. Frankly, everything from my first post to here should be moved to the section above and disciplinary action should be taken. Please, can someone do that. Thanks. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I saw happening, I suggest the following regarding the Banias edit warring; it seems quite simple to me. I have no idea how these suggestions might fit into all the various pigeon holes you have available and quoted above.

Do not allow the removal of sourced, valid material regarding Banias to occur simply as a deletion. I agree with Ashley completely, but in this case, only he had the 3RR balls to fight it. He was forced into it and it takes two to tango. This water-related material, specifically, is a critical thread in the whole NPOV I/P story; it is a current part of the present conflict (public failure of recent secret Isr/Syr talks). It is one of those “Black holes,” which I did mention and you did not, by the way, ask about.

Equally, NoCal100 has presented a very valid suggestion and I tended to agree that Banias was not the right place for all of it. Had NoCal100 been a less-heavy-handed, Black-holing editor, I would have been more collaborative and assisted in that. Take his suggestion, move material to Water_politics_in_the_Middle_East; I believe that article will grow and split. Another thoughtful NPOV editor already did this with an earlier version[78], possibly after NoCal posted it the first time. I further suggest that you make him do it. If he feels so strongly about it, as to force another editor to go 3RR, then he to should be npovly willing to do the removal of valid, RS’d disputed material with a move, rather than a deletion to article history and the ether. He already has the knowledge, based on his Hasbani edits. He should write the necessary transitions and links, so things stay connected. Should he not be willing to do this in a NPOV way, then I think he will lose AGF, which is required and there are wiki-ways to handle that.

From my point of view, these suggestions would:

• Prevent the deletion of important material ‘for the benefit of the reader,’ and shed some light on the I/P subject. Ashley might agree.
• Basically extinguish the fire at Banias, although your arrival has temporarily suppressed it, for now.
• Resolve the dispute in a neutral way and make both disputants pay a price.
• Move Wikipedia more toward NPOV.
• Save me the work of doing it myself.

It worked when I performed the same kind of thing on another page. I hope these suggestions are helpful and would appreciate a reply. Should you have any questions concerning my use of Amer-idioms or euphemisms, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Grsz11

I happened to wander into this inferno because of an edit another user made, but I think that this user needs to be brought up to speed on WP:CIVIL. Please take a look at the exchange here and see what you think. Radiopathy (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see major civility issues, but I do see some pretty egregious trolling by Grsz11: in particular, he nominated Michael Z. Williamson for deletion immediately after having a disagreement relating to Barack Obama with the subject, who has a Wikipedia account. In fairness, Grsz11 did retract the AfD nom two days later. Even so, his behavior looks a lot like the provoke-and-then-play-innocent game. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

yep, this is unacceptable behavior and completely unbecoming for a collaboration project. it's painful to see him continually treat others like this. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a case of: Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Grsz doesn't seem to be saying anything that bad. Maybe someone could offer them both a cup of tea? :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing new. This user has had a long history. Once he told me that I acted like it was his fault Charlton Heston died when we disagreed. I have been blocked for an interaction with this user several months ago, but he followed me around for a while being provoking. I try to avoid him now. ( I did make one overture but it was ignored).Die4Dixie (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How funny nobody thought to read Trasel's comments. And for those of you who feel right in bringing up the AfD, if you classify a single undo as a "disagreement", perhaps you have some reading to do. Grsz¹¹ 04:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please find one uncivil comment. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Quit playing stupid, you know what I'm talking about. Grsz11 2008-12-10, last Wednesday (5 days ago), 3:19 pm (UTC-5)", "Just please go back to your tin foil hat wearing fantasy land until the next time one of your beloved nutjob authors is rightly nominated for deletion. Good day. Grsz11 2008-12-12, last Friday (3 days ago), 7:16 pm (UTC-5)". I'll grant you were provoked, but you also provoked Trasel. I advise a strong cuppa and a biscuit for everyone involved. //roux   05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'll readily accept the last comments. And I could quote his (almost every comment). Grsz¹¹ 05:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Point being, you both poked each other with sticks, you both reacted predictably, both of you should retire to your separate corners and avoid each other for a while. //roux   05:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I reacted predictably to continued personal and ad hominem attacks, yes. I had ended the discussion, it was past, until Radiopathy decided to drag himself in. Grsz¹¹ 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll chalk this one up as biting off more than I could chew. The SPAs on the AfD and the attacks were too much and I reacted to the provocation. The conversation was over when Radiopathy brought it up. Grsz¹¹ 05:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Briana C.K. Scouecks

Resolved

 – Block extended to indefinite by Kevin. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Briana C.K. Scouecks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A troll. The User name is an anagram personal attack on the person the editor has been making BLP violation against. Has been blocked for 12 hours, but the block should be permanent, especially since they promise to come back to continue their "battle". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The block has been altered to indef. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting removal of 'speedy-delete tag'

I barely finished creating this article when some wiseguy added the speed-delet tag to the article. As I said in it's talk page,it'll be ready within the span of 2-3 days. Double_Cross_(film) --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

From the look of things, it isn't eligible for a WP:CSD#A1 deletion. I'm sure the reviewing admin will decline and remove the tag. At worst, he/she will probably userfy it for you upon request, so you can finish getting it ready. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, it was already removed by the time I made my above comment... :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag as it was ineligible for the category of speedy delete given. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The nominating account, Call me Bubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be a role account operated by another user purely for the purposes of deletion (he essentially admits this in one of his first edits). Given the obviously poor judgement shown in this case, a review of this account's other proposed deletions would seem to be overdue. 87.114.128.88 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh... seems more like a disclosure on his userpage that he had other accounts but genuinely doesn't use them. I'm willing to see this as unfamiliarity with WP:CSD and trying to learn. I've notified him of this discussion, at any rate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Learn the use of the preview button, PhyrnxWarrior, and you won't have this trouble in future. Learn to cite sources right from the very first edit, and you'll not have the further trouble that your article is now in, too. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Always work from and cite sources. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer to create articles in userspace, since I tend to take my time assembling things, and you avoid things like this. Many articles are aged in a new charred-oak userspace. Gives them a nice color and eases the flavor for those consuming them. But as not everyone does this, I'm giving Bubba a piece of sound advice on how to avoid this problem in the future- patrol pages that are at least 5 days old. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Samhy2k

User:Samhy2k user has repeatedly attacked me over his obvious vandalism here. He then wrote on my talk page here and here and finally here. I've asked him to stop, but he didn't. He's only vandalized two or three times, so I didn't think that reporting him to WP:AIV would be useful. Any ideas or solutions? Mononomic (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, his bothering can be harassment and get him blocked. I've warned him but what else can someone do other than stop him? Is there any particular reason you don't want him blocked? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this isn't just vandalism but a WP:BLP violation and stupid nonsense. He doesn't seem to have a single good edit. Is there any particular reason I shouldn't indefinitely block him right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Go ahead and block him. I just didn't want to be aggressive and say "I'M GOING TO BLOCK YOU!!!!11". Thanks. Mononomic (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It might be worth me letting you know that I am the 'Paste' referred to in the first issue mentioned by Mononomic It would seem that this editor and others who may well be the same person objected to my AfD on a young footballer, Andy Matthews that they had written an article on, it was discussed and deleted. Subsequent to that they have vandalised articles that I started such as Fanny Sunesson. Hope this helps. Paste ^Talk 09:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like he stopped. I see what you mean though. At this point, a block might be punitive and no longer preventative, so I'm just going to wait and hope he has stopped. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Lightmouse; Actions by administrator Reedy

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

Resolved

- Clearly no administrator is going to take action here unless some of the combatants step even further out of line. Pre-emptively closing to avoid this calamity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally initiated discussion of this issue on the discussion page of WP:AWB. However, the administrator who summarily closed that discussion, Reedy, said he was "very tired" of the discussion there and threatened to block me if I continued being a "nuisance" and a troll by pursuing the issue there. He suggested that the discussion continue here "where greater opinion can be gauged". Given Reedy's action and despite the fact that I have serious misgivings about the appropriateness of this venue for discussing the AWB rules of use, this noticeboard appears to be the only available venue for discussing Lightmouse's flagrant and ongoing disregard of those rules.

One of the rules of use concerning AWB says, "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding." Interpreting this rule, administrator Iridescent said: "See where it says in large black letters Don't do anything controversial with it? Means what it says. If you're using AWB to make edits that there's a possibility of someone disagreeing with (aside from when you're indisputably in the right, such as correcting "jewelery" which always leads to 'but that's the correct spelling' protests from people who don't bother checking the dictionary), you don't seem to understand what it's for." Various discussions at various times have been held involving Lightmouse's use of AWB to make controversial edits, more specifically his use of the tool to delink dates and terms and make other changes. Nevertheless, he has been using AWB in full force to make these edits despite several requests from other editors to stop doing, especially until the pending Requests for Comment about date formatting and linking are closed on December 25. Also, concern has been expressed on Lightmouse's discussion page about his use of AWB to make the exact same edits in the exact same article numerous times, despite having full knowledge that these edits are erroneous. In my opinion, that constitutes "edit warring" by Lightmouse, although others disagree, in part based on the strange interpretation that the edit warring policies do not apply to "trivial" edits using AWB. Lightmouse's philosophy about using AWB for delinking activities is as follows: "Many people think Wikipedia is generally overlinked and so needs a broad brush approach to delinking. The consequences of the broad brush can then be examined in detail as you have done." In other words, he believes it is entirely appropriate for him to use AWB to delink a huge amount of dates and terms, leaving the post-delinking clean-up of his errors to other editors to discover and fix.

Another rule of use concerning AWB says, "Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." In flagrant violation of this rule, Lightmouse has been using AWB often at the rate of more than one article per minute. For example, he edited 75 articles in 8 minutes using AWB on December 8, which is 9.38 articles per minute or one article every 6.4 seconds. On December 9, Lightmouse edited 197 articles in 26 minutes, which is 7.58 articles per minute or one article every 7.9 seconds. On December 10, Lightmouse edited an astounding 1,777 articles in 114 minutes, which is 15.59 articles per minute or 1 article every 3.9 seconds. Earlier today, Lightmouse edited 75 articles in 19 minutes, which is 3.95 articles per minute or 1 article every 15.19 seconds.

Lightmouse erroneously believes that notwithstanding the actual wording of the AWB rules of use, neither of the preceding rules applies unless it is proven that a rule violation is "harming" articles. See this and this. In other words, he asserts that unless an editor is using AWB to vandalize articles, the editor may use AWB to make controversial edits and may use AWB as fast as he can to make edits.

All these issues need to be addressed in a comprehensive way, not only with Lightmouse but also so that other editors know the limits of AWB use, if any.

A related issue is administrator Reedy's decision to close the discussion that I initiated on the AWB discussion page. Reedy did this without disclosing that he was, in effect, protecting his own violations of the AWB rule of use concerning edit speed. For example, Reedy on September 24 used AWB to edit 162 articles in 61 minutes, which is 2.66 articles per minute or 1 article every 22.6 seconds. On August 8, Reedy used AWB to edit 193 articles in 24 minutes, which is 8.04 articles per minute or 1 article every 7.5 seconds. An administrator never should use his tools when he has a conflict of interest. Tennis expert (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside to those edits, due to the sheer nature of them (being Typo fixing), they are all manually approved, granted all may not be 100% accurate. —Reedy 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whose edits? Yours? Lightmouse's? Where does the AWB "speed limit" exempt typo fixing? Tennis expert (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine. Around that time, the WP:TypoScan project was starting up, which i was coding for, and therefore needed testing, it didn't affect AWB's operation, and i was checking the commiting and such back to the server. —Reedy 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, i know I'm not infallible and so aren't my AWB contributions, and those of my bot - It's been blocked numerous times, for the same/similar reason when list building has gone astray. —Reedy 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And i was not "protecting my own violations" - I did not recieve any complains about the edits (before now), and they weren't even in my mind till they were brought up. —Reedy 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you had actual knowledge then is irrelevant. Much is expected of an administrator, and, therefore, you should have known about your own editing history. You shouldn't have intervened. Tennis expert (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no conflict of interest. Reedy does not seem to be abusing AWB, depending on what you are doing it is easily possible to make manually verified edits at tat speed. I doubt there is any likelihood of action unless there is evidence that Lightmouse was acting disruptively, which there does not seem to be. Your diatribe about past behaviour (and my personal tolerance for MoS wars is so close to zero as makes no difference) does not seem to include any evidence, in the form of diffs, showing present disruptive behaviour - on the other hand your wikilawyering on the basis of what constitutes "a few" and asserting that a few edits must therefore mean many fewer articles, which is tosh as most AWB runs will be one edit per article, do not inspire confidence. Last time I used AWB, typo-fixing was an optional extra in every edit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course there was a conflict of interest. The original complaint was about Lightmouse violating an AWB rule of use. Reedy then intervened and closed the complaint. Reedy himself had violated that same rule of use. Therefore, Reedy had a conflict of interest. He shouldn't have intervened in a situation in which he had a personal interest. Very simple. Tennis expert (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• And again, your stating things that really don't make much sense. —Reedy 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• That reasoning makes no sense. On that reasoning, if i drive and speed, and get caught and it went to trial, if jury members or the judge indeed themselves had sped before, they would have a COI, and therefore couldn't comment? That makes no sense whatsoever —Reedy 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your straw man argument makes no sense. There are statutes governing juries, the qualification of jurors, and how jurors are chosen. Wikipedia has a conflict of interest rule regarding administrators. If you don't like the rule or believe it does not make sense, perhaps you should seek to change it. Tennis expert (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am troubled that Lightmouse is mass delinking dates when the community wide RFC (which is still running!) only shows support for deprecation. And anyone looking at it longer than 15 seconds will notice that questions #3 and beyond indicate support for date links "in some situations" (which, in my mind, rules out automated removal entirely). Again, deprecation does not mean "kill with fire". People making these kinds of automated edits need to stop performing edits which only consist of this type of edit. (I would have no problem with them if they were being performed as part of some larger project which had consensus). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto. I have also stated im not so sure about the "kill with fire" attitude regarding the date links (as have numerous others). —Reedy 21:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I would agree with that. So, we ask him nicely to stop. And ideally without crying to Mommy. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'll do it. —Reedy 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how relevant this is, but for those who have not been very involved in these debates, please see this ANI thread on date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. I am vehemently apathetic about this. The RFC being still open is a red herring; its clearly a WP:SNOW situation in favor of deprecating the requirement to link dates; indeed all of the proposals in all of the RFCs concurrently running on this issue indicates that clearly the community does not think that linking dates is really required. Beyond that, if a user wants to spend their time delinking dates, what is the harm?. Seriously. There is absolutely no reason to request that anyone stop this. I personally think its a waste of time; but given that the requirement to link dates is deprecated (or inevitably will be in a matter of hours), is this really any different than any of the other sorts of mass corrections we see? Seriously, don't we have better things to care about than if someone delinks dates?!? Good gawd... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everything Jayron3 wrote also reflects my opinion on this matter. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deprecation does not mean "kill with fire". Moreover, it's only deprecation "for the purposes of auto formatting". Further, in this RFC, the third question and beyond indicate that the community does support date linking under certain circumstances, so clearly not all date links should be getting removed (which is what Lightmouse, etc. are doing). As the community believes date links are valuable in certain situations each article must be treated carefully, not in an automated or semi-automated fashion (and certainly not with the proponents of all-date-link-removal being the ultimate arbiters/judges of which dates stay or go). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would say, reading the comments under those questions, that the community doesn't give a shit. Even in the sections where people discuss keeping some date linking, the majority of the responses indicate an overall apathy over the subject; many of these votes indicated they were only commenting under the "keep links sometimes" question because they were uncomfortable about saying never, but that they could not really come up with concrete examples of where they would support it. If you actually read the comments, the community does not seem to really support the notion of sometimes linking dates as it does simply not want to expressly disallow it in ALL cases. As such, I can't see why we should get worked up over the mass delinking of dates. The community seems to feel that such cases where these dates should be preserved are likely to be so rare that it is likely easier to just go in afterwards and put them back where appropriate... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just read all the comments in support of "sometimes" for month-day links and I certainly didn't come away with the community "[not giving] a shit". Those leaving comments seemed careful to not word their response in such a way that those looking at it afterward would lock them in or pigeonhole their responses to only allow certain dates. Many noted specific dates but left it somewhat open ended. How did you read these and come to the conclusion that nobody "[gave] a shit"? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• In question 3, I count 5 people who support the statment "always be made" and "sometimes be made" has 29 people who qualify their support with statements like "only rarely" and "weak support" and "only because I don't like always and never", and only 19 people who make an unqualified support of the "sometimes be made" position. This contrasts to the over 60 people who have said "never be made". This hardly represents an overwhelming consensus to even sometimes make links; it seems that the consensus (if we draw the break between "always & sometimes" to "rarely and never" to lie roughly 24 people supporting the former position and 90 or so supporting the latter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I count 60 distinct "sometimes be made" comments and less than 60 "never be made" (more in the low 50's). I disagree with how you're breaking down the "sometimes be made" comments, in particular you appear to only be considering the bolded "support" text (or variations thereof) and not the comments that follow that text. Those spending any time at all pouring over these comments fully will realize there's clearly consensus for some month-day links (even if limited to certain specific uses, they often seem to be worded in such a way to be open ended). At any rate, given the length of the comments left (usually with additional opinion and very rarely a solitary "support") I still fail to see how you came to the conclusion that the community "doesn't give a shit". Even your own response seems to indicate they "give a shit". —Locke Cole • t • c 08:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tell me, Guy, does your personal definition of "a few edits a minute" include 15.59 articles or edits per minute, as Lightmouse has done using AWB? I doubt that it's reasonable to interpret "few" as including 15+. Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since it appears that lniked dates will be phased out, why does it matter if they are all delinked swiftly over possibly taking years to delink them all by hand. The last thing we need is for one user to see an article that has dates linked and without checking the Mos start to link dates in every article they see. That will result in inconsistencies eventually somewhere along the line as uninformed users begin to do what they think it correct unless the issue is dealt with in a prompt manner. I'd actually rather have an automated process or hard-driven user delink dates then me have to do it on every article I edit. As for the "common terms" delinking, that has issues which need to be addressed but not something one has to bring to AN to get sorted. Secondly, I don't understand Reedy's COI? He's an AWB developer, who closed a thread that he was tired of seeing continuously pop up that was taking up space where users come to ask general help questions. Part of the lure of using AWB is that edits can be made faster, using AWB to edit at an accused high edit rate doesn't really constitute a COI when closing the thread; I saw it as asserting his administrative powers to solve the issue as he saw was best fit at the time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The issue with Lightmouse is that he is violating two AWB different rules of use. It doesn't matter whether he is delinking dates or terms or making an entirely different kind of edit. If someone is going to use AWB, he or she must abide by the AWB rules. Pretty simple, IMO. Tennis expert (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Get down off the Reichstag. He's not doing anything that won't be done eventually, his timing is poor, we've asked him to hold off. Job done, now stop obsessing over trivia - especially since it seems the trivia in question is something where you will eventually have to accept that consensus is absolutely not with you. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen the Reichstag - it's quite a beautiful structure, actually. But I've never climbed it. This AWB issue is recurring by multiple editors, as I have already demonstrated, and needs clarification. Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• AFAIK the AWB rules are not under the WP:POLICY structure, they are rules of use made by the people who code and maintain AWB. That Reedy, MaxSem, and Martinp23, three of those people who code and maintain AWB have reviewed this situation and find nothing to intervene seems to indicate it is permissible. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's why Reedy said to take this issue here.... Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) See also this advice from Reedy about violations of the AWB rules of use and this advice from Reedy. Tennis expert (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Linked dates solely for the purpose of auto formatting are being phased out. If you look at the RFC, specifically questions #3 and beyond, you'll note the community does support linked dates under certain circumstances. For this reason it's impossible to remove them in a purely automated fashion (and I would argue even semi-automated removal would be troublesome; who decides what date links meet the criteria?). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am concurring with Guy here; I'm not seeing the big issue, given that this is a task that will eventually need to be done. Poor timing? Perhaps, and it's been requested that the bot be stopped in the meantime. A polite, simple response was all that was needed, not further endless drama. You seem to have a habit of doing just that, in fact. Edit warring over dozens of articles hundreds of times, filing multiple frivolous AN3 reports in a few days, posting a frivolous report at WQA, accusing others of bad faith at the RFC, and now this. That's a lot of work for someone who is 'retired'. I see no administrator action required here, and I see no consensus either way to conduct any action. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The complaint here is completely unjustified, and is just one more in the string of attempts by the plaintiff to block, intimidate and harass editors whose actions are contested for no good reason other than I don't like it. They have tried WP:AN, WP:AN3 WT:AWB successively on LM, Lightbot, myself, and a string of others. The results of that, and the emerging consensus are crystal clear, and not crystal ball as they claim. Fundamentally, their dispute here hinges on the allegation that (a)the edits are "controversial" and (b)that LM is editing way too fast. If you take note of the fact that it is just two people shopping all over different WP fora creating all the noise and exploiting all manner of technicalities - it falls some way short of most people's definition of the word "controversial". As has been pointed out, it's perfectly legitimate and sensible to use these semi-automated tools to do the grunge work of this sort of cleaning up. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your discomfort with Wikipedia rules is certainly understandable and, well, predictable. Calling them mere "technicalities" is about your only option given your continuing incivility and disruptive behaviors. By the way, when are you going to fix the editing mistakes you made to 60 articles with your Date delinker alternative account? You can find the list of articles needing correction in your discussion archives here. Tennis expert (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• (A) Your bias, Seicer, is once again overwhelmingly apparent and very unfortunate for an administrator. You really should resign. Let's look at just one of your misrepresentations, my report of the recurring incivility of Ohconfucius at WP:WQA. Here is the report in case you can't be bothered to re-read (or read) it yourself: "This user for the last couple of months has repeatedly engaged in incivil and harrassing behavior directed toward myself and others. Examples (there are many others) can be found: (1) here, where he claimed that myself and certain other editors are "terrorists"; (2) here, where he felt compelled to criticize someone else's post with "ZZZZZZZ", as in "you're boring me"; (3) here, where he again felt compelled to criticize someone else's post with "BIG YAWN"; (4) here where he attacked myself and another editor for opposing someone's RFA; (5) here, which was a paragraph-long stream of incivility directed at myself; (6) here, where he accused various administrators of being communists and engaging in Stalinism; (7) here, where he criticized an editor's behavior as "defensive-aggressive"; and (8) here, where he accused me of asking a "stupid" question. See this block of Ohconfucius in November for incivility, among other things." That report is still pending, which is very strange for something so "frivolous" (your words). The only comment so far has been this, "The incivility from User:Ohconfucius linked to above is undeniable and undesirable." Hardly a conclusion that a "frivolous" report deserves. (B) I'm still waiting for you to correct your blind reversions of edits to several articles. See, for example, Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. 27 days should have been more than enough time for you to correct your mistakes (or is it vandalism?). (C) Please provide a diff to support your allegation that I accused someone of "bad faith" at an RFC. Or are you just making it up? (D) Which AN3 report of mine was "frivolous"? Or are you just making up that allegation, too? Tennis expert (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• You are shooting youself in the foot, as usual. Anyone who looks at the diffs above will see that Seicer's changes were not "blind edits". Most appear to have been some with some thought and human grey cell activity behind them, I'm extremely tempted to redirect this extremely tedious matter to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Tennis Expert. Wake me up when it's time to go home. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The sheer length of the opening statement might have given it away already: Tennis expert and a few other editors are extremely upset to find that their strong feelings about retaining date-autoformatting and other chronological links are not shared by the community as a whole. We have seen successive waves of argument and attack at style-guide talk pages such as that of MOSNUM, and the talk pages of editors who are working hard to improve this aspect of WP's formatting. Please take this hubbub in the manner in which it deserves: salt in large pinches. Tony (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• As per usual Tony chimes in with nothing actionable or logical, only disparaging remarks aimed at diminishing the arguments made by those he opposes. Please stop engaging in ad hominem and consider using logic or reason for once. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• oh, the irony --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe if those so intent on making things go their way wouldn't engage in ad hominem we could actually reach some sort of compromise on these issues. I've repeatedly asked for this at WT:MOSNUM but those on the other side of this issue seem content to go on claiming they have consensus (when even a quick browsing of the results and a careful reading of the questions indicates otherwise). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I was never under the impression at any point in time that you were after compromise, because you may well have got it. All you have now is a landslide. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a couple of pleas, one in it's own section initially, asking for input on some way forward with auto formatting (giving up date links entirely). I disagree with your assessment that this is a "landslide", a careful reading of the RFC shows the community is fine with auto formatting and really only supports delinking dates linked solely to be auto formatting. Question #3 and beyond indicate continued support for date linking of some kind (though not every date should be linked). Again, if you'd like to consider auto formatting and a compromise on it I'm willing to discuss it civilly. But so long as you constantly claim "Mission Accomplished", it'll be hard to do that... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• An Œuf is enoeuf. It's quite a separate issue now that it looks like date linking for the purposes of DA will deprecated, and that date linking will soon be dead as a Dodo. You need to find your own consensus on that one, amigo. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't helping. The sooner you stop trying to beat me over the head with your claims of consensus, "landslides", etc. the sooner we can have a civil discussion. Maybe you could prove me wrong about you and actually try to engage in something that might lead to a compromise. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think I was being uncivil at all. I'll cut it down to bare essentials for added clarity: What you want 'new' is a separate issue, separate consensus required. Put another way, DA is dead, long live DA! ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not new though, auto formatting already exists and the community (at the RFC) either (at best) wants auto formatting or (at worst) has no consensus. But since auto formatting is something we already have, a "no consensus" decision defaults to "keep auto formatting". Now it's time to determine how we want auto formatting implemented, and this is where I would appreciate your input and help in devising something we can all accept. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So, let me ask again. What administrator action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat, Sort Of

IP 69.138.182.154 (talk · contribs) has removed information from the DeAngelo Hall article twice now, with the edit summary "The deleted content was slanderous in nature, and could result in legal action against Wikipedia." [79] I know this isn't a direct legal threat, but it seems to hedge up against using a legal threat as leverage to get your way in a content dispute. I figured it would be best to bring it here for admin attention. Please note I'm not commenting on the quality of the edit here, just bringing it to more experienced eyes. Dayewalker (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just warn, I think, nicely, and with links to policy. The edit was squishy and probably a BLP vio (though the legal threat is more than thin). IronDuke 06:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally believe statements of that sort qualify as in-spirit violations of WP:NLT: they are used for the same sort of bullying during disputes that direct legal threats are, and have the same potential for discouraging good editors. While I don't suggest a block at this point, I do believe these sorts of statements must be discouraged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So educating people who need educating about extremely important issues should be discouraged? I think letting ignorance continue on unabated should be discouraged. It's not an in-spirit violation of anything, and it was absolutely correct. To even talk about a block is discouraging good editors from doing what should be done. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remember DOLT--Ipatrol (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Poorly done, but a good edit, nonetheless. BLP violation sourced to a blog? Should be removed. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection and wholesale removal of content at Joseph Farah against consensus

Resolved

 – Stubbing has support, disagreements over how to expand from here can take place on the article talk page.

Could someone take a look at Joseph Farah please? After the article's subject wrote a column trashing Wikipedia for some vandalism that appeared on the page, User: Sarcasticidealist protected and then proceeded to remove all content from the page, without so much as justifying the change on the article's talk page. Thanks! 76.210.68.126 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was not compatible with any of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, or WP:RS. I made several attempts at removing the offending parts before realizing that everything in there that was based on reliable third party sources could be summarized in one sentence. I reduced the article to that single sentence. I am in favour of it being expanded, provided it can be so-expanded in compliance with our content policies. In the meantime, the article was causing Wikipedia embarrassment and providing unfair coverage of a living person. As to the allegation that any of this was done against consensus, the article talk page had been inactive for several months, and none of the issues I raised had been previously discussed there, so that allegation is plainly false. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If the edits you made to the page weren't against consensus, we wouldn't be discussing it here, would we? Please rv. 76.210.68.126 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look through your edit history and found [80], from which I have concluded that further interaction with you would amount to feeding the trolls. If any editor in good standing has concerns with my action, I'd be pleased to discuss them further, though I'd suggest that Talk:Joseph Farah would be a better venue than here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, this is a dynamic IP. I'd still like an admin to review the actions of User:Sarcasticidealist, please. 76.210.68.126 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I looked at the edits in comparison to the sources, and wholly endorse Sarcasticidealist's actions. WP:BLP, in particular, is a policy which cannot be beaten by consensus--not that any consensus was evident on the talk page in any case, as those issues hadn't really been raised there. Please go read and internalise WP:5, WP:BLP, and WP:BRD before commenting further. I have commented in a similar vein at the article talk page. //roux   05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks okay to me too. Grsz¹¹ 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a hot one. 76 actually wants us to believe that it's pure blind luck that the same IP that posted the vandalism calling Farah a homosexual also started this thread. Just a coincidence. Not the same editor at all.

Excellent work, SI. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can have a decent article here, and some of the previous content might be reusable, but a lot of the previous content was "sourced" to some pretty partisan stuff and overall it looked like a subtle hatchet job. I don't think SI has a bad idea at all in letting things cool off and starting over, nor do I believe our anonymous editor here has a significant interest in writing a neutral article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}: 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of the content from wnd.com can be restored per WP:SPS--It's Farah's website, and his self-disclosure is fair game for things like, oh, his Lebanese ancestry. However, since Farah may attract the ire of some here, I think it would be reasonable to put him on WP:BLPWATCH and indef semi the article to avoid repeat trolling: not like he needed another reason to dislike Wikipedia... Actually, on second thought, do donations go up when wnd.com bashes Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's some room for using Farah's own articles per WP:SPS. With regards to the Lebanese ancestry, Farah took the position in correspondence with me that it (and more especially his religious beliefs) was unduly emphasized in the other article, which I think is a reasonable concern. I'd rather not re-add any of the self-published stuff until we have a solid core of an article to build around, which I think has to come at least in part from third party stuff (and, if course, if none of that can be found, then the article should just be deleted). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he had one valid point and one only, which was the vandalism. A lead sentence "Joseph Francis Farah is an Evangelical Christian American journalist of Lebanese and Syrian heritage" based on his own information is hardly overemphasis. His complaint of vandalism was of course justified, but we are basically moving in the position of removing the biography because he does not like it. He has a site, and we can say what he posts on it is what he posts on it. Given that among the present lead stories is "Don't be afraid to champion truth of Scripture" i do not think his protests about over-emphasis on religion hold water. DGG (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that stubbing for now was a good thing. Some of the old content should be added back in but it should be done so carefully. Incidentally, Farah has written an op-ed about the matter [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 here]. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone try explaining to this putz guy the difference between 'slander' and 'vandalism'? HalfShadow 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Halfshadow, your attitude is appalling: he didn't sign up to be covered by "the encyclopedia anybody can edit", and it's not incumbent on him to accept that one of the top Google searches for his name might call him a homosexual for a couple of days. Nor is it incumbent on him to accept that we provide a platform for his detractors to libel him. We took it upon ourselves to have an article about him, and it is morally incumbent on us (and to some extent legally incumbent, though this incumbency probably falls to editors rather than to Wikipedia) to prevent this kind of libel. The brief answer to your suggestion is that there *is* no difference between 'slanderlibel' and vandalism, at least not where the vandalism is libellous. Suggest you give your head a shake, putz, Sir. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In order: It's capital 'H' capital 'S', the depth of my apathy concerning what you think about my 'attitude' would either frighten or impress you, nobody does - what's your point?, I agree but screaming 'Lawsuit!' should never be step one, we don't and when we find it it is swiftly reverted or deleted, we do and it's called 'vandalism patrol' but as I said a lot goes through here in a little time - things are bound to be missed and 'Bite me.' HalfShadow 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

People get understandably very upset when such material shows up on their Wikipedia pages. Such material is libelous(note not slander. That's a distinction someone should actually explain to Farah)- the main reason we get away with it is because Wikipedia is a common carrier. Insulting BLPs because we don't do a good enough job dealing with vandalism is not good. Hopefully we will switch to sighted versions at some point and this sort of thing will be less common. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You wish... :( -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many edits go through here in a five-minute period? I don't see why we should take grief from him simply because it wasn't seen immediately. If I see vandalism, I revert it; if I don't see it, I can't. I have no reason to believe this is any different for any other legitimate user. Oh, and when he's not insulting us ("...wholly unreliable website run by political and social activists promoting their own agenda...", "...a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution...") He's trying to sell you his book. Autographed. HalfShadow 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is a not so unreasonable reaction if you were in his position. And promoting his book is how he makes money. I still see no good reason to insult him here. Now, I need to go back to work but I think we can reasonably mark this thread as resolved and people with time can go look at the earlier versions of the article and very carefully see what should be restored and how. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

76. is obviously trolling, but the greater concern is that Farah's current column is asking for help in "dragon-slaying" - i.e., exhorting his readers (who are, in my opinion, some of the biggest crackpots and cranks on the Internet) to take action against Wikipedia. I suggest we need to be on guard for this one in a big way, and that the Foundation needs to get in Farah's face over his claims immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is unfortunate, but strongly disagree that that is our greater concern. Our greater concern is fairness in the treatment of our subjects. Moreover, none of our subjects have a duty to consent to this sort of treatment; that they have very little effective legal recourse against this treatment makes it somewhat more understandable that they'd resort to vigilante-ism. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. However, frothing at the mouth in a column and declaring war instead of, perhaps, correcting the article oneself (and yes, I know he says he tried to correct 'inaccuracies' in the past and was reverted) is a touch of an overreaction. I'm curious as to how he tried to contact Wikipedia prior to writing the column; did he contact OTRS? Did the ticket get caught in a backlog? Did he phone the office and leave a message on the weekend? Did he try to phone Jimbo, who was out of the continent this week? At any rate, my point is that we may have a lot of WND readers joining the party to try and avenge Farah, so we should watch for that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Abusive editing at Charles Foster Johnson and Little Green Footballs

There's a bit of an odd situation going on that seems to involve sockpuppetry and abusive editing.

A little bit of background info... Charles Foster Johnson is the webmaster of the Little Green Footballs blog. Although a conservative he rejects the Barack Obama "Nirth Certifikit" controversy as a conspiracy theory, resulting in many alienated and angry former fans.

This started when User:LGOutcast began POV-pushing and vandalizing the Charles Foster Johnson article. He was indef-blocked the same day he started editing, the 8th, with administrator Tanthalas39 protecting his talk page.

IP address 98.194.194.45 starts editing by complaining about Tan on the talk page of another administrator involved in the blocking of LGOutcast, slakr. He then proceeds to take the same argument that LGOutcast did. Soon after, he is joined by a very blatant Single Purpose Account, User:LittleGreenVolleyball .

Aside from general tendentious behavior that's seen LittleGreenVolleyball blocked once already, the accounts are attempting to merge Charles Foster Johnson into the Little Green Footballs article. I suspect there is sockpuppetry going on here, probably with an experienced editor at the wheel, and feel it should be brought to the community's attention.

• Special:Contributions/LittleGreenVolleyball
• Special:Contributions/LGOutcast
• Special:Contributions/98.194.194.45

McJeff (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say your report easily passes the WP:QUACK test, although the non-blocked accounts (LittleGreenVolleyball and the IP) haven't been active for a few days. Anyhow, I've blocked LittleGreenVolleyball indefinitely on principle for block evasion/abusing multiple accounts; the IP I've left for now as it may be dynamic. Please re-report if there are any more problems. EyeSerene^talk 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of user's own talk pages?

Are currently active editors allowed to have their own user talk page deleted via WP:CSD#U1 (a la {{db-user}})? I was under the impression that they did not qualify because these sorts of talk pages were "useful for the project." --Kralizec! (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so..only in a case of right to vanish..--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly my understanding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, deleting the whole history of a talk page is only done through WP:RTV and never with a CSD tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. User talk pages should only be deleted in conjunction with one's exercising of their Right to Vanish. — Satori Son 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages means that only admins can review the history of warnings received by a user, and then only at some inconvenience. Deletion is not something that should be done lightly. Of course, users who aren't intending to come back are an exception. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A user can blank his talk page, showing that he has read any warnings there, but leaving them in the history for all to read. He generally should not be able to delete it. I would delete a User page (but not a talk page) at the request of a user. Edison (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. We may need to fix the WP:RTV page. We currently have there "To vanish more completely, you may wish to blank your userpage, talkpage, and any subpages in your userspace, and/or tag them with {{db-user}}, which will notify administrators that you wish them to be speedily deleted." I was partly responsible for putting that there, and it may have been a bad idea. WP:LEAVE and WP:RTV go to the same page, so that's the main "how to leave Wikipedia" page, and it needed instructions on the various ways of leaving other than "vanishing", which I added. What should it say about this? --John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That advice follows from WP:U1, which says a user can request speedy deletion of their user page and subpages. Does that include their talk page? Maybe WP:U1 needs clarification. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some clarifying language[81] which also brings CSD U1 inline with WP:User page#How do I delete my user talk pages?. — Satori Son 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like deleting user talk pages as it breaks up conversations so other non-admin users can't follow previous discussions that happened there. I don't care about userpages and sub-pages though. I think it's better to just blank and protect talk pages when people RTV. Sarah 08:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing material that is factually accurate

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

Resolved

 – This is a content dispute. Take it to the talk page or to WP:DR.

Can a majority of editors remove material that meets the standards of WP:verify, and WP:reliable source? In the Shlomo Sand article there has been a series of reverts, in which I added, and others removed, the information that Shlomo Sand had belonged to (now defunct) group called Matzpen that was both Communist and anti-Zionist. It seems to me that since it is not disputed that Sand belonged to Matzpen, and it is also not disputed that Matzpen was anti-Zionist, deleting information that Sand belonged to an anti-Zionist group amounts to removing WP:verify information from the article that is highly relevant to the subject. This revert by PalestineRemembered [82] is one in a series of such removals of this information. To me it appears that a majority of editors are trying to outvote a core WP policy be removing information that meets WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute that doesn't require any administrator action. However, to address your question, policy trumps consensus... although you need to be sure that you're not making an original inference from the sources by going beyond what they actually say (even if it may be implied). Since you've been reverted, you should really be discussing this on the article talk page rather than continuing to insert the material - the relevant guideline here is here. You may also find some of the ideas on dispute resolution useful. EyeSerene^talk 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To say it another way, WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to include information in an article. WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS also need to be considered; merely because something is reported somewhere does not automatically make it relevent to an article, and one is not allowed to draw unsupported inferences based on that information, especially where those inferences are not themselves explicit. Beyond merely noting that, notions of "undue weight" and "novel synthesis of ideas" ARE open to interpretation, and as such should be considered a content dispute, which is properly handled via civil discussion on the talk page, or by starting any of the numerous dispute resolution methods described at WP:DR. Neither is ever a reason to WP:EDITWAR and using multiple reverts to force others to accept your point of view in a content dispute is a sure path to getting blocked. I am only speaking in general terms here; I take no stance on this article in question, only to note that if disputes exist, this is not the forum to solve them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very worthy and pithy question to ask, but not on ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nobody (as far as I can see) has deleted the sourced information that Sand used to be a member of Matzpen thirty years ago. What has been deleted, by several editors, and repeatedly reinserted by Malcolm, is an unsourced statement in the lead that Sand is a communist and anti-Zionist. Editors have quoted interviews in which he states that his positions have changed since then, and Malcolm has repeatedly been asked to produce a reliable source that Sand is still a communist and anti-Zionist. He has failed to do so, and in the absence of such evidence, the overwhelming (I think unanimous, except for Malcolm) consensus is that such a description should not be included, least of all in the lead. RolandR (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC):

The deleted material says that Shlomo Sand was a member of an anti-Zionist group. The information is highly relevant to an article in which the content is mostly given to his latest book (not yet available in English) in which Sand attempts to discredit the (what he considers) the foundational claims of Zionism. To remove a clear statement about the nature of his known past affiliation to an anti-Zionist Communist splinter group amounts to an attempt to use the article as political propaganda. I asked the question here because I think a WP core principle is being violated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But it hasn't been deleted; the article still clearly states that he left the communist youth group "to join the more radical Matzpen". This is wikilinked, so that interested readers can see in what way Matzpen was "more radical". I am concerned that it is not the other editors who are attempting to use this article as political propaganda, but rather that the insistence on inserting repeated references to Sand's political allegiance thirty years ago is an attempt to poison the well and to pre-emptively discredit his views. RolandR (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the information encyclopedic? There is no policy on this, everything is case-by-case and mediation and arbitration groups tend to give great latitude to the editors of the article to come to their own consensus. This is why just because a policy or guideline says something "should" be in an article doesn't mean it "must." Here's what you can do if the active editors have a majority or supermajority favoring a particular point of view:

• Use logic to argue your point. This doesn't always work, especially if the other parties' point is also grounded in logic.
• Look for a 3rd opinion.
• Claim an NPOV violation and either add substitute material or remove existing material so NPOV is restored. If the result is still NPOV take it to mediation, or in a worst case, arbitration. You better be right and able to prove it before taking anything to arbitration though.
• Re-assess the article on the WP:ASSESS scale, if it's a B- or higher article a downward assessment may be in order due to the article being "incomplete." Note that this can set off its own edit-wars, but it can also be used as a compromise position: "OK, I see the majority of editors think whatever should not be in the article, but I think that any complete article must contain whatever. I'll bow to the will of the majority but I will change the assessment from it's current B-class to C-class" may get a lot more sympathy than a revert war, assuming it doesn't start an assessment-revert-war of its own. By the way, if the article is GA or particularly A or FA, it's very likely to fail a review if there is an active content dispute and wind up as B or lower.

The bottom line: If you are in the minority, it's frequently best for the project to "give up" and let the article be incomplete than to spend a lot of time championing your pet cause. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is over one word: "anti-Zionism" [83]. If Sand belonged to the Communist and anti-Zionist group, Matzpen, what objection could there be to saying that, since no editor has contested that he had belonged to Matzpen? Certainly, the conclusion follows from the premises. Certainly few readers would know the Matzpen was anti-Zionist without that being said, and the information is highly relevent to the article because Sand has published a book on issues underlying Zionism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (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.

Misuse of making citations by an IP user

Resolved

 – Not the right venue for this. Black Kite 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185) whose referenced contributions on this article, were different from the relevant data in the source paper of Itabashi Yoshizo(2003),板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages on the basis of the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language."

Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits. Therefore the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have been monitoring this user, correcting a great deal of her/his wrong edits. Probably, that is why s/he invented some false citations as a pretext to justify her/his bad faith edits and to keep out of my corrections. By altering deliberately the cited data taken from the paper of Itabashi, her/his referenced contributions were different from the information of the original source[84], [85](upper and middle one), [86], [87](the lowerst one), and by adding a cited contribution whose relevant data is in fact not existent in the paper of Itabashi Yoshizo at all. [88](lower one) By this, I would like to make it clear that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation of sources, since this user altered the data given the Itabashi’s paper citied by this user.

Although this user seemed to acknowledge at least my accusation that he had abused citations in bad faith [89], basically s/he made no reasonable excuse for her/his wrongdoing [90],[91], but just tried to cloud the issue. Considering her/his attempts to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [92], [93], [94], [95].

False citations made by this user are listed below:

False quotation	Original source	notes
ɣapma 盒馬 (山 : mountain)	ɣapma 盒馬 (大山 : big mountain)	Initially, I corrected this wrong contribution made by this user, based on the academic research. After a while, s/he insisted on her/his previous wrong edit once more by making citation. So I had to correct her/his edit based on the source s/he cited for it.
mi1ra (蒜 : garlic)	mi1ra (韮 : garlic chives)
kuət-・ιəi	kur'iy	The reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Goguryeo word.
kata- (tough, firm)	Not existent in the original source	I removed the false reference note.
kari (犁 : plow)	kar- (刈る : to cut off)
so2ɸo(赤 : red)	so2ɸo (赤土 : red soil)	I corrected this edit made by this user, based on the source s/he cited for her/his contribution. After a while, s/he repeated this bad faith edit again removing her/his own previous citation. So I had to undo her/his unexplained deletion.

Above all, her/his misuse of making citations may not only degrade the authority of Wikipedia, but may also affect badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Wikipedia. However hard one may work to correct intentionally wrong referenced edits by trying to verify the correctness of citations, such cases will happen again and again, if there is no ban for abusing citations.

In order for this user not to abuse her/his anonymous IP by making further significantly disruptive edits with irresponsible attitude, the article Goguryeo language should be semi-protected as a preliminary measure until this case is finally settled.

Jagello (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RFPP. Having said that, it appears that this (as it was last time) is a content dispute. Black Kite 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And, I don't mean to be rude, but a report of this length is only going to delay action on your case. In my observations, long reports tend to get ignored. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jagello has tried short reports before (twice), and been ignored because the issues are too complicated for anybody else to understand. That's still the case, but it might be reasonable to do a long semi on Goguryeo language, so that the IP editor would have to open an account in order to edit it, and therefore would be more available for communication. It's not like there are vast crowds of people eager to edit this article on a thousand-year-extinct language. Looie496 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Since that's the case, I've watchlisted the article and dropped a message at Jagello's talk page. Hell, I have a degree in linguistics, I might as well use it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Webman1000 block for implied legal threat

I'm considering blocking Webman1000 (talk · contribs) (see also 189.137.164.252 (talk · contribs)) for the implied legal threat to Wikipedia left on my talk page along with three other editors and the talk page for Kink.com. It's obviously an SPA with a gripe against Kink.com. While not an outright "I will sue you." threat, legal action is implied. Before I issue the block, I'm looking for feedback from other admins about the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who received Webman1000's post on my talk page. Worth noting is that I, with at least one other editor, appear to be completely unrelated to this - I posted on Webman1000's talk page to advise them that they had deleted another editor's comments; other than that the only contact I've had with this editor has been to question why I'm involved with their "campaign". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(I've advised the editor about this discussion) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is it with all you people seeing "implied legal threats" everywhere?! There is no legal threat in there — it is just a rant by some incoherent dude who thinks he knows better than our legal council, and wants to give us the benefit of his 'advice'. Hesperian 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I saw it, and I won't lose any sleep over it. However, as I understand it, one of the points of WP:NLT is to prevent the chilling effect talk of the law has. This editor spoke of the cost I might have to personally bear if a legal action was taken, and signed off by saying "good luck". I've been around Wikipedia for a while, and I'm also fairly au fait with the relevant laws in my jurisdiction, so I didn't feel especially "chilled" - but this post was made to several editors, most if not all of whom had had no relevant contact with Webman1000. I personally do not believe that posts such as this should be made by the clueless to the impressionable. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely my view of it- one of the purposes of WP:NLT is to prevent one user from using fear of legal retribution to win arguments, the legality of someone who likely isn't a licensed lawyer providing what could be construed as legal advice notwithstanding (and I don't mean that as legal advice). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, a purpose of Wikipedia:No legal threats isn't "to prevent the chilling effect talk of the law has", else it would be Wikipedia:No legal discussions. WP:NLT is quite clearly limited to threats, not any "talk of the law". It is becoming more and more common for people to screech "legal threat!" any time anyone makes any comment on the legal obligations or vulnerabilities of Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians, or even uses a vaguely legalese term like slander. To threaten to block someone over such harmless comments is much more chilling than the comments themselves. Hesperian 04:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's not go OTT here, Theresa Knott | token threats 05:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I also have received a legal threat here on my talk page. I don't like it one little bit, I think this editor really is implying a legal threat, and at the very least being extremely uncivil. I'm asking the Wikipedia admin to issue this user a warning about their behavior, or even a temporary block until they shape up. I'm sick to death of this editor trying to bully other editors into towing his or her personal moral line. If admins don't do anything here, I'm taking this to mediation. This has gotten to be ridiculous. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the consensus here is that the comments were not legal threats and not blockable, which is fine. I asked for other admin's opinions, I got it, and I'll go along with it. I'm not particularly concerned about the message, but I do believe that this account is not here for anything constructive. I would like to note that I'm not one who commonly throws around "legal threat!", so I'm a bit perturbed to be lumped in like that. But whatever, back to editing. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The person in question didn't just talk about legal issues. They mentioned the financial implications for the person if they took action. That's intended to scare them off - in my opinion that's a threat. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you understand the difference between telling a child not to run on the road lest they get run down by a car, and threatening to run a child down with your car? Hesperian 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• They state; "... the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors ..." (emphasis mine) That is, in every sense of the term, a legal threat; it is used to try and make editors reconsider their evaluation on a subject and remove material for fear of "... lawsuits that will come ..." as opposed to being based on consensus or censorship concerns, which is exactly the situation WP:NLT is designed to prevent. -- TheIntersect (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you understand the difference between telling a child not to run on the road lest they get run down by a car, and threatening to run a child down with your car? Hesperian 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Assuming that this isn't a legal threat (and I'm still in two minds about that), I believe that it can be (and has been) perceived as a legal threat. WP:NPLT would therefore appear to be relevant, and I think an admin should raise the issue with Webman1000. WP:NPLT states "While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked." - Webman deserves to be warned if a future block may result from their actions. To date, the only contact with Webman1000 has been from regular editors who took umbrage at receiving Webman's missive. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO the rant is ill advised, and pretty flawed but isn't worth a block. If they persist in their behavior, I'll support a block for disruptive editing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely obvious that there's no legal threat involved here. The person is simply explaining what he sees as the legal situation and what could happen to Wikipedia if his interpretation of the law is correct. People weigh in on such topics all the time on any thread related to copyright concerns, and so forth. It's strongly worded, but even calling it uncivil would be exaggerating things. If anything it's a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to suggest that it was an attempt at censorship, legal threat, etc. The people complaining violated more policies then the person being complained about. People need to chill out and get a reality check. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, and I'm in no way denying that I may have violated a policy or two, but what policy/ies do you (or indeed anyone) feel I (or the original poster) have violated? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tautologist legal threats

Please see this. I'm involved and the subject of the threat, so I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look and indef block the account if my concern is substantiated. Looks like the various warnings (e.g., sockpuppetry, uploading copyrighted content with false attribution) are still listed on that user's talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh, for once I'd say NLT might be applied wisely by showing him the door, here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I've indefblocked until the legal threats (made to multiple users - see contribs) are withdrawn. Apologies for the cross-editing ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who did it right :o -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good block, whoever got there first. Reading through the talk page makes me wonder how they've lasted this long. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Eric returned... LOL... good thing it happened after your RfA Jclemens. ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't have minded him showing everyone firsthand what prompted others involved to commend my patience and/or excuse my lapses thereof. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there even a real court thing because now he's accusing you of subpoenaing him...?--Smashville^talk 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this, I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but have to wonder whether there's some underlying psychological issues involved here. The entire talk page leans towards being very paranoid. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, even if somehow someone decides WP:LEGAL does not apply, he is making all kinds of paranoid accusations and attacks against Jclemens...--Smashville^talk 22:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My skin's thick enough, I just don't want him unleashed back on mainspace with that sort of vitriolic attitude. Fact is, once he was out of the picture, all the rest of the editors involved in a couple of articles (Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God) were able to quickly come to consensus versions without the BLP and unreliable sourcing issues that had plagued all of his edits. If he's staying blocked until he admits that WitchieAnna never existed and he made up the legal threats, I'm fine with it. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, I'm inclined to agree. The legal threat was, in one sense, a fortuitous 'open-and-shut' block, but unless they have some kind of Road to Damascus experience I see no benefit in their returning under any circumstances. EyeSerene^talk 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Bernie Madoff.png

Resolved

 – Image speedily deleted by Fred Bauder. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone speedily delete this image under NFC #12. This image is taken from CNN, and is not a free image. Another user keeps inserting the image into the article after being told numerous times that the image is not acceptable. Thanks. miranda 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Image:Bernie_Madoff.png. Images of Bernie Madoff are readily available on the internet, see http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=3&q=%22Bernie+Madoff%22&btnG=Search+images but all seem to be copyrighted. It is possible we could eventually get a mugshot, or since he will be appearing in court in New York, someone could take a picture. Fred Talk 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Psch1986

Recent edits by Psch1986 (talk · contribs) appear to me to be both spammy and in an inappropriate in tone. Should an admin roll them back? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped a uw-spam3 warning on said user's talk page. Should they continue, I or some other admin should block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to be amenable to working within Wikipedia's policies regarding external links. See my talk page and his talk page about this. If anyone else wants to chime in at his talk page, feel free, but I don't see this as blockable right now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted his edits since December 13th, as they were clear WP:EL, and in some places WP:COPYVIO violations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

problems with printing out some pages

Please try e.g. to print out the article on Foucault. IOt does not work well! The pages 3 and 5 (out of 10 total) persistently do not print. Also, printing out a Discourse article (5 pages total) you will always get p. 3 without text (as if the page setting of the pages is in white colour so it does not show up). The only way is to block it and paste to Word, then the printing can be done. This is just to bring to to the attention of the Administrator. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.53.11 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had difficulty printing RFAs and articles with {{reflist|2}}. The former print out as almost nothing. The latter have references that extend outside their columns. It's two separate problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't something that admins can deal with (unless the fix somehow involves editing protected pages, which I guess isn't impossible). I think the best place to raise this would be on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Similar concerns have appeared on Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page in recent weeks. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a familiar problem. Last time it sprang up, I recall it was because the discussion headers specifically instruct not to print within that area via CSS. I couldn't print out AFDs. RFAs probably use the same coding. The worst part is, it's substed, so any change needs to be done on hundreds of pages. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A workaround is to use a browser like Opera that lets you view in "author mode." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic hoaxer?

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

This is kind of a strange pattern for a vandal, but Lolcory, a new user today, has only done the following since his arrival: He created Henzar and Henzag, then he vandalized Antisemitism twice 1, 2 and Mein Kampf once. Since the articles are rather long and unreferenced, I think they're probably hoaxes. It looks like he copy-pasted some real text from somewhere and stuck a fake name in. I'm not really sure about the best deletion procedure. I'll give him a vandal warning and a link to this thread. Anything else we should do? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We can delete both of the "articles" as being blatant copyright infringements of http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/redriver/index.html, then block the account on the basis that (s)he is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Did I miss anything out? _Gb^T/c 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why rush to block? First articles suck? Wouldn't be the first editor. Let's give them the rules, see how it goes. ♪BMWΔ 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

its not so bad the much the bad articles but hte weird edits to antisemitism and mein kampf, which are rude, racist, and inflamatory. Smith Jones (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And AGF does not apply to editors whose names begin with "lol". :-) Looie496 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Bernie Madoff.png

Resolved

 – Image speedily deleted by Fred Bauder. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone speedily delete this image under NFC #12. This image is taken from CNN, and is not a free image. Another user keeps inserting the image into the article after being told numerous times that the image is not acceptable. Thanks. miranda 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Image:Bernie_Madoff.png. Images of Bernie Madoff are readily available on the internet, see http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=3&q=%22Bernie+Madoff%22&btnG=Search+images but all seem to be copyrighted. It is possible we could eventually get a mugshot, or since he will be appearing in court in New York, someone could take a picture. Fred Talk 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Psch1986

Recent edits by Psch1986 (talk · contribs) appear to me to be both spammy and in an inappropriate in tone. Should an admin roll them back? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped a uw-spam3 warning on said user's talk page. Should they continue, I or some other admin should block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to be amenable to working within Wikipedia's policies regarding external links. See my talk page and his talk page about this. If anyone else wants to chime in at his talk page, feel free, but I don't see this as blockable right now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted his edits since December 13th, as they were clear WP:EL, and in some places WP:COPYVIO violations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

problems with printing out some pages

Please try e.g. to print out the article on Foucault. IOt does not work well! The pages 3 and 5 (out of 10 total) persistently do not print. Also, printing out a Discourse article (5 pages total) you will always get p. 3 without text (as if the page setting of the pages is in white colour so it does not show up). The only way is to block it and paste to Word, then the printing can be done. This is just to bring to to the attention of the Administrator. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.53.11 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had difficulty printing RFAs and articles with {{reflist|2}}. The former print out as almost nothing. The latter have references that extend outside their columns. It's two separate problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't something that admins can deal with (unless the fix somehow involves editing protected pages, which I guess isn't impossible). I think the best place to raise this would be on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Similar concerns have appeared on Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page in recent weeks. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a familiar problem. Last time it sprang up, I recall it was because the discussion headers specifically instruct not to print within that area via CSS. I couldn't print out AFDs. RFAs probably use the same coding. The worst part is, it's substed, so any change needs to be done on hundreds of pages. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A workaround is to use a browser like Opera that lets you view in "author mode." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic hoaxer?

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

This is kind of a strange pattern for a vandal, but Lolcory, a new user today, has only done the following since his arrival: He created Henzar and Henzag, then he vandalized Antisemitism twice 1, 2 and Mein Kampf once. Since the articles are rather long and unreferenced, I think they're probably hoaxes. It looks like he copy-pasted some real text from somewhere and stuck a fake name in. I'm not really sure about the best deletion procedure. I'll give him a vandal warning and a link to this thread. Anything else we should do? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We can delete both of the "articles" as being blatant copyright infringements of http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/redriver/index.html, then block the account on the basis that (s)he is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Did I miss anything out? _Gb^T/c 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why rush to block? First articles suck? Wouldn't be the first editor. Let's give them the rules, see how it goes. ♪BMWΔ 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

its not so bad the much the bad articles but hte weird edits to antisemitism and mein kampf, which are rude, racist, and inflamatory. Smith Jones (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And AGF does not apply to editors whose names begin with "lol". :-) Looie496 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CARLMART continuing unsourced article creation after block expired

CARLMART (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for one month (old ANI report) because he repeatedly created unsourced articles which turned out to be false, and has not offered any explanation for his conduct as requested by the blocking admin (again, he has never once edited in the Talk or User talk namespaces in over a year and 1000+ edits despite numerous warnings about his conduct). Instead, after his block expired, he immediately started creating his usual form of unsourced articles again: Iranian Mexican and Afghan Chilean. After some examination of other page histories, it looks like he was also editing while logged out to evade his block, with his usual unhelpful habits (e.g. here claiming that some sportsman is a "Prominent Korean-Spaniard" when nothing in his bio indicates Korean citizenship/ancestry, or here claiming that there are a large number of Iranians in Venezuela). IMO this guy needs to be blocked indefinitely, as suggested by others in the last thread. cab (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Without communication between editors we're nowhere, WP:COMPETENCE, etc etc. Per the last discussion I'm assuming there's consensus for this, I've indef-blocked. --fvw* 06:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse Fvw's block. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand when dealing with chronically disruptive editors who cannot seem to "get it" after a myriad of chances. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; every article has a talkpage and every editor has one too - it therefore presumes that dialogue is considered to be an essential tool. Anyone disregarding the facility is unlikely to be contributing in an appropriate manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Does this article (Armenians in Japan) seem related to the above? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Higly unlikely, as it has a few references and was made by a different editor. A lack of referencing appears to be the problem with CALMART's articles. Then again, I doubt that particular ethnic group is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lear 21

User talk:Lear 21 keeps insisting on putting the EU flag in Template:Infobox German Bundesland despite the consensus on the talk page against it and it going against WP:Flags could someone stop him please.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lear 21 reminded of WP:EW and WP:BLOCK... EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A longstanding version (more than a year) of the Template:Infobox German Bundesland have been recently altered by two users claiming WP:Flags. There is no policy that suggests or recommends the edits done by these two users namely User:Barryob and User:Gnevin. The two users refuse to argue otherwise than upholding a "recommendation" of a "guideline" or are incapable of citing other arguments. Since Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus, I consider the established version as valid. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find there are at least 5 editors on the template and a page of talk . You can't ignore that just because it doesn't suit you Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Rassmguy again .. sort of..

This user, as some of you may know, has either had his account compromised, or was actually apart of either a small sockpuppet farm, or a massive one. I frankly don't really have the attention span at the moment to read through his five-hundred-word rant/tirade on his talk page. So far he has accused User:Zephyrad of operating multiple accounts, of violating WP:OWN, and stalking him. He of course has failed to assume good faith here. Up above the rant, I asked for evidence, evidence that I still have yet to receive; and this is when I provided a to what diffs were, along with requesting them.

For those of you not familiar with this user, and the ANI thread, please view the Checkuser/IP request archive request and the aforementioned AN/I thread. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WTRF-DT3 possibly copied on station's website

It seems---and let me stress seems--that WTRF-DT3's article is copied on the station's website without credit to WP: [96]

Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a note about this on the page but Metros/Either Way removed the note as "trivia". The Wikipedia page was up first before the company's website was. The company's website is a direct copy of the Wikipedia page. This also happened with WBOY-DT2 and [97]. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:18

• Wikipedia is free content released under the GNU free documentation licence - meaning that it can be freely distributed by the public without having to worry about copyright infringement. Now, if we copied the text from that site, then it would be a problem. But it appears we were the original creators of the text, as cited by NeutralHomer above, so it's fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the note stating that "we were first" go back up so another user doesn't get it confused that someone copied the page from the company website? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:24
    • I don't think it's a good idea to mention it in the article, as it would make it sound less professional - however, it might be a good idea to mention something at the top of the article's talk page. Or am I mistaken? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, that's not quite sufficient, Master&Expert. Our GFDL-licensed content can only be freely distributed by the public without having to worry about copyright infringement...if they comply with the terms of the GFDL. If WTRF fails to acknowledge the authors of the content, if they fail to include a copies of the GFDL notice and license, of if they fail to adhere in some other way to the terms of the GFDL, they are very much infringing copyright.

Now, the carrot usually works better than the stick in these situations. A polite email or phone call to the station – from someone cool-headed, with a good command of English – is probably sufficient. It's even possible that the web design company they hired nicked our stuff without the station being aware of it. Something along the lines of "We're flattered that you're using our article, and you're welcome to continue to do so provided that your site is updated to acknowlege its source and license. All content on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, which means this, that, and the other thing...and so forth. Wikipedia articles are written entirely by volunteers, who receive no compensation beyond public acknowledgement for their work...." You can also feel free to use some of the polite phrases from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten, you seem to know much of the policies and the language of them. If you want to give them a call, phone numbers can be found here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 21:51

• Just for reference, this edit of August 2 appears to match History of WVM Properties nearly word for word after the first 3 words. It is possible that they both came from a common source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• If we were first, the GFDL still applies, notably: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." [emphasis added] On the other hand, if the editor making that change grabbed it illegally, then we have to remove it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• This wouldn't be the first time that a media outlet (be it radio or TV) used their station's Wikipedia page word-for-word on their corporate or station website. Radio Station WDHC copied the History section of the Wikipedia page to their station's website....verbatim. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:41
  • Goes to show that Wikipedia is a popular website - which is why we must take our copyight policies seriously. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That is what I tried to show in this from the WTRF-DT3 page, but it was removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:46
      • Maybe the most important part of this is not so much to include that statement part of the article content, but to inform editors that the Wikipedia content was used on the company's website, so that editors don't use the station's website as a source to support the article content in the future - because that would be a circular reference. That could be done by entering the information as a comment in the Wikitext and also noting it on the talk page (as suggested by Master&Expert) in an infobox at the top. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't know how to enter informtion as a comment. If you want to do that, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:03

I haven't researched the article details enough to enter the comment myself. I'll place a note on your talk page with the wikimarkup for entering comments so you can proceed yourself if you want to. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That would work great :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:39

I wrote the comment to the WTRF-DT3 page. If someone wants to reword it or update it, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:52

There's a template for article talkpages for this situation... let me see if I can find it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Backwardscopyvio}} is the one. Take a look. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that it's probably not a great idea to mention the copyvio in the article text unless the copyvio becomes notable. It would seem to violate WP:UNDUE and it's not a great self-reference to make. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to change/update the intext comment, please feel free to do so. I put it there so there would be any confusion as to which page came first. Didn't want an editor "down the line" coming across the page and the corporate page and thinking someone copied the corporate page to Wikipedia (when it is the other way around). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 21:48

Well that's more or less the exact purpose of {{backwardscopyvio}}; it indicates to bots/editors that the article is not a copyvio of the link provided, but the other way around. I've added it to the talkpage now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia does not hold the copyright to the article, the individual editors of that articles do. If one of them wishes to do so, there are examples of letters that can be sent to the station. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to handle something like this is to notify the WikiMedia Foundation. If individual editors or admins try to handle it on their own, it will only lead to confusion. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WMF has the resources (and will) to ask every website that reuse our content without proper attribution to stop. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WMF are not responsible for the edits made by editors which prevents them from being successfully sued due to libel etc. I would imagine it would be considered quite contradictory to that position if the WMF started taking an active stance in defending the integrity of the copyright of its contributors. 131.251.141.117 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Baker (activist)

The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".

Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now reverted the article back to a very early version, removing nearly all the content. I will notify the article's author of the BLP policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the pre-snipped version may be viewed here. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has been reverted; this format I have never seen in an article before. It looks more like a user page. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Barryob and User:Gnevin

• Note: see also WP:ANI#User talk:Lear 21 above. EyeSerene^talk 09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A longstanding version (more than a year) of the Template:Infobox German Bundesland have been recently altered by two users claiming WP:Flags. Since this policy does not back explicitly the edits done by these two users namely User:Barryob and User:Gnevin, I User talk:Lear 21 kept upholding the established. I have introduced several arguments to the discussion while the two users refuse to argue otherwise than upholding a "recommendation" of a "guideline" or are incapable of citing other arguments. Since Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus, I consider the established version as valid and ask an Administrator to remind the users to stop edit warring while also reminding them start discussing. all the best Lear 21

I think you will find there are at least 5 editors on the template and a page of talk . You can't ignore that just because it doesn't suit you Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lear21, although I understand your wish to be heard, it's not really necessary to open a new thread and post the same thing in three different places ;) To address your comment, perhaps you are unaware that consensus can change? The old consensus might have been to include flags, but the new consensus seems to be that they should no longer be in the template. This decision violates no policies, so the other editors are perfectly entitled to make it. You rightly registered your objections on the template talk-page, but unfortunately failed to convince the other editors to change their minds, so I'm afraid this is something you'll just have to accept. The other editors have been reverting your edits to enforce their consensus - as long as they don't step over WP:3RR, this is legitimate and not regarded as edit-warring. Your reversions however, which were against the new consensus, were edit-warring. Most of us have been on the 'losing' side in content debates at some point, and although it's difficult (especially when it's something we care about), we expect editors to accept it with as much grace as possible and move on. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty there doesn't really appear to be a real consensus either way in regard to flags if they are using the template flag as those editors who dislike them have the option in their preferences to hide the appearance of them The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A collection of socks

Resolved

Rlevse has just completed a checkuser on a collection of socks. I understand that checkusers don't block, and that I need to request blocks here? Accordingly, could someone take a look at the results and take whatever action is necessary?

The currently unblocked usernames are:

• User:United Kingdom & Northern Ireland
• User:Mysong
• User:Mysongcutalongruth

The temporarily blocked usernames are:

• User:Spainton (blocked until 7th January 2009)

The apparent puppetmaster is:

• User:Cyrusmilleyhannana (blocked until 3rd January 2009)

I believe that these socks are all incarnations of User:Bennet556 and User:Nimbley6, however the checkuser was unable to determine that for certain.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked all of the accounts listed above indefinately, citing the checkuser case. This looks like what was needed here, as the CU case indicated clear abusive sockpuppetry to me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much - these socks have been a right pain on Scottish articles recently. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

good bye

Resolved

 – user indef blocked, IP handed a 1 yr block Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

okay man, i've had it with you and wikipedia - i left, don't bother banning me but if you can't resist, then go ahead and bring it on! you guys gave me a hard time, i'm done with this shit. see ya! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins might want to consider a block for the above Jouke Bersma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and also an extension of the block for his IP address 193.172.170.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to disruption, in light of this diff [98] and this one [99] as well as the above comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also this comment [100] which in addition to being uncivil, is also vaguely threatening, although I'm assuming it's just blowing off steam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Defamation

Last 2 months I am (and others) reverting 4 different SPA (user:I am Sario, user:I am Mario, user:NoseNDAh) and IP accounts (user:72.75.20.29) which are deleting well sourced Albert Einstein protest for killing of one of the founders of albanology Milan Šufflay with explanation defamation of Einstein.

Einstein statement is well sourced with 3 sources and 1 of this is New York Times [101] which is wikipedia reliable source. My question is if adding this Einstein statement in article Ustaše is is defamation or removing this well sourced statement is vandalism [102] ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking it is not defamation because you cannot defame the dead. – ukexpat (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember Mario; there seems to be some serious socking going on as expected. MuZemike (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified all recently involved in the edit-warring of WP:ARBMAC, and the likely consequences of continuing to revert the article (I am Mario is currently indefblocked and I am Sario only made three edits back in November). It's quite possible there is some socking involved, but WP:SSP might be a better place to bring that up. EyeSerene^talk 14:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that there was the same issues with the article Ustaše, so someone may want to review the characters there as well. Also, see User talk:72.75.20.29 along with my statement on Mario at ARBMAC for exactly how seriously they are taking this. We need to put a stop to it before they start harassing newer editors. I'm wondering about blocking 72.xx for repeating the ADL allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP is probably NoseNDAh - see User talk:NoseNDAh (though it depends how one reads it). Both are also probably I am Mario, given the edit patterns. I certainly don't have any problem with you blocking the lot, per WP:DUCK. EyeSerene^talk 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Go ahead with the block. My goal was to warn some of you publicly about this and other cases of political propaganda and public acts of defamation - spotted and exposed by other editors too - who were already blocked. What we are going to do - is outside Wikipedia and their 'experts' (EyeSerene, Rjecina, Ricky81682, etc). --72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:72.75.20.29 following the comment above and the further incivility at Ustaše. Can a checkuser please determine if this is rotating, static or what and block this mess? It's stressful to have constant "I'm going to report to the Anti-Defamation League as a Holocaust denials" threats from all over the place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It was the Ustaše article I looked at. At the risk of making myself sound even stupider than I really am, I'm still not completely sure who is claiming what, and about whom, and from which POV, with this whole circus. I know disruption when I see it though, and my watchlist grows regardless... if it's possible to get some checkuser help, that would be very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys but block or ban of user:72.75.20.29 is not possible because we are having 66.217.xxx.xxx (user:66.217.132.168) and possible user:85.165.239.70 [103] which has made maybe even 7 reverts in around in 9 hours in article Jasenovac (I am unrelated with that dispute)--Rjecina (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent IP disruption, I've semi-protected Jasenovac for a week (and will extend as necessary). EyeSerene^talk 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Peven Everett Page Submission

I am trying to submit a page for the Artist Peven Everett who is a notable artist. There is a black list on his artist name. I am an Authorized party in writing this page. He meets the criteria as a notable artist in the following ways (minimally) He toured with Betty Carter and acted as her Music Director. He has toured with both Wynton and Brandford Marsalis. He appeared in Marsalis On Music a Documentary with an IMDB credit. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1991691/ He was written about in the NEW YORK TIMES magazine http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DE1E39F936A15755C0A963958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FJ%2FJazz He has more than one release on a major indie label including ABB records http://www.shopabb.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=55 He was written about on more than one occasion in Straight No Chaser magazine http://www.straightnochaser.co.uk/issues.php?id=75 http://www.straightnochaser.co.uk/issues.php?id=24 He also appears in other entries on wikipedia including Roy Davis Jr, American Boy, and List of House Artists

There are many other credible sources to cite when composing this article In closing I hope I am in the right place and I hope this can be resolved. Thank you "StudioConfession (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)"

A far as I can tell, the page has been created and deleted twice, but the deleted page name is not protected and anyone is welcome to have another go at creating it. Having said that, once you begin the page, someone is likely to notice that you're creating a page that has already been deleted which may draw the attention of new page patrollers. Consequently it's a good idea to get all your ducks in a row as quickly as possible once you start writing. It might be worthwhile creating the article in user space first and then moving it to article space so you can work on it at your leisure. Incidentally the last two attempts were deleted as A7 speedies, so there's no previous consensus to overcome. If you have the sources you say you do, it should easily survive any attempt at speedy deletion. I don't know enough about notability requirements for musicians to have an opinion on whether it will survive an AfD, but I think you've got at least a fighting chance.

By the way, what did you mean when you said you are "an Authorized party in writing this page"? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "authorized party" claim - please read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. Sometimes being an "authorized biographer" specifically makes you unauthorized or, more precisely, strongly discouraged from, creating or heavily editing an article about that person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This user is obviously confused by the "Unauthorized" permission error which appears due to the subject's surname being on the title blacklist (there are at least two other reported false positives, see WP:AN). This is unrelated to the merits of the article they are trying to create. — CharlotteWebb 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonblock of ip address 157.203.42.50‎‎

I've anonblocked this ip address for one week for successive vandalism which culminated by a disrupted message posted to Talk:England. The various people have complained about this, saying that I should no longer be an administrator etc (on User talk:157.203.42.50‎‎), to which my response has been that if they had complied with editing guidlines and rules, an anonblock would not have been necessary. However, I would appreciate another admin looking at this and advising whether to unblock or not. I will of course, unblock if the opinion is that I should. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you did anything wrong, it's not blocking longer. Not-logged-in editing is a useful way of lowering the barrier for entry, but once it's just an excuse for trolls it's good to block that IP. --fvw* 12:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now had an anonymous IP user who claims to be an administrator unable to log on post to my talk page on User talk:Ddstretch#Block of Ip address 157.203.42.50. They do not state who they are. Can I ask just what is the status of this? Who was the admin, why can't they log on, or is it just an elaborate hoax? Should this matter be taken further? Unless one knows who is behind this message, and whether it really is an adminsitrator, then how can one give it any real attention?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, and am involved, so take what I say with the proverbial grain of salt... if they were genuinely an admin they would have told you who they were, and probably would have mentioned that they would re-sign once they were logged in. You mentioned on the relevant talk page where this was being discussed; if they were genuine they would (a) be aware of AN/I and (b) would post here - you linked here, anyway, so even assuming that they were the one admin not aware of this page they should be able to find it. Finally, they refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki" - just like the blocked editor (in its ALL CAPS and "I am Clay" guises). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very unlikely - Admins are IP-block exempt, and should in any case be familiar enough with WP to know how and where to raise issues like this (ie by e-mailing you as a first option, which will of course disclose their e-mail address). Good block. EyeSerene^talk 12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup it's a lie, admins can edit through all blocks :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Now for entertainment's sake, try and imagine what the RfA for someone who refused to sign their messages would be like... --fvw* 12:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I think the IP is trolling at the moment (all these messages are probably the same person), I don't think a 1 week block was warranted to be honest. There seem to be good contribs from that IP too. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what period would you have thought would be more appropriate? I'm open to modify it.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to the history of this IP, I personally have no issue with making anyone on that IP need a Userid to edit Wikipedia, FOREVER. On top of that, the "I'm an admin" threats appear pretty lame. ♪BMWΔ 13:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't unblock, and have more confidence in your decision making. This was a perfectly good block, and the user(s) of this IP are clearly trolling you with their claims of being administrators; that event in itself is evidence that you made a good block! If there is any genuine collateral damage, remind them to use the mailing lists to request a new account which will be allowed to edit. Beyond that, there is no compelling reason to believe you did ANYTHING wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have declined the unblock request of User talk:217.35.101.76, obviously related to this case. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. This was a good call to block the ip. We don't need or want users of this inclination. We're volunteers working hard. If they can't respect our site, then they shouldn't troll or goad administrators into blocking them. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And here: [104] is quite enough. This person is now using his right to edit his own talk page to troll. Make that was using his own talk page to troll. I have reblocked the IP for the duration, but removed the "Allowed to edit own talk page" option. As always, I am open to a review here, but IMHO, we don't need to waste any more time on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Revert  Done Block  Done Ignore  Done. EyeSerene^talk 14:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the responses. It was the degree of aggression in the responses that momentarily unnerved me, and which made me think it best to get other eyes on the matter, just in case I had slipped up, because I had never encountered that kind of response before.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

People fight back strongly when they get caught :-) ♪BMWΔ 14:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Anon couldn't call his dog & make it believeable. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting removal of 'speedy-delete tag' for Image

This Image is cited for deletion, although it is a film poster and has a fair use rational. Please remove it. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You should probably ask User:Kjetil r why he thinks the image should be deleted. Rest assured that deletion is not an automatic process. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott and Giano

In the interest of sweetums. MBisanz talk 16:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Archived as unhelpful drama--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Some over-the-top comments of no merit whatsoever, redacted. Users asked to drop grievances and ignore strength of feelings in this archived thread, and leave them that way, thanks. The do not need reinstatement. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Recently Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been subject to a misfortunate autoblock through no fault of his own. Theresa Knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appeared on his own talk page and showed a complete disregard for his predicament; instead, she played the civility cop against a productive content contributor, and placed a dubious block. After her block of Giano was lifted upon consensus, she appears to have provoked Giano into a ArbCom block. Her access to the ArbCom mailing list is a relevant factor to consider. The entire history is available here. Please review the entire conversation. I think there need to be consequences. Any restrictions should be placed by the community because the ArbCom has a conflict of interest in enforcing policies and guidelines against their own members and former members. Perhaps the following would be helpful: a community restriction that Theresa may not retaliate against or provoke Giano, and that Giano may not provoke Theresa. Giano's block is about to expire and I think it would be sensible to take action before the next drama ensues. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 15:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Thoughts? Oh please stop it. Not another Giano thread. This thread makes exactly as little sense as most of the Giano drama we've seen before. Don't people ever tire of it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Giano's block is going to end shortly. You know that drama will follow. Let's not stick our heads in the sand. We should confront the problem head on and deal with it. Jehochman Talk 15:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Drama wouldn't follow if people didn't create completely useless threads like this. We don't do "consequences" (aka punishment) and ArbCom wasn't tricked into blocking Giano. Close this thread and stop the dramawhoring. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Read WP:CIVIL and then refactor your post. Consequences are for deterrence and prevention too. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Ditto on AuburnPilot's comment; ditto on Fut.Perf's comment. This is just more excess being added to the pot. Let it be - move on, do something useful!--VS talk 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I've read WP:CIVIL many times, and I will not refactor my post. This thread serves no purpose other than to create unneeded drama. Giano responded to an autoblock by attacking another editor. Giano was blocked. Giano was unblocked. ArbCom blocked Giano per their own findings/remedies/etc. End of story. - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC) The only problem we had was, Giano was acting like a total [redacted] and Thereas was calling him on it. I have myself unblocked Giano on previous occasions, but this block I found entirely reasonable. Now, we already have a heaploads of extra rules about who may and who may not block or unblock Giano, what else do you want? You want another rule about what drama Giano may or may not cause? Seriously, man. Now, can someone close this thread please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) You can't call somebody a [redacted] on ANI. We just don't do that. Please refactor immediately. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I'm confident things will be peaceful, after Giano's block expires. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I wish so, but experience tells me otherwise. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Giano will likely continue to rail against Wikipedia "evils" and people will continue to post pointless discussions here; little changes. As for this discussion; it needs no admin attention, so can we just close it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Jehochman, please stop this. Arbcom can get things badly wrong. But they are the final stage in dispute resolution and are elected by the community for that purpose. With 350 odd people voting, they are more representative than any vocal little grouping that might want to get their own way, or take us in another direction. So called "community discussions" actually represent very small unrepresentative factions of the community that like drama and are disaffected with the group that the majority have elected. If the current arbcom is unrepresentative and evil, then relax, because most of them are about to be replaced with those chosen by the wider community. Arbcom can at times screw up (or at least in the opinion of those unhappy with their decision do so), by all means point out their errors (as I think you have) but having done that, drop it. This is system we have - and if you can't live with it, fine another project. I'm sick to death of Giano threads, I'm sick to death of the focus on this one user. Ban him, canonise him, write up WP:GIANO with whatever special rules you want, but leave the rest of us alone please.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC) [ECx6]Ditto on AuburnPilot's comment; ditto on Fut.Perf's comment. This is just more excess being added to the pot. Let it be - move on, do something useful!--VS talk 16:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Do you support their personal attacks? Is it OK to call an editor a [redacted], or another editor a [redacted]. How about enforcing the rules equally against all? Jehochman Talk 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A New Year wish 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. Can we have a complete moratorium on Giano-related drama for 2009? It seems no incident involving Giano can be allowed to pass without at least 50 users having their say on the matter. As far as I can see, none of it ever has any bearing on encyclopaedic content. How about wiping the slate clean on all sides of the dispute and trying to start from scratch on January 1? People must have better things to do. --Folantin (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Archived - moratorium started. Having a discussion about not having more discussions is really just more troll food.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:16, 16 December 2008 (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.

Death threats

Resolved

 – IP reported to the authorities, though threat may not have been one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

70.224.54.239 has posted a threat on an article, and probably needs to be blocked. Although it may not be likely that the vandal will carry out these threats, it is common practice to notify ANI in these cases. If consensus expresses that an abuse report should be filed, I can do it. NOT ALL ISPS IGNORE ABUSE REPORTS (although this is an AT&T IP). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours in the meantime. Dunno if an abuse report is merited, but definitely contact the police. Blueboy96 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are such death threats typically reported to the FBI? If so I don't think an AR would be necessary. In any case, the South Bend, Indiana police might be worth contacting, as well as the Indianapolis local FBI office since the threat was made across state lines. Contact info for the cops and the feds. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WhoIs, this IP address is registered to a "Private Address" in Chicago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:18

I'm reasonably sure that's in error or is just referring to the network backbone controlling that area (see the custname "rback4b"); South Bend is very close to Chicago anyway. The hostname (adsl-70-224-54-239.dsl.sbndin.ameritech.net) indicates it's a South Bend, Indiana address. You could also check the geolocate info which backs this up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

EC TrustedSource says that this IP belongs to an AT&T DSL customer in South Bend, Indiana, so I'm guessing it's either there or somewhere around there. Note that usually TrustedSource is pretty accurate, it's not 100% accurate; the IP is most likely based somewhere around there (or actually in the city or South bend). TrustedSource says that my Embarq DSL IP is based in Fort Myers, Florida even though I'm in Deep Creek, Florida. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll contact law enforcement tomarrow, unless someone else wants to do it tonight (or today depending on what part of the world you're in) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the contact information for the Chicago Police Department. Probably want to go with the non-emergency number. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:22

See my previous comment- this is not a Chicago address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My mistake, I guess WhoIs needs to update their information. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:26

I've contacted the FBI at http://tips.fbi.gov and asked them to contribute to the discussion here. A copy of the message I sent them is here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to FBI: to contribute to this discussion, simply click the edit button next to the text "Death threats." PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on the language you use in your message to the FBI; when one acts to report on-Wiki behavior to law enforcement he does so as a private citizen and, as the community have said many times, in the context of all manner of extra-wiki interactions one might have with non-Wikipedians, must be at pains to make clear that he or she does not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation or even for our particular project. The "you are welcome" and (particularly) the "we look forward" locutions suggest that you speak in an official capacity. Anyone is, of course, welcome to report putative threats to law enforcement (as a libertarian who would not support the criminalization of the instant behavior [who is disposed, for that matter, to support the disassembly of the body of criminal law] and who is disinclined to see taxpayer monies be used in frivolous pursuits, I do not undertake so to act), and for various reasons we permit such reports to be discussed on-wiki, but in its rejection (or failure to adopt) WP:SUICIDE and WP:TOV the community have made clear that we take no broad official position on how threats ought to be dealt with and most especially that once an editor in his or her individual capacity has reported a threat we must not permit the project to be disrupted any further; inviting a law enforcement agency to join in a discussion about a threat is altogether inconsistent with those understandings, and inviting in an official capacity is even more pernicious (and makes us look profoundly silly, but we need not reach that issue). Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's not a death threat. It may be otherwise criminal (although most probably not), but it's not a death threat. "I'm going to kill John Doe" is a death threat; "I'd like to kill John Doe", "I wish I could kill John Doe", "I wish someone would kill John Doe", "I wish John Doe would die", and any variants thereof are not death threats, at least to the extent that they are not said to evoke the same reaction from a target as would a death threat. Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What he said. C'mon people, use your noodles. Reporting childish vandalism like that to law enforcement is a tremendous waste of time and resources. L0b0t (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This didn't need to be reported, and the failure to explicitly note you are not a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation was extremely poor also. Daniel (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the harm with erring on the side of caution and reporting this. Look at it this way: it only goes to show that different people's views of credible threats vary significantly, including those in the media who latch onto stories of unreported threats of violence. The best position to take for the project is to report something if you consider it credible. As to PCHS' message... yes it could have been written better, but considering the circumstances... I think we should have a form letter for this sort of situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've written a basic page on a form letter here. Input and suggestions would be welcomed! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is almost at WP:Perennial proposals stage. Thus far, there hasn't been any consensus to support the promotion of a WP:TOV type page. There's two issues: 1) whether or not editors (or just admins) should be required to follow a policy mandating that they respond appropriately to threats of violence or suicide, and 2) if so, does it require that someone contact the authorities, or is there room for judgment? As far as I can see, opinions are widely spread and more or less equally divided. Trolls? Cries for help? There are very strong believers in both camps, unlikely to be swayed. So we get what we have now, which is a horribly predictable weekly reenactment of of "So and so posted made a TOV! What'll we do?!?". It's becoming farcical. Or Sartrean. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way; there's going to be situations where we should report a threat. I recall several from a little over a month ago. Shouldn't we try to encourage those reports to be straightforward for those having to read them? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been far more simple vandalism than this that has been brought to the attention of law enforcement, and the consensus at the time was to report to law enforcement. My proposal was to bring this to the attention of an ISP. :S PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you at all. The issue here is that we have an issue with meat world consequences (up to and potentially including criminal charges, death, etc.) that nobody can come to an agreement on, because they either see all threat-makers as childish trolls to be RBIed (0 cries for help), or they see them as 100% cries for help, and any failure to promptly call the authorities will surely result in a disaster. This stupid schism needs to stop before the confusion results in somebody actually following through on something they pledged on Wikipedia. The fallout would be immense. You think Siegenthaler Sr. was bad PR... Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 13:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The FBI should just set up a special web site labeled Click here to report anonymous death threats made over the Internet. (We thank our sponsors TOYS R US and DUNKIN DONUTS for their help.) Then anyone who feels wracked by guilt if they do not report every childish prank can drop their report and get a good night's sleep. The pranksters too can eliminate the middleman.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Swedish Ski team/Swedish bikini team!?

Resolved

 – 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Swedish Ski Team redirected to Swedish Bikini Team. Seems very stupid. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that they are the same thing, more or less, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Ski Team. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No way, Swedish Bikini team has nothing with it to do, Maybe swedish ski team is not notable for an article but the redirect schould be deleted if so. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff [105] - as originally created, they are the same thing. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, They are not, Seems to be a joke edit. Anyway i think we schould keep Swedish Bikini team as it is and delete the redirect from swedish ski team. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can someone see something on google that fits whit the diff? The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rolling Camel somewhat. Since Sweden does indeed have a national ski team[106]. having that term redirect to a beer commercial "bikini team" gag is a little silly. I've created a new disambig page. — Satori Son 20:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, these teams seem to be in pairs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued stream of personal attacks

In the interest of sweetums. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Over the last several days, Rtr10 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a series of personal attacks. I've repeatedly cautioned him on this issue, but the attacks continue apace. Before any of this began, he took the other side of the road in speaking to another user, where he said "No need for name calling here buddy". The attacks began on 11 December, and have continued since. On 11 December, I noted "If you can't keep your comments civil, then please do not post them". After his 23:15 12 December 2008 insult, I posted this response, where I warned him that further personal insults would be reported. This did not sway him. Rather the opposite. Instead, he stated that I "needed to learn the definition of insult" [107]. Today, he posted another insult, saying "Your little game is not going to work here" [108]. These attacks have not been constrained to me. Today, he attacked User:Betacommand saying "You should not be throwing around threats and ultimatums to other users. You aren't even an admin, so I don't know where you are getting the Holier than thou attitude" [109]. Further, he has twice claimed that I do not contribute to the project: 07:50, 11 December 2008: [110] "This particular user does not contribute any actual information to Wikipedia. Just does little nagging crap like this" 23:15, 12 December 2008: [111] "I skimmed over your Contribution history and didn't see a single case in which you were actually contributing useful content to Wikipedia. Just little piss ant stuff like what you are trying to do here." Other generally hostile comments: 07:44, 11 December 2008: [112] "Your are simply refusing to acknowledge it" (directed at User:Masem) 07:50, 11 December 2008: [113] "Seems like they might be a little less anal about this stuff" {generally directed at those who feel fair use logos on team season pages are inappropriate). 18:04, 11 December 2008: [114] "you have no clue about college football and really shouldn't be chiming in on the matter" and "Lord forbid you collect an informed opinion" (directed at User:Masem) 23:15 12 December 2008: [115] "You have to be the most ignorant and disrespectful editor I have ever come across on wikipedia" (directed at User:Hammersoft). Further, this user has also contradicted himself in regards to his belief of my good intentions, and is in violation of WP:AGF. On 11 December, he said "While I don't doubt User:Hammersoft is bringing this up with good intentions," [116]. Then on 12 December he says, "If you wanted to present yourself in good faith, which you have not at all" [117]. He's well aware of the WP:AGF policy, as can be seen here where he says "I'd also like to refer you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith". Yet, he chooses not to follow it. I understand this user has particular gripes with me. I've been insulted here numerous times before, including by administrators, and it really doesn't matter to me. However, his general hostility has been directed at editors in addition to myself. This latest set of incidents is not isolated. I've found evidence of hostility as far back as February of this year where he says "For you to single out Huckabee's page seems borderline vandalism" [118], in August of this year he says "for you to do anything and say it was "in good faith" is just a joke" [119] I ask that an uninvolved administrator please step in and take action as they deem appropriate. Please note that the simple application of at {{uw-npa1}} (or higher) or {{uw-agf1}} would, I think, be inappropriate in this case. The editor in question is well aware of these policies. Perhaps a {{uw-npa4im}}? Also note that I have chosen to cease communicating with this user. I do not wish to in anyway encourage such insulting behavior by an editor. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I doubt admin action (i.e. blocking) is appropriate here; to me it justs like you and he had a good faith editing dispute and both of you started to get annoyed. None of that stuff, bar the last diff which is rather insulting, is that bad. As for assumption of bad faith, well I don't see any; I just see a disagreement that got heated. Suggest you just both calm down.--Patton123 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) As I noted, I don't care about his actions towards me. That's irrelevant to me. What concerns me is an ongoing stream of attacks across a history of his contributions that are directed at a number of editors. Someone other than myself needs to talk to him to correct this behavior on his part. I don't see a need to block him either. I do see a need to strongly warn him of continuing this behavior in abstract, towards anyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I concur (based on reading - it's close to being WP:TLDNR) that none of this is truly contrary to WP:NPA. ♪BMWΔ 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC) What? Ok. My question then is, if the above do not constitute a personal attacks, just what DOES constitute a personal attack? Would you prefer editors routinely go around insulting people as the above editor has done without any question of wrongdoing? Is that the Wikipedia we really want to have? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC) So far, the two editors who have responded above are not administrators. Would an administrator please look into this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Yes he wasn't very nice but he didn't mean it. A personal attack is "your stupid" – this was "your opinion is stupid" He was angry. One should never edit while angry but he did so lets please forget this.--Patton123 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Would an administrator please look into this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I concur with Bwilkins... who I honestly thought was an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not an admin, and I have to say I am finding it hard to see the comments you have highlighted above as a "continued stream of personal attacks". I'd recommend ignoring comments made by the user in question - or at least not responding to them if they occur in future. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Plenty of personal attacks there, but nothing outrageous. I get a lot worse without anyone caring. Those are todays standards, alas; Wikipedia merely reflects the world as a whole. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <forehead slap> Ok, so I guess it's ok to run around and call people the most ignorant and disrespectful editor, holier than thou, anal and clueless. Right. Off to have some fun then, (not)insulting my favorite editors, and I'll be sure to inform Rtr10 that his behavior should continue (Done), since it's not insulting and is perfectly acceptable. Thanks for the advice (and I'm placing the resolved tag), --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Ummm, do you understand the irony in adopting this "solution" and that this type of approach is precisely the kind of thing that poisons the atmosphere? You may wish to reconsider and maybe go withdraw your remarks at Rtr10's page. Be the better man and all that. Just an observation. Wiggy! (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not interested in playing nuance games trying to figure out what it and what is not an insult. I spent considerable time highlighting this editor's behavior above, and have been informed that I am in error. Since I am in error, I took the progressive step of informing Rtr10 about this thread and that the participants found his behavior to be acceptable. I've been educated here as to best practices, and understand now that insults are not insults, and I shouldn't worry about them whether they be directed at me, other editors, or if I make them myself. I appreciate the education, have taken the appropriate steps to ensure best practices, and thank you for your time. The thread is marked resolved. Let's leave it shall we and let the horse rest in peace? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) From the tone, you're just not getting it. That "progressive" step was hardly progressive at all. More like a parting shot. Genuine peace requires genuine goodwill, methinks. Wiggy! (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I see perhaps one genuinely incivil comment, but no personal attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, they're compliments, and perfectly inline with our best practices. I understand completely now. Thanks for educating me, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC) If the impolite communications deteriorate later, then please report it. However, there is no admin action that needs to be taken at this point, and hopefully this will be resolved in time. I also hope that you will not resort to pointy editing as you seem to have indicated at 20:28. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC) As other editors and administrators have noted, there is no inappropriate behavior. As such, there's nothing to report, and most likely will not be anything to report as I'm sure his behavior will be inline with best practices. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantasticmv (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC) cannot create a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonezoo

It says

The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global (Wikimedia) blacklists, used to prevent vandalism.

can someone help?

It seems to have been fixed. --NE2 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment at my usertalk by User:QuackGuru

Resolved

 – User:QuackGuru blocked for one week. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified User:QuackGuru that he is not welcome to post article/content related discussion on my user talk page, and to take such discussion to the relevant article talk page. Despite these politely worded requests, his harassment continues. I have previously asked him not to post on my user talk page at all, but he has been informed by an admin that he is welcome to post on user talk pages as a form of dispute resolution. While I still believe a user should have control over their user_talk page, I respect the input from the admin, and welcome comments on my behaviour as part of dispute resolution. However, article content is best discussed at the article talk page where all involved editors can benefit from the discussion, and the repeated posting to my talk page is unwanted harassment. Hopefully and admin can find a amicable solution to this. DigitalC (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified QG of this thread. لennavecia 03:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Related complaint: User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Possible_3RR.2Fbullying_violation --Surturz (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It was bad faith by DigitalC to accuse me of wiki-lawyering and harrsment. It was bad faith by Surturz to accuse me of bullying. An editor falsely accused me of readding comments to a talk page. We have a lot of WP:AGF violations today. QuackGuru 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF does not mean OCTBIGFISOAETTC (Obstinately Continue To Believe In Good Faith In Spite Of All Evidence To The Contrary). Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Don't be the pot calling the kettle black. Besides, the user seems to be engaging in some soapboxery intended to harm Wikipedia and/or engage in Wiki-bashing callouts to Jimbo as well as Larry Sanger (see [120] and [121]). User seem to disregard every bit of advice and warnings given and to persist on biting the hand that feeds all of us. MuZemike (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks a short block of Quackguru is in order.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok after taking a look at what's been going on while I was trying to catch some sleep here's what I've got: Controversial information was added to the Chiropractic article again without any discussion on talk first - everyone involved should be completely unsurprised that this didn't go over well and you should have known better. The fact that Levine, Surturz and DigitalC all showed up to support the change on the article talk rather quickly looks a lot like you coordinated this effort; that's also not likely to go over well and you should have known better. QuackGuru then reacted very poorly and extended the dispute to other editor's talk pages even though discussion was ongoing at the article talk. He then furthered this disruption by attempting to force an editor to answer on their talk by edit warring; it doesn't matter that he changed the wording slightly each time, it had the same effect. Finally this same group of editors plus TheDoctorIsIn all arrived at ANI to complain about QuackGuru, again giving the appearance that you are coordinating your efforts.

On to outcomes: I have blocked QuackGuru for a week; he has quite a lengthy block log related to similar disruption yet has never given an indication that he understands why his behavior is a problem or that he intends to change it. As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article. Other editors have attempted to work with you for many months despite repeated problems. Because the article is under special ArbCom sanctions which you have all been made aware of, this acting in tandem to push material into an article or sanction other editors is unlikely to be tolerated for long. I would suggest that you return to liberal use of the talk page and avoid the appearance of off-site coordination in the future. Shell ^babelfish 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Shell Kinney's level-headed response to this problem. There is no "winning side" in this dispute, and both sides come off as appearing unseemly. QG did certainly go over the limit in his talk-page edit warring, to the point of harassment; the block was good. I would have also probably returned the Chiropractic article to the state it existed in before the contentious edit was made, and protected the article at that state to encourage talk page discussion on the matter, such an action would have certainly been against the rules, but a probably necessary action given these circumstances; however I cannot disagree with Shell Kinney's admonition to everyone to stop trying to WP:GAME the system. On the balance, this was exactly what the situation needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Block review for IP making legal threats

After making this legal threat [122] on the Joe Scarborough article, I have blocked 75.57.213.252 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) indefinitely. The IP had been reported to AIV for his/her half-dozen reverts to the article, but on investigating I immediately ran into the above threat. While I am cognizant of BLP and WP:DOLT concerns, I feel impelled by WP:NLT to block the IP until/unless we can figure what else to do. Though I recognize that we generally do not levy indefinite blocks on IPs, I was not sure what other duration would be appropriate here. Other admins who have more expertise with BLP and/or legal threats should feel free to adjust this block as they see fit. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the type of IP address we are dealing with. A checkuser may be able to help. On the other hand, his response here manages to be both uncivil and against WP:NLT. His entire mess has been in the course of an hour. I suspect 24 hours would be more than enough before he moves on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Abusive single purpose account

More random musing (talk · contribs) only edits at Akbar the Great, an article currently quite unbalanced in its perspective. I first had problems with him when he kept using blatant original research to tie the subject of the article to the Nazis, which he first introduced in June [123], and disputed before I came around [124][125].

He took one source for a dress code under Akbar and another source about a dress code for Jews under the Nazis (that didn't draw a comparison to Akbar), and drew an original comparison [126][127]

This is incorrect. Other sources also say Hindus of India were forced to wear discriminatory patches. I have addedd today one more source: [128]. We also know that Nazis forced jewish people to wear patches of colors to discriminate against them. More random musing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained too many times, the comparison to the Nazis was not found in any sources; this comparison was your original research. It is difficult at this point to believe that you still cannot grasp this. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. Article said, from a couple of sources, "in akbar's realm people of hindu creed were discriminated by having to wear patches of cloth on their dress". Then from another source the article mentioned "Under Nazi's realm jewish people were discriminated against by having to wear colored patches on there clothes". Both facts are well corroborated. So it is not original research. More random musing (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I painstakingly explained this violation to him [129], and after many unconvincing claims to not understand how it is original research [130][131][132], he eventually stopped (likely because other users were noticing his abuse).

Now, he is trying to mine quotes also to make Akbar look more "jihadi" than mainstream accounts [133]. I undid this extensive quote-farming [134], but he re-added it while describing my edit as "vandalism" [135]. I repeated with a greater explanation [136], which he again reverted suggesting my edit was vandalism [137].

While this went on, he also accused me of vandalism on my talk page [138], claiming that undoing large edits is vandalism (as if I should tolerate a big bad edit), and again [139], this last being my "final warning."

Yes I was planning on seeking help because you were not explaining why you deleted this [140] and this [141] which had been there till it got deleted as part of these bogus edits [142] , [143] and this revert [144]. More random musing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was "not explaining" why I deleted your quote mining? That's a dishonest description; I explained that you were mining quotes (ultimately from primary sources), further skewing the article. I don't know what some of those other edits are, some of them don't seem to have anything much to do with me - maybe they were collateral damage during a revert, but one of those you weren't using a source for anyway. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have just confirmed that you were not paying attention to what you were editing. Please be a bit more careful with your edits. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that in the past he has behaved similarly, with quote-mining, possible original research, and generally attempts to make Akbar look like an extremist by removing claims of moderation and very selectively exploiting sources to emphasize the alleged extremism:

• quote-mining [145][146]
• Removing claims of moderation (sourced or unsourced) [147][148][149][150][151]
• Very selectively using sources to present Akbar as extremist instead [152][153][154][155][156][157]

Now, I'm not sure how many of these really follow from the sources (he has shown himself willing to construct OR), but the general picture does not look good. He seems dedicated to using various forms of abusive or exploitative editing to skew the article against mainstream accounts of Akbar, and his single purpose nature is also suspicious. Perhaps he is a banned Hindu nationalist who has different accounts for different pages so that the pattern cannot be detected? Whatever the case, his editing has clearly been abusive and now he has been calling me a vandal. I haven't the slightest idea why we should tolerate this kind of editor. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More random musing has sometimes exceeded proper bounds, but generally seems to cite references for his addiitons. There is an element of anachronism involved here. Akbar the Great was liberal for his time, but followed many traditional practices which seem oppressive by modern standards. A balanced article would place him properly in his historical and cultural context and not compare his actions to modern practices. Fred Talk 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing references does not guarantee that it is not original research or out-of-context, as the attempt to tie Akbar to "Nazis" well demonstrates. That he cites so many (that can be difficult to check) is even more dangerous. One editor on the talk page stated that checked a few references and found them to be "neatly synthesised hoaxes," though I'm not sure if they were specifically from More random musing (I'll look into it). Aside from his blatant agenda and disregard for policy, his approach to disagreements has also been quite inappropriate, including calling others vandals and dragging his feet when confronted with explanations of how his edits violate policy or at least show no care for balance. It is very frustrating; it seems that he is not so concerned about our rules, but rather will ride anything to get where he wants. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A gnat

65.93.74.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.70.16.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 69.156.56.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 69.156.59.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP-hopping irritant. Any way this can be dealt with? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just those three IPs? Rangeblock? Are there a series of articles? Protection? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, those were just a few I picked out. See their contributions, they're all vandalizing the same pages, so the other IPs that are doing the same vandalism should be blocked, too, if possible. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If they all are vandalising the same article, should we semi-protect that article? --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock would be impossible. The smallest range to catch these all would be like a /6 or something like that; effevtively blocking something like 2-3% of all IP-space. Selective semi-protection and Whack-a-Mole seems the only effevtive means. A good idea would also be to have these IP addresses checked out at WP:OP to see if they are openproxies. If they are all the same person, then it seems unlikely that their ISP would represent such a wide range of IP addresses. If they are different people, this is likely some sort of /b/ style attack, and as such, whack-a-mole and protection is our only recourse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind on that, it is clearly one person. All of the IPs show up as Bell Canada IPs at WHOIS, meaning that this is likely someone taking advantage of a wide range of Ips being shuffled through a huge dynamic range. Again, it looks like unless we want to rangeblock ALL of Bell Canada (we don't) then protection and whack-a-mole blocks is all that will work here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightbot

I've only followed the previous discussion with this bot in passing, but isn't this the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be doing? JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. //roux   17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is his explanation: "I said that I would stop fixing these errors because I got frustrated. I am no longer frustrated. I see these errors still exist so I decided to start fixing the errors again. ... I find it hard to be persuaded that errors should not be fixed." Tennis expert (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is his alternative explanation: "Due to frustration at the hostility, I declared that Lightbot would not fix these errors. I was hoping that would stimulate somebody else to fix them. However, it seems that people are prepared to complain when others fix errors but are not willing to fix errors themselves. So I decided that I would start fixing them again.". Tennis expert (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The following are some links to related discussions regarding this bot: the operator's talk page and the old AN thread.--Rockfang (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And an additional discussion that started yesterday on the operator's talk page and has since moved to the MOSNUM talk page. Mlaffs (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing piped links is a bad thing? Why? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing piped links isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly when they're scattered throughout the text of an article. What's happening here is removing piped links from inboxes and tables. Removing piped links from an infobox or a table, where MOSNUM explicitly envisions they might be appropriate, is a bad thing. Removing piped links that provide valid contextual information, without replacing them with a link to that same information in a different manner, is a bad thing. Removing piped links, when a previous AN thread on the exact same issue was resolved by that same user saying they would no longer do so, is a bad thing. Mlaffs (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note: IIUC the 'bot operator's rational in the current sweep is that autoforatted dates ([[Month Day]], [[Year]] is incompatible/not allowed with a piped link. Accepting that statement on faith, it is reasonable for the 'bot to delink both halves of [[Month Day]], [[Tear in field|Year]] and point out that only autoformatting or piping may be used. The 'bot had been changed to do that.

The troubling thing is that it looks like the 'bot cannot identify when the mark up is in a 'box/table or in the body of the article text.

- J Greb (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be wise to wait until this is closed before making these automated edits. However unless the consensus changes wildly in the next days I see no community support for keeping these Easter egg links anywhere. --John (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the introduction to the relevant section of that RFC specifies that the discussion there concerns piped links in the body of articles, not within tables and infoboxes. The latter is the issue here. Mlaffs (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse also is removing piped links manually. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. So, regardless of whether there is a technical problem with Lightbot, Lightmouse obviously believes that piped links should be removed on sight. Tennis expert (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because some of these removals are in infoboxes and tables where they are permitted to be piped, the bot needs to stop removing any piped links unless it can distinguish between those that are permitted and those that are not.--2008Olympian^chitchat 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question:

• Combining a concealed link with autoformatting is wrong because it is a broken and invalid format.
• It has always been wrong.
• It is wrong if you like concealed links and it is wrong if you don't like concealed links.
• It is wrong if you like autoformatting and it is wrong if you don't like autoformatting.
• It was wrong before the RFC and it will be wrong after the RFC.
• It has never been permitted in any location on any page.

Those editors that are most involved in the debate about date links, should know why it is invalid. Those editors that understand why it is invalid and broken should be able to explain to those that don't understand. It is not a matter of opinion and I am tired of having to explain the valid formats for a technology that I don't even like. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of you confusing the issues. What I'm talking about is your (Lightmouse) systematic removal of piped links that have nothing to do with autoformatting. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not the topic of this ANI. Do you want to start another ANI? Lightmouse (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the topic of this ANI, and I recommend that you start participating fully. Tennis expert (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And I've just burned another chunk of valuable editing time fixing another large batch of articles where Lightbot has taken to stripping the brackets from both the month-day pair and the "year in radio" contextual year link even though simply stripping the brackets from the month-day pair would fix any possible autoformatting issue. (Sample diffs: here, here, here, here, here etc.) Given Lightmouse's earlier promises to stop stripping "year in radio" links and his recent dismissal of that promise as his being "frustrated" I feel we're well past the point of continuing to assume good faith. - Dravecky (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask that this bot stop operating until these complaints are fixed. I am not blocking the bot at this time as it is not running. However irrespective of the bot's task, (ignoring that there is currently an RFC on the MOS guideline that this bot is acting on), if the bot is creating a mess it needs to stop. Lightmouse, why is the bot doing this? If it is a bug, please fix it, or disable the buggy function(s) before the bot runs again. In short please fix the buggy behavior. My comments do not apply to whether or not the bot should be running at all, merely the fact that we have a buggy bot operating —— nixeagle 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Tony1:

(1) With respect to the opening post above: no, it's not "the exact opposite" of what the bot is supposed to do. Breaking the autoformatting syntax with a clumsy "year-in-X" pipe is an error, and Lightbot, fortunately, fixes such errors. Please note, users JPG-GR, roux, and nixeagle.

(2) The "concealed" link per se, even if it were not responsible for messing up the autoformatting, is in conflict with the well-established style-guide clauses

".., make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link."

and

"Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g., ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all."

A current RfC has overwhelmingly rejected the notion that separate and explicit consensus is required to use a bot or script to bring articles into compliance with specific clauses of the style-guides. The idea that somehow the raising of a question through an RfC is reason to freeze activities that it concerns, especially when the results show that the activities are strongly endorsed by the community, appears to be an invention for the convenience of the moment. The results of questions in another RfC concerning links are not framed to provide evidence of community objection to the removal of links, although there has been a re-emergence of the noisy claims to the contrary by two users over the past few days.

(3) Newcomers to the issue of dates and linking may not be aware that Tennis expert and Locke Cole, with a few hangers-on, have been conducting an intensive campaign to thwart community consensus in favour of a reformed approach to these issues, which were set in motion nearly five months ago. I believe that their statements should be considered carefully in this light.

(4) I note that there have been threats to block if the bot is restarted. Please note two policy rules:

First, that "Blocking is a serious matter. An administrator should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and should do so only if other means are unlikely to be effective."^[13], and that "Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia.^[14]. In view of the fact that removing the error is in accordance with the style guides and is a technical fix, plain and obvious for all to see, blocking action by an admin would need to be explicitly justified on the basis of this rule, and to stand up to legal scrutiny.

Second, that an admin should provide the appropriate user(s) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions, using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries;^[21][22]. What "suitable prior warning" means has not been legally tested in an ArbCom case, but it is within the realm of possibility that the interpretation would include the provision of diffs to the targeted user. This is particularly important where retrospective analysis of admin actions is involved. Tony (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, Please see WP:BOT, there are certain rules as regards to bot operations. If there are known bugs, or suspected bugs, good bot operators stop operating the bots in question until the discussion is over or until they fix/remove the problem functions. As I said above it has nothing to do with the task, but more with the buggy behavior. Of course if discussion here or elsewhere ends up saying the behavior is not buggy, then run the bot all you like. I'm not telling lightmouse that he will be blocked, merely the bot account. Again if discussion here ends up saying there is not a bug, that is fine, however until that happens, I think it is wise of the bot op to not operate the program in question. There is no time limit on what the bot is doing, if it gets done today or next week, but it is hard for people to undo bots when they are malfunctioning. —— nixeagle 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1, I mostly agree with your comments above, but just one reponse to your section 2, if you don't mind. If you look at the diff provided by JPG-GR at the very beginning of this thread, you'll see that it involves the removal of a piped link from an infobox, not from the main prose of an article. While conceding, as I have before, that there may be better ways to provide the information, use of a piped link to a "year-in-X" article is completely consistent with the remaining text to the second quote you provide above from the manual of style, which reads as follows:

"However, piped links may be useful:

• in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and
• in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles."

It's these specific edits that started this particular discussion, and with which I and other users were concerned when this was last raised at AN in mid-November. In that regard, I'll ask again as I've asked before -- if Lightbot is going to fix the broken autoformatting within an infobox or table, would it not be more appropriate to fix it by removing the link to the date/month link and leaving the "year-in-X" link in place? I think that's all at least some of us are asking for. Removing the "year-in-X" link and replacing it with a bare year link removes a valid, consistent-with-style contextual link and restores the now-deprecated autoformatting, which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense on its face.

The net result of this will end up requiring three edits when one would do. Edit one sees Lightbot remove the contextual link to replace it with a bare link. Edit two will inevitably see someone - possibly even Lightmouse via AWB - remove the bare date/month link and the year link, since linking in this manner is deprecated, leaving no links at all. Another user would then need to make edit three, to restore a contextual link. Mlaffs (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, apart from that exception that is not well-worded (I suspect it was put there for tables alone and the infobox bit added later as an afterthought), the net result is that no one will click on it: they'll think it's a solitary year-link. This is a clear example where inserting an explicit link in the "See also" section will attract many more cross-visitors: isn't that the point? My take is—lightbot has uncovered the opportunity to make the link better. Tony (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, please stop misrepresenting the consensus of the RFC. Implying that it's just Tennis Expert and myself is a blatant misrepresentation as well. The sooner you stop trying to convince the entire Wiki that it's two editors vs. the community (when it's really MOSNUM regulars vs. a rather large chunk of people annoyed with the way you roll over consensus and pretend it agrees with you) the better off you'll be. Anyone seeing my name thrown in there (despite this being my first comment in this section) should be able to tell you're just playing a canned response in the hopes of influencing perception. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You have no new arguments? It's surprising that the same circular process continues. In any case, this is not the forum for circularising: MOSNUM is. Tony (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a thought Tony, maybe next time you shouldn't mention my name in a section I'm not even participating in. See my previous response for why you shouldn't be doing that (about influencing perception). Your smear campaigns are not going to win you any points and definitely aren't the path towards compromise or consensus at MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Caspian blue continued false accusations, misrepresentations and personal attacks

Unresolved

 – Go file RFCs or something else. This isn't going to do any good here.

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Full disclosure: This situation has arisen surrounding a content dispute over policy wording at WP:IUP and my application of it to an area of my interest. I felt that WP:IUP indicated that galleries shouldn't be in articles in main space without good reason and decided to be WP:BOLD and remove it from quite a few articles (which just happened to be korea related). Caspian blue took issue with that, and so far his comments have run the gamut of false accusations. Any time he is presented with evidence he either stops discussing, reverts, etc. I found his last revert to be uncivil and a further personal attack. This isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of galleries in articles (people can go to the IUP talk page if they want to do that). Given this editors past behaviour in Korea related articles, I felt his continued behaviour should be presented here for the community. His last revert is here [158] where he claims I was making false accusations against him and instructs me to "behave" yet most of those statements came either with diffs or referenced things on his talk page.

1. Initially he accused me of using a threatening tone with an editor and scaring him away from wikipedia.[159]. I presented him with several diffs asking where the threatening tone was [160]. His response was to revert the diffs and state "Enough" [161]. He has yet to provide a single diff to demonstrate where I used a threatening tone to force this editor out of the project.
2. At the Patbingsu article he falsely accused me of not reading the discussion prior to removing the gallery from the article[162]. Yet here I am prior to the removal commenting on the discussion looking for clarification [163]. He then claimed that I stated I never read the whole section [164]. Yet, I can't see where I ever said that.
3. He's repeatedly accused me at several places (his talk page, patbingsu talk page, IUP talk page) of not wanting to discuss things. During my removal of the galleries I received two complaints from editors. The first one I showed the policy to and he said "Okay no problem" and with Caspian blue, he left me a talk page message: [165] to which I replied on this talk page [166]. He didn't engage on any talk on any of the articles I edited, my talk page, or the section on his talk page for 6 days [167]. From his comments on patbingsu I was apparently supposed to be watching the history at an article I've never edited to know he wanted further discussion: [168]. I explained that I don't wikistalk him and if he wants to talk to me he needs to make a comment somewhere I'm going to see it [169], he stopped discussing that.
4. He falsely claims a consensus at WP:IUP that my WP:BOLD edits were "reckless" [170]. The word reckless appears nowhere on the policy talk page. For the record there appears to be a 3/3 split on my application of Bold, with caspian blue, badagnani, and davidwr being against it and deiz, protonk, and skeezix1000 not seeing a problem with my being bold.
5. In this edit he falsely accuses me of having no time to follow-up his suggestion for discussion [171] and that I was attributing the state of the articles to the J-K conflict on wikipedia, when in fact it was Deiz who made that statement User_talk:Deiz#Galleries. In regards to having no time for follow-up, as I demonstrated above, I left the last message for him and he felt no compulsion to contact me for 6 days.
6. As far as another misrepresentation here [172] he expreses amusement that I accept a gallery at Champmol even though there is a duplication in it, yet previously when I stated it was a pretty good example of good use of galleries, I qualified that with though I would discourage any duplication in content between the images on the WP:IUP talk page. Caspian blue also tried to make this point on the IUP talk page [173], to which I informed him that I had already stated that I thought the duplication should be removed [174]. He should have been more than aware of that fact since it had been stated twice and he repeatedly edited the page (including that section) after I made that comment.

While these are specific examples, they are not the only examples and just capture the main themes of what he has been saying.--Crossmr (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest someone archive this section and you guys head off to an RfC. This seems too complicated for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This content dispute does not belong here. Let's use our energies to do what we should be doing: improving articles. Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a content dispute. This is a report on Caspian blue's behaviour which violates several policies.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall Badagnani repeatedly said to you, you have been uncivil and your tone is threatening which are disruptive and unhelpful. This false accusation report is another reflection of your own violations to several policies.--Caspian blue 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you should also recall that I've repeatedly asked him to show where I was threatening and he did not.--Crossmr (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Crossmr's false accusations and personal attacks after his unilateral deletion of galleries

I knew he would make this another false accusation against me instead of solving the problems that he has caused. (he blamed me that the analysis is a personal attack[175]) He began to delete galleries from Korean related articles on Dec. 10[176] without prior discussions nor notification to WP:WikiProject Korea. In general, such big changes tend to be first notified to the community and discussed fully between members, but he never did. So I left a comment to him regarding his deletion on the same date[177] as including a suggestion to open a discussion to WT:KO. However, he claimed that his removals are "consensus" and insisted that "no good reason" has not been given".[178] What ground would people measure a degree of "good reasons"? His ground? Should I give him reasons until he feels satisfied? On the other hand, Deiz who strongly agreed with Crossmr suddenly deleted a gallery of Bibimbap[179] after I left the message to Crossmr. I also suggested to Deiz to join in a discussion with me.[180] However, neither came to discuss with me further until Dec. 15. For the past 5 days, Crossmr ceased to the removal campaign. Therefore, I believed that Crossmr's break was due to my suggestion to Bibimbap.

But he resumed the removal of galleries on Dec.15th, so I objected to his removal at Bosingak on the same date[181]. However, he currently mispresents that I was quite doing nothing to resolve the dispute for 6 days. Then, Deiz came to me my page to express the support for Crossmr's edits which I believe his unilateral action is out of policy.

For more worse, Crossmire falsely accused me that I initiated edit war as reverting his removals of gallery at Bosingak, and accused me of violating the image policy.[182] He has insisted that I have failed to provide "a good reason" to him regardless of my reasoning. I repeated suggested him to open a discussion at my summary field[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosingak&diff=next&oldid=258078302 but which were all ignored. Therefore, I opened a discussion to IUP to solve the problem. My responses to him can be found in User talk:Caspian blue#Galleries and User talk:Crossmr#False accusations, Talk:Patbingsu#Repeated deletion by Crossmir and WT:IUP. He threw a long list of false accusations and personal attacks to my talk page. Therefore, I left a following comment to his page.

1. Crossmr falsely accused me of making "false accusation like "You threaten Macropolis". Nope, I said his tone is threatening and he (Macropolis) was scared enough to leave Wikipedia. Do not distort my comment.
2. Crossmr falsely accused me that "there is no single discussion on article talk pages regarding "gallery", therefore his deletion is legitimate. After pointed out by me, he said he visited the talk page. However, his "declaration for deletion" tells that he did not fully read prior discussions. My analysis on him is correct.
3. Crossmr falsely accused me that I'm the one who initiated the edit war at Bosingak. However, in fact he is the one who began deleted the gallery and received the 3RR warning unlike me. When the edit war occurred I clearly repeatedly suggested him to open a discussion, but he did not do that. Instead he reverted 3 times. Crossmr is the one who rather chose to edit war with threatening edit summaries.
4. Crossmr falsely claimed that his removal is supported by the consensus. People at IUP said he should've opened a discussion first since he is the one who wished to carry the deletion campaign.
5. Crossmr falsely accused that I made a personal attack to hims for my comment that the current problem is caused by his unilateralism. That is a valid analysis and his unwarranted accusation is a rather clear personal attack. His threatening tone is already pointed by another editor, Badagnani (talk · contribs).
6. Crossmr falsely that I was repeatedly informed that his removal is a valid consensus at image policy and I should've presented a "good reason". (why?, is he my boss?) I clearly left the message in my edit summaries.
7. Crossmr falsely accused me of having no time to insert enough contents and then have failed to provide "a good reason" for his own sake. I said he is not a judge nor enforcer to push his POV to me and Korean project.
8. Crossmr's threatening tone and the misquoting of the policy do not provide a good atmosphere to talk civility. Another user has said so.
9. As soon as I opened the discussion, Crossmr falsely accused me of violating the image policy that none agreed with you except Deiz.
10. He repeatedly and persistently mispresents my edits and behaviors. He is old enough to know the virtue of WP:CIVILTY, WP:DISCUSSION, WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISCUSSION, but he rather chooses to ignore all rules for his own POV as misquoting the policy.

Crossmr've made many false accusations and others in the rude manner. I don't understand why I should provide "good reasons" for his persistent unpredictable standard on gallery. His unilateral removals of galleries have caused the great conflicts, however he keeps falsely accusing me of something because I pointed out his wrongness, and disagree with his assessement. Therefore, I believe his behaviors constitute WP:Harassment and WP:Personal attack which should not be tolerated. Thanks-Caspian blue 04:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, if your complaint is in response, I would suggest making it a subheading instead. Also, Crossmr at least gave us diffs. But same view, archive this, and you guys should head towards dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with dispute resolution. The issue at IUP is completely separate from his behaviour here. His behaviour violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and from what I've seen around AN/I this is hardly the first time.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I clarified that in my post above. You should really read these things before commenting. You still haven't provided a single diff to demonstrate where I used a threatening tone to force Marcopolis off the project. You've been given multiple opportunities. Until you can demonstrate this it is yet another false accusation.
2. I said there wasn't a single discussion on the article talk page about the reason for including it. The only discussions were about what pictures to include, not how a gallery benefited the article itself. After you claimed that I didn't read the talk page, I specifically said "I read it" [183] Not that I visited the talk page. Another attempt to misrepresent.
3. I was stating that you can't claim I started the edit war and didn't discuss because your only call for discussion was in the process of reversion. If you truly wanted to discuss things you could have discussed things instead of reverting first.
4. I claimed my gallery removals were supported by policy consensus per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IUP, and I was being WP:BOLD. Policy is considered to have consensus. Only half of the editors who took part in the discussion recommended that I should have discussed first. There is no consensus that I abused bold. Another attempt to misrepresent.
5. I've more than demonstrated your false accusations above.
6. As soon as you demonstrated any real opposition and opened a discussion to what I was doing, I ceased gallery removal. No one made any repeated attempts to stop me prior to that. As I demonstrated you didn't respond to me for 6 days and after 6 days your response was to revert.
7. I honestly have no idea what you're referring to here.
8. I haven't made any threats (which would be required of a threatening tone) and my words have been neutral. Badagnani was asked repeatedly to demonstrate where I was being threatening, he refused. I have not once misquoted a policy to my policy. Consensus on the IUP page is that the policy is poorly worded and unclear.
9. My first edit was to remind you of the wording of the policy and indicate you should make a case for the galleries [184]. I see no accusation of violating the image use policy in that statement. Yet another misrepresentation.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
10. You've failed to provide a single shred of evidence that I've done any of those things.

This is not what Wikipedia should be about. Let's please all get back to the important work of improving articles, not doing the above. Badagnani (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Improving articles cannot be done in an environment of editors, including yourself, making unending personal attacks and accusations when you can't seem to defend your point.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're using the previous ANI reports on me filed by sockpuppeters. That is not wonder. As for Macropolis, I have had a bad impression on your accusation against him because you reported Macropolis, a prolific image uploader to ANI as strongly urging him to be blocked for his lack of communication. You assumed bad faith that almost of his images were in violation of copyright policy and exaggerated his mistakes in formatting causing a big trouble which I disagreed. His edits are hugely decreased after that report and now seem to stop editting Wikipedia. Your behaviors against him was viewed as "threatening" to me. You have no willingness to accept different people's different behaviors. Besides, as another editor repeatedly said to you, your tone is very rude and threatening. You have acted like you're correct, and others who disagree with you totally wrong. That kind of behaviors offend me very much and you violate WP:NPA, WP:Harassment. WP:AGF. You're almost inactive, so I should've waited you for your unilateral behaviors? Your problematic behaviors have caused the issue very big, and do not divert the issue to me.--Caspian blue 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also using the fact that you've been blocked several times for edit warring. You can't provide a single diff where I used a threatening tone can you? This will be the third or fourth time I've asked. Some of his images were copyvios, and speedied. In fact even when he was told they were copyvious he repeatedly uploaded them and didn't communicate. I never once said almost all of his images were in violation of copyright (though if you can find a diff, please do). I did say that another image that looked very professional and like an image from the seoul metro website was possibly a copyvio but we needed information on that. We got a french speaking editor to get that information. As I demonstrated on your talk page I made several attempts to communicate with Marcopolis and he refused. I only asked for a block after repeated problem behaviour from him after many many attempts to communicate.--Crossmr (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of my block record constitutes WP:Personal attack. I also notice that you're blocked for incivility which is very understadable given your rude behaviors and threatening tone.--Caspian blue 05:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of your block record is relevant to this discussion since the blocks were in relation to the same subject. I was blocked for incivility once 2 years ago by an editor involved in a dispute with me. Can the same be said about you? Sorry where on NPA does it say I can't mention your block record? This isn't an article talk page where we're discussing content like a gallery. We're here specifically to discuss your conduct--Crossmr (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That courtesy is heard from an admin, not my own opinion. So you should be very careful when you're doing something offensive. Well, some of my blocks are much related to sockpuppers, and you have failed to prove that your block of edit is from involved admin. I get that you're blocked from warring and incivility. You're confusing the current situation which you have produced dramas and your conducts which caused offensiveness to me.--Caspian blue 06:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I only see one of your blocks retracted. Whether there were sockpuppets or not, you were still blocked for edit warring over Korea related articles. For the record, I noticed your tweaking up above. Your didn't make an edit on Bosingak until Dec 16 [185]. Your edit to my talk page was the 10th, your next edit was the 16th.--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have shown no credibility to me, I believe that your block for edit warring and incivility is very much reasonable given your current disruptive behavior. I use UTC, and my edit at Bosingak is Dec. 15, not 16. I visited you on Dec. 10. Do not distort my edits and mispresent my action. Besides, why do you ceased to removal campaign after my visit to your page? Why did not you even notify your deletion to the community until now? Since you're so confident about your deletion campaign, why you RESUMED your deletions on Dec. 15? I assumed you saw my discussion suggestion to Deiz at Bibimbap. Bear in mind that I instead opened the discussion to resolve the problem that you have caused to Korea project. --Caspian blue 06:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. My block 2 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with your behaviour now. Your blocks for edit warring on korea were only last month. Actually I didn't cease removing the galleries from the pages. Shortly after you visited me, I finished removing the galleries from the subway station. I was busy for a few days and then when I had time I carried on with the next batch. As far as credibility goes you haven't provided any diffs to support your position or anything you've claimed.--Crossmr (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Refresh your memory. You repeatedly gave me the above personal attack here first. So you're okay to do a persosnl attacks to user who disagree with you, but others say your past is personal attack? Logically flawed again. This report is stemmed from your disruptive behaviors to the Korean project and incivility. Therefore, your past block record has very much something to do with your current behavior since you resort to other's block record. The current issue has nothing to do with my last block for reverting 2 times in 24 hours. --Caspian blue 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your claim that I have no credibility, not about you referring to my block log. We're still waiting for you to provide diffs to support your position. You keep adding more and more claims but not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Your block log is very recent and shows an aggressive habit to try and control Korean related articles.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are "we"? Ho, you're again exaggerating my comment. "You have no credibility to me". That is quite natural reflection regarding your bad faith report and disruptive deletion campaign. Do not worry, your diffs are very much overlapped with mine and your constant addition of personal attacks to me prevent me whenever trying to add diffs.--06:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We? Myself, and Ricky above, the other user who suggested you provide diffs to support your points. As well as anyone else who might like to read this, but if you don't want to provide any evidence to support your position, we're not going to hold you down and force you to do it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not falsely delegate you as "we" (you already did when removing galleries as misquting the policy and consensus).--Caspian blue 07:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Did ricky not ask you for diffs above? Should I have referred to it as "ricky and I asked you to provide diffs?" would that have been better for you?You've actually provided a couple diffs, lets go over them

1. he blamed me that the analysis is a personal attack[98] Read npa again, npa has nothing to do with truth. you were asked about a picture and article content you decided you couldn't comment on the picture without commenting on me as an editor at the same time.
2. He began to delete galleries from Korean related articles on Dec. 10[99] Never disputed that, utterly irrelevant as to what that has to do with anything. There was no requirement that I notify the project before editing the articles. You've been referred to WP:BOLD many times. Again this has nothing to do with the galleries, stay on topic.
3. but he claimed that his removals are "consensus" and insisted that "no good reason" has not been given".[100] I had no reason to believe there was any serious dispute with the policy at WP:IUP. There were no tags on the page claiming the policy was disputed. WP:CONSENSUS is very clear that policies have consensus. Your misunderstanding stems for your inability to assume good faith. You would have been free to also state a good reason at the articles, but you chose not too. Instead you chose to remain silent.
4. I objected to his removal at Bosingak on the same date[101] and after you demonstrated a serious objection, I ceased all gallery removals. Your point?
5. Therefore, I believed that Crossmr's break was due to my suggestion to Bibimbap. You had no evidence to support that I read that and agreed to it. I didn't edit bibimbap or make any comments in regards to this article.
6. and accused me of violating the image policy.[102] As it was my understanding of the policy at the time that I made that statement. Consensus is clear that the policy is not clear. Misinterpretation shouldn't be attributed to malice, assume good faith and all that again.
7. I repeated suggested him to open a discussion at my summary field At that point in time the only editors to express an opinion(that I was aware of) were you, deiz and I. You were the only one objecting and there was a policy (poorly worded)indicating their removal. Again WP:AGF, it'll get you far. --Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you deleted more than 40 galleries on one day, Dec. 10th! This is a huge change in the one project. You solely carried the campaign without prior discussion in the name of WP:Consensus and WP:IUP which I feel "wrong". My WP:AGF has shown as repeatedly suggesting to you to take the matter to a bigger community, which you totally ignored for 5 days. You did not assume good faith on my suggestion and denounced given reasoning "nothing good". After your logical fallcy was pointed out by several people at IUP, you quickly changed your catch praise to WP:BOLDness and falsely blamed that I did not assume good faith. Since you still have not admitted the aftermath of your conducts, your reporting here is a clear evidence on your failure of WP:AGF. Also You did not immediately ceased to remove the gallery until receiving 3RR warning, but blamed me to edit war! If I had no intention to resolve the dispute with you, I would've run to report you to ANI not to take the matter to IUP. Besides, you demanded me to add contents to balance text and images to keep the gallery with providing "a good reason" for you. Your standard on gallery is unpredictable and arbitrary per your support of some article, and then you blamed it. You left a long scornful message responding to my expression on your past ANI report on Macropolis, and you really expected me to read such uncivil message? I have a right to revert whatever unpleasant rambling left on my page.--Caspian blue 08:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and for such a huge changed I received 3 comments. 1 person praised it, 1 person at first didn't like it but when shown the policy changed their mind, the other person when my logic was explained said nothing. There was nothing there to indicate I needed to take it to a larger consensus. Sorry but those 5 days are on you. I replied to your inquiry. You asked me "what consensus" and quoted you the relevant policies, which was not just WP:IUP btw, but also WP:NOT. and you said nothing. If you don't raise any further objection, there is no reason for me to assume you have any further objection. I said I stopped mass removal of the galleries when I saw your serious objection. I stopped removing the gallery on bosingak when another editor got involved. See how that works? Until the other editor got involved you were the only editor against 2 editors and policy claiming there was no consensus to remove the gallery.--Crossmr (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to not realize that my suggestion for you to take it to the bigger community is to get broader opinons from people. That is a common sense. Galleries and images are created by several or many editors, and they could not keep up with your pace. I did not notice your huge deletion campagin, until one article that has been on my watchlist was edited by you. Your deletion started on articles that a few people visit. The station articles are managed by South Korean geographic task force (most of them are currently inactive). That's why a courtesy note to the community and discussion between members are required. People who said it know you deleted more than 50 galleries by your own decision? I don't think so.

You and Deiz discussed on galleries several times and he followed your POV to Bibimbap article, so I assumed you would come to discuss with me to the talk page. You deleted the gallery at Patbingsu, a Korean dish, so the deletion at Bibimbap, another Korean dish is a result of your discussion with him. You keep failing to accept different opinions with you. Different opinions with are authomatically blamed as "bad faith" by you? No way. You provoked that I have provided nothing good rationale, and ignored previous discussions between users. You become increasingly incivil and falsely attack that I made a personal attack to you. I dont' see any violation from my comment to you. Calling a spade (your wrongdoing) a spade is not personal attack. However, your accusations here are outrageous.--Caspian blue 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You made a suggestion, nothing supported it. You were the only one suggesting it, while there were 2 editors in favour and policy. You seem to forget what a suggestion is. If you wanted to contribute more you could have continued the discussion, instead you didn't. There is no requirement that I leave a courtesy note to the community before editing articles under their project. Even if I'm not being bold, I don't need to notify the project before I make any changes. But if you can point to the policy on that please do. Again you make too many assumptions about which articles I supposedly read and would comment on. You have no evidence to any of that. I've provided plenty of evidence to support my complaints about your behaviour. You'll also have to point to where on NPA you are allowed to insult other editors if you feel its true.--Crossmr (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, you prove me that you only see what you want to see. Your diffs are not evidences to prove your false WP:POINT. You also falsely attack me being a tag-team with Badaganani. You seem to be sleuthing my past, and your such accusation is very amusing again. I made a suggestion as opposed to your interpretation of policy with a clear reason. That is not nothing. You constantly denounced my given reasoning and previous discussions "no good". What ground? There were 2 editors including you were favoring your interpretation of the policy which I and others disagree with. You falsely accused me of violating policy (your misquoting policy in a threatening tone is personal attack (the diff in the second paragraph), making edit war (you initiated the edit war), so all of your allegation are in series of your personal attacks. Although you're also member of Korean film task force, you did not bother to notify your massive deletion as believing your behavior is a consensus which is clearly not. Boldness without following consensus is not real bold action: just causing a chaos. Your diffs are also evidences of your behaviors because it is responses to your comments. So do not misstate my complaint about your behaviors.--Caspian blue 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Except I don't need to prove anything to you. Just the community. I don't need to sleuth your past at all. I edit AN/I enough to see your name here repeatedly in regards to disputes surrounding Korean articles. I think its interesting that badagnani showed up to revert that article just in time so you didn't have to do it a third time. I also notice in your blocking history you were blocked for gaming the system to avoid 3RR a couple of very interesting coincidences. I'm not insinuating, just an interesting observation. At the time we had the discussion, the only editor disagreeing was you. Until badagnani showed up, it was only you. You are not consensus. You seem to forget there. Show me where I was being bold without following consensus? When another editor showed up to support you, I stopped. Until that point it was you, all alone. Two editors on board who agreed on an interpretation of a policy and just you who didn't. Yet you were the one pushing to revert an article against that. Where was your consensus?--Crossmr (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you're not consensus but you act like that. You just repeatedly confirm yourself being uncivil with the unwarranted preachy tone. When your previous block for incivility was pointed out after your mentioning my log, you were quickly attacking me and trying to justify your past without diffs to be evidence for your claim. This is really contradictory of your standard. You keep violating WP:NPA policy with above attacks and make this drama. Your activities tell your character very well. I've also seen you having commented here for whatever reasons and do not expect me to think that your comments are regarded as valuable as others' comments by community. Badaganani and I have rarely agreed with each other, so his reverts of yours show that your unilateral edits caused disruptions to Korean project. Do not forget that removal of gallery at Bibimbap is Badagnani's edit. Therefore, you're again intentionally mispresenting that I am the one pushing to revert article against policy. You're the one who made edit war as willing to make your false point. Once you're being a member of the Korean project, please try to edit constructively and do not blatantly disregard the community as you did. Well, people at IUP clearly said otherwise, so do not distort their comment as well.--Caspian blue 10:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've subordinated the above heading. Retaliatory reports--or those which appear to be retaliatory reports--don't help anyone. If you have some specific concern that needs admin attention you can raise it in a separate thread. But having dueling threads like this will make for a circus. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  With all due respect, the outrageous title named by Crossmr is his ill-intention to ruin my reputation, so I think I should revise the title" on my report. --Caspian blue 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ok. But making an identical or similar title in "response" doesn't ease tension, it only enflames it. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and stirring the pot

Since he wants to get involved in this, Badagnani has more or less been tag-teaming with Caspian blue over the last 2 days. When asked specific questions he often stops talking, or tries to deflect the conversation.

1. In this edit he claims I was removing the galleries out of revenge or teaching another editor a lesson [186], and claims I was "rampaging" through wikipedia. He assumes bad faith and provides no diffs to back up his claims. He is told by skeezix1000 to assume good faith [187].
2. He claims to be sure he knows its revenge after being told to assume good faith [188]. Simply because I didn't start a discussion at dozens of article pages and instead chose to be WP:BOLD a well established and accepted practice on wikipedia. I explained my reasoning for removal and being bold, "revenge" wasn't one of the reasons [189]
3. Here he asks me to "moderate" my tone and refrain from using capital letters [190] To this day I still can't see where I used capital letters. Badagnani frequently tells me to moderate my tone, yet can never provide any examples of what is wrong with my tone.
4. In this diff [191] He demonstrates misrepresentation, he was asked to demonstrate, other than the patbingsu article where there was evidence that other galleries were carefully selected. He still hasn't provided that. He also demonstrates that he apparently understands AGF
5. Here he tries to misrepresent my position [192] I never once stated I was going to ignore formed consensus on a policy page. Since this discussion at IUP began I haven't engaged in any mass gallery removal.
6. Even after explanation he still assumes bad faith that I'm attacking Korea [193]
7. He begins to make comments like this [194] Claiming that I refused to discuss things, but as I pointed out in Caspian Blues edits I responded to the only 2 comments I got on it until now. Once this discussion started I stopped and joined it. Another attempt to misrepresent my action, further example[195]
8. After insisting I engage in discussion on article talk pages, my first reply to an article talk page is met with him calling me tenditious and disruptive [196]. Apparently for not immediately agreeing with them and instead defending my point. His evidence of that is apparently [197] You're threatening because you're threatening. No diffs or explanation of what language I was using that was so threatening.
9. he again attempts to misstate my position here [198] claiming I only want 1 image for any article on korean buildings.
10. When I finally tell him myself to respect the policies of NPA, AGF and CIVIL and then continue on with my point about the gallery, his response is again of "moderating" my tone [199].
11. instead of addressing the gallery he continues to assume bad faith and make disparaging remarks about me [200].
12. he continues to assume without evidence that I intended to continue on removing galleries from articles non-stop [201].

A way forward

Clearly an RfC/U is required here. Should it be an omnibus including all three, or three separate filings? //roux   06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of this stuff seems topic-related more than just personal, so an omnibus one might be best. Otherwise we would have three separate ones turning out like this fun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of caspians complaints are topic related even though I asked him to leave it at the relevant policy page. My complaints are 100% user behaviour, violations of AGF, NPA and CIVIL.--Crossmr (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you again mispresent my stance. You're not me, so do not falsely state my opinion. Of course, my complaints are related to your behaviors like threatening tone, and misquoting policies for your POV. Can I ask when you asked me to leave it at the relevant policy page? I already presented your wrong interperation of the polices to the relevant page, but this report on you is 100% your behavior including the activities here.--Caspian blue 08:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For which we're still waiting for those diffs. The only diffs you've provided are about topic stuff. You've only provided one diff about npa, and that stems from your misunderstanding of the policy in thinking it is okay to make a personal attack if you feel its true. Please read my introduction, way up at the top, where I said policy stuff should be discussed on the relevant policy page. This isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of galleries in articles (people can go to the IUP talk page if they want to do that).--Crossmr (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you're not "we". You're the only one asking diffs more than I presented. Do not distort about the NPA policy again just like your repeated mispresentation of WP:IUP and WP:CONSENSUS. Oh, you also falsely try to put various charges which I rather see you have been violating all accusation by yourself. Besides, you did not clearly state the suggestion. Like having said, I could not read your mind.--Caspian blue 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What is unclear about This isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of galleries in articles (people can go to the IUP talk page if they want to do that).?--Crossmr (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You know the discussion is not only about the specific images in the galleries. You again prove that people should follow your own rule. --Caspian blue 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

there is already a long discussion on the image policy page there is no reason to duplicate it here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be confusing "the discussion" with here. The discussion that I referred to is the discussions at the article of Changgyeonggung, Patbingsu.--Caspian blue 09:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.