Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive512

Nostradamus

Resolved

See [1]. We're getting battered by IP/Anon vandalism; any help would be much appreciated. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Future requests ought be made at WP:RFPP. –xeno (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I didn't know about WP:RFPP. I've learned something new, which is a good thing. Thanks much for your time and quick action. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, the Edit-Warrior Prince. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarheelz123

Tarheelz123 (talk · contribs) - Adding unreferenced and poorly sourced material to WP:BLP articles, history of numerous warnings for other disruptive behavior on talk page. Requesting another administrator look into this and evaluate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, this user continues to refuse to use any edit summaries at all, despite being told to do so on several occasions: [2], [3], [4]. Although lack of edit summaries is not itself a blockable offense, it is nonetheless disruptive, particularly with controversial and ill-advised edits. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not the right place, but someone will see this and know where that may be

Resolved

The "move page" command when used over a redirect is not creating a redirect properly from the "from" page to the "to" page - this has occurred on over 100 page moves and each needs fixing manually. 1) How do we go back to the way it used to be? 2) How can we notify page movers of the need to manually cleanup after themselves? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it didn't work with you, my test worked fine. I did notice there's a little box that asks whether you want to leave a redirect behind, which is new. Perhaps users are unchecking it, confusing it with the "watch this page" box? Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have occurred 'cuz of this. lifebaka++ 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks, lifebaka; others have reported the problem at WP:VPT and it seems that whatever the cause it's been tagged for resolution. I'll tag this as resolved; anyone interested in furthering the discussion of this is invited to do so at WP:VPT. Thanks again... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block

There is an anonymous IP user, 79.144.98.98, who keeps vandalizing the page of Luis Miguel by changing the total sales figure from 50 million into 90 million without providing a source for it [5], [6], [7]. I have tried twice to make him stop by warning him at his talk page, but it seems like he has no intentions of stopping to vandalize the page. I'd appreciate if someone could apply a block to this account. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AIV next time for faster results. I can't tell what's going on but they look like they are continuing to screw around at Mis Romances Tour but it seems to have stopped at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by AndyManchester (talk)

I am trying to improve the Syncsta article by expanding it, and AndyManchester keeps reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism. Can you please keep an eye on him?
He's already on a level 4 warning for vandalizing Syncsta and on a level 2 warning for vandalizing my talk page. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:AIV be more appropriate? However, per policy here, I have notified him of this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Having done a bit more review, this is just a content dispute. Instead of accusing each other of vandalism, actually have a discussion on the talk page. Note that expansion alone isn't the end goal. There are some policy limitations and people can have different views, legitimately. I've eliminated a decent chunk of text and have opened a discussion there. I would suggest both of you start using it or don't be surprised if both of you get blocked for edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Intermittent Personal Attacks

User:Btzkillerv appears to make personal attacks intermittently, getting away with them each time.

The following recent diffs illustrate what this editor has been up to.

[8][9][10][11][12][13]

As can be seen from the above diffs, this editor has made a number of personal attacks against other editors who have violated Wikipedia policy. In the latest and most serious incident so far, User:Btzkillerv viciously abuses an indefinitely blocked editor after a series of vandal edits were made by various user accounts to User talk:Btzkillerv, User:Btzkillerv and Template:User_Manchu_Chinese.

It also seems odd that Btzkillerv labeled User 77.182.67.105 a Hanjian(i.e. a traitor), considering that the vandal edits concerned (by other users) all involved denigrating people of the Manchu ethnicity only.

The question now is "What sort of remedies and sanctions should be applied to stop this type of conduct?" Does the editor involved simply get blocked for a period of time? Or will the editor be banned from editing certain pages? 72.43.122.208 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh there's good timing. ^One more Tor node blocked. I'd just point out that I've blocked several other Tor nodes as well as some sockpuppets (User:Manchurianisation, User:Manchurianization, User:Anti Manchu Lobby, ...) who have been racially harassing Btzkillerv recently, and I've semi-protected Btzkillerv's user and usertalk pages as a result. Probably nothing to see here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, User:Btzkillerv has also abused indefed user Manchurianisation by calling him or her a "traitor". 85.31.186.211 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i was pretty pissed off by the presistant attacks even through i have politely answered, i lost my temper, and i regret that, please accept my apologies Btzkillerv (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

those other edits were made over a year ago, i wasn't very mature at that time, which i admit. Btzkillerv (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested (ThuranX)

I have been attempting to informally work on a dispute between Arcayne (talk · contribs) and ThuranX (talk · contribs). As part of this dispute I asked arcayne to run all concerns he had with Thuran X's behavior through me so that i could filter extraneous requests (possible wiki stalking). After i made the request to arcayne, thuranx began a wild trail of straw man accusations against me. Any editors attempting to clarify the situation were attacked. I would appreciate a review of my actions to ensure that the initial comment to set this in motion was not inappropriate. here is the comment Below is a rough timeline.

• [14]Arcayne reaches out to me for assistance on an edit dispute
• [15] I reply telling arcayne to assume good faith and that thuranx is acting in good faith as well.
• [16]Arcayne expresses concern of incivil behavior
• [17] i drop a note at thuranx's page asking him to make content disputes about the content, not the editor
• [18] i notify arcayne that I dropped a note at thuranX's talk page asking him to make content disptues about the content, not the editor
• [19] thuran appears frustrated with apparent continued wikihounding(stalking) from arcayne. I drop a note asking that arcayne cease editing thuranx's talk page and instead run concerns through me (an attempt to diffuse the situation).
• [20] thuranx mis-interprets my above statement and accuses me of coming to arcaynes defense.
  • [21][22]Several other un-involved editors come along and alert thuran that he misinterpreted my statement. Thuran in paranoia accuses them of coming there to protect me [23][24]
• [25]Thuran again makes a long statement telling everybody that I am wrong and that there interpretation of what I have said is wrong. That I am in fact endorsing stalking and harrassement.
• [26] I again try to clarify my initial comments were made with the itnent of asking arcayne to leave thuran alone. I also [27] warn him that is blatant accusations of bad faith against all editors in the thread may get him blocked (I however intentionalyl do not state that I would block him as that would be a COI).
• [28] again other uninvolved editors attempt to explain that the comment was direected at arcayne not him.
• [29] thuran accuses me of posting the message directed at arcayne on his talk page because, "The reason that conversation is placed here is so that I don't forget that Arcayne has friend in high places."
• [30] I tell thuran I am done sticking up for him as it has been thrown in my face repeatedly and that I am done dealing with it.
• [31] Thuran uses a straw man argument on my above statement saying that I am endorsing stalking and that I am a bad admin.
• [32] I tell thuran that watching problem editors is not stalking and that I am done being involved. Isattre, " Should you engage in any blatantly inappropriate behavior I will block you, no questions asked." and otherwise I am done.
• [33] engages over and over in straw man arguments, implying extremes and things I never said with an edit summary, "go away already, you fascist." tells me to reverse the statements I have made and threatens to take it to ANI.
• [34] I encourage him to take it to ANI.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ThuranX is one of the most overtly hostile editors whose account is still active. His block log does not begin to reflect the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and invective, and AFAIK (though I could be wrong on this) he has never indicated a willingness to abide by community norms. IronDuke 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He has been notified here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. ThuranX's aggressive attacks on me on this very page were criticized. He obviously needs to learn how to be civil. AnyPerson (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A block won't do that, though; it solves the short-term disruption but nothing else. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps a mentor is in order here, someone (who ThuranX respects) who can block if/when ThuranX gets out of hand and monitor his posts for gross incivility. IronDuke 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a mentor, and you and I have past beefs that prevent you from being at all neutral, so be honest about that. What I DO need is for Arcayne to be prevented from stalking me, and Chrislk02 prevented from acting as Arcayne's bully-protector. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that we have had past beefs, this is why I said "In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ..." Thats' why I knew, when I saw this post, that Chris was correct without having to wade througha lot of diffs. Would you be willing to promise to adhere to community norms re civility? Is that possible? It could at least preclude something like a mentor.IronDuke

Another recent discussion was at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive57. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is half the story. Arcayne has been harassing me for years on here, and I've repeatedly left pages to disengage with him, starting with Thor (Marvel Comics) and most recently Joker (comics) and The Dark Knight (film). Chris has actively endorsed, shepherded, and protected Arcayne while he engages in a protracted period of wikistalking and harassment, and edit warring. I spent days on talk watching Arcayne continually ignore consensus, and policy, to maintain material that ONLY he felt was germane to the articles. Eight editors on one page, five on the other, all reverted him directly, or otherwise removed his addition. Many, though not all, used the talk page or clear edit summaries about this. I engaged him on talk at length. His responses were the same sort of obtuse wikilawyering others have seen in him before, each followed by a restoration of the material. Here's one early example:[35], wher Fbunny had just commented on the talk, and instead, Arcayne chooses to open a new section, in one of the oldest moves for gaming consensus, start a new section and act like you don't see the old. I think that's in WP:FLAT section 6, Gaming. When multiple editors present consensus by act and reasoning against him, and he's running close to 3RR, he turns around and warns me about it. I wasn't there at all, but it's a good move that Arcayne enjoys - Strike first, right or wrong. Then he runs and gets his protector, Chrislk02. Lest you think I'm kidding, [36] - Some quotes from Chris: " Arcayne is welcome to review everything that you do. In fact, I will be paying a bit of attention to what you do too, especially due to your long history of incivility. It is not wrong to follow what other people do, in fact that is what makes this wiki such a great place." After Arcayne escalates a WQA in three places, deliberately NOT redirecting potentially interested editors to one central section. He gets three separate groups of people fired up about me, constantly posting and increasing the noise. Then I get blocked, and Chris sanctions Arcayne's actions. Since then, I've been under Arcayne's "watchful eye", which is really manipulative stalking. I have never represented, contrary to Chris and Arcayne's interpretations, that I think I'm above scrutiny, I simply do not want Arcayne to be the one doing it. That's all I keep asking for. Now, however, I have to ask that Chrislk02, who comes running at Arcayne's beck and call to back him up, also be precluded from coming around at me.

Further proof this is all Arcayne's game to get me? After I stated that I would be unwatching the articles, he completely stops editing them. He doesn't respond to other editors asking about the sections, he leaves the pages. Based on that, I have re-watched them. I am being held hostage to his games on Wikipedia, and my options, as I outlined earlier this month, are simple. I can either leave the project, or endure his constant gotcha-games. Neither's ideal for me, because outside of his nonsense, I enjoy what I do here, and I've been doing good stuff for a long time here. I'm sick and tired of worrying about when Arcayne's going to come out with another attempt to get me banned, which IS his ultimate goal here, and unless Chrislk02 is prevented from assisting him, that ban will be quietly imposed one evening when no one is paying attention, as an indef block.

I will admit, I was rude to R Baley for no good reason; it appears he was actually trying to help. But I have no similar good faith for Chris or Arcayne, both have made quite abundantly clear that they want to see me banned. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that, based entirely upon their block logs, that indeffing both ThuranX and Arcayne would perhaps reduce third party editor/admin workloads but it should also be noted that both editors have made very many good contributions to the project. There needs to be a way of allowing both editors (and any alleged supporters) to edit the encyclopedia. The best way would be for both parties to agree not to edit in each others areas of interest and where there is already an established contested article for them not to directly revert each other or interact. I have some experience of formulating such conditions (see here - well, supporting Ncmvocalists work) and wonder if they might be adopted by the parties here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse LessHeard vanU's helpful suggestion. We can't go on like this. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I...I want to weakly endorse Thuran's summary of events here. I don't want to say that Thuran is a charming fellow or that he didn't say the things in the diffs above. But I do want to say that the...coverage of Thuran's edits by Arcayne/Chris is outside the norm. We saw the last AN/I about Thuran, with a number of users (most notably Manhattan Samurai) clearly agitating for him to be blocked. They got their wish, partially because Thuran acutally was incivil but partially because hectoring in AN/I usually achieves its desired objectives. I suggest that editors and administrators commenting here look through the last AN/I about Thuran (the wonderful new search means that I don't have to dig through looking for the link myself) before determining which "side" to come down on. I will also note that LHVU does have some experience in setting up mutual topic bans but that those work best when the users share a minimum of coinciding interests. This may not be the case with those two. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans aren't needed for either of us. All that's needed is a clear statement to Arcayne: "Stop stalking ThuranX, unwatch his page, stop playing tattletale, and remember, he's not always wrong, when consensus is 8-1, and 5-1 against inclusion, then material should probably be out." A simple statement to Chrislk02 that in the future, he should ask another admin to review material he thinks is objectionable instead of doing it himself or coming to me about it, would be enough. This second part is commonly stated here on AN/I about admins and editors they regularly butt heads with.

Check my talk page and my contribs. Outside of those two, I've been FAR more considerate since the last mess. However, Arcayne's deliberate provocation eventually worked. I can't report it, there's an admin endorsing it, and I just kept trying to make him see that there's great consensus against it. Unfortunately, Arcayne went and came at me, got an admin who I know is hostile to me to help, and pushed things back up to AN/I levels again. If not told by the community to disengage, he will do this again and again. Look at the long, contentious problem between Arcayne and DreamGuy. And once Arcayne drives me away, he'll move on to another editor. It's like he's got some passive-aggressive compulsion, which compels him to take on, headlong and unstoppably, any editor who stands up to him at length.

I'm not denying I'm prickly at times here, I had a long row with David Fuchs, who has commented above. However, since then, he and I have settled things, and have worked together on things. Other than Arcayne, and now Chris, I've got no regular editor to whom I can ascribe no good faith. I'm not saying many of the blocks in my log weren't deserved; they were. Some weren't. But this is getting ridiculous. Am I supposed to just unwatch every page Arcayne shows up on? I'll be off the page after a few months of slow, steady, expansion by Arcayne. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no one notified me of this discussion, of which I appear to be a part of. Allow me to be blunt: I stopped watchlisting ThuranX some time ago, almost simply because he doesn't want to modify his behavior, and I have better things to do with my time here than babysit his edits. So I don't. I have not hounded his edits; in point of fact, I only discovered the last instance that resulted in his being blocked because I watchlist some of the pages that apparently he does as well, and noticed his throwing an undeserved beating into a fairly new user. As WQA has had little effect on his behavior in the past, I thought we were at risk for losing yet another user to ThuranX's behavior, so I took the matter to AN/I.
My first interaction with thuranX, more than two years ago, was no more pleasant than the one two days ago. His good contributions aside, his unchanging behavior is problematic. Granted, I've had a bumpy past, but I think I've grown as an editor, especially in matters of editorial interaction. I've seen newer users leave the project specifically because of his behavior, which is largely, 'it's my way, or fuck you'. Prickly doesn't begin to serve as an adequate descriptor.
It was because of this animosity on his part that I sought out the last admin who told me to come to him if I encountered problems. When I saw that the problems with ThuranX were only going to escalate, I needed some advice. Not protection, or preface to reporting him here, as Thuran kept claiming.
I want to stress that blocking/banning him shouldn't be a goal here; it has not in the past addressed his behavior at its core, and he would likely see such as unfair. As well, that might affect his mostly good contributions, turning them ever more sour. As to what would be more appropriate escapes me. I can't see him accepting a civility modification mentor, but maybe that might be a choice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that after making such a big deal of how he was going to be policing me, that Arcayne instead quietly,without fanfare, changed his mind and unwatched my talk page between 6 Jan and 27 or so Jan, when we again came into conflict. He made such a big deal of how he had every right to watch me, supervise and report me, that it would simply be absurd to assume he'd changed his mind silently, without telling anyone. As for his first interactions, I left the Thor page because of him, since then, I've left other pages to avoid him. Arcayne, however, every few months, shows up, picks some point to build contention, and whenever I try to talk about it, escalates, usually by digging in his heels for a few days, then reporting me when I get frustrated with his behavior. You would think I would have learned the just report him even faster than he reports me, but no. each time, I go into it thinking 'this is the time I'll get him to listen to others.' Each time, I wind up reported and hassled. I just don't have any interest in being the aggressor, but I'm no good at not looking like one in the face of his behaviors.

This ist he best way I know to summarize how I feel about him: Arcayne is the kid who pokes the other kid in the back during class, randomly, and not too often... just enough that the kid in front knows that it's coming, but he doesn't know when. Then, the kid in front abruptly turns around and punches the kid behind him, and gets in trouble, and the kid behind knows it worked, and prepares to start all over, because the punch is worth the misery caused. That's what dealing with Arcayne is like for me. ThuranX (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If ThuranX were under the impression that other editors were watching his behavior, it would serve as a temper on the behavior. After the first few days following his block, I kept him on my watchlist for a short period of time. I didn't interact with him, and went about my business. After a while, I took him off my watchlist and went on. convinced that - if the problem had not been resolved - someone else could deal with it.

A more accurate representation of his provided analogy would be the bully who picks on folk, and when someone finally decides to tell the principal about it, the bully either pretends to be sorry for it, or complains that he had to hit the kid because the kid wouldn't walk the way he wanted him to.

The best way to summarize Thuran's issue here is that if he doesn't want to feel at risk for being reported, he needs to sufficiently modify his behavior so that he no longer is susceptible to being blocked for a civility issue. ThuranX thinks he is the smartest kid in the room, and the reality is that no on e is the smartest person in the room while editing Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A civility probation should suffice to suppress many conflicts involving Thuran. I have his talk page on my watchlist since I blocked him for incivility last year. Since then, it has become clear to me that Thuran has a problem in the way he expresses himself to users who are bringing him frustration. Thuran also seems to believe that users who complain against him are "out to get him", like in a conspiracy ring. Thuran does not seem to acknowledge own fault, always preferring to adopt an aggressive posture to defense himself against any admonishments, regardless of their rightfulness. This behavior should be restrained. Húsönd 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though i'm not an admin, i've dealt with uncivil editors before. They continually revert pages and make personal atttacks because neither one refuses to admit their wrong or reach a compromise. I think that either they both apologize and end this year long fight, or ignore eachother enitrely (at the risk of both being indef blocked). Elbutler (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been seeking a compromise in the article discussion virtually since this issue arose, so long as the event being disputed is included; as per at least three different policies, while at least one person keeps characterizing them as BLP and undue weight. As far as ThuranX is concerned, I'm not following him around; we simply edits some of the same pages. I leave his edits alone and perform mine. He chooses to attack my edits (not reverse, or question but attack), despite being repeatedly asked to focus on the edits and not the editor by no less than four different people.

In the best of worlds, he could be a lot nicer to folk (not just me). At the very least, the guy could stop attacking me at every given opportunity. Have the pages the wikitool indicated a commonality one or both of us have dropped from our watchlist. Thor is a typical example; I haven't edited there since five days in August, 2007, and during that time, none of my 11 edits interacted with ThuranX' edits). I don't seek the guy out (I mean, seriously - considering the guy's behavior, only a masochist would), and he in fact follows me to articles to post complaints, and has done so for more than a year. I am not sure why I should apologize for not backing down to a bully, or defending the new folk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of stalking you now? Is this the level of absurdity that you must resort to? I can't believe this. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One possible solution that might work is the "bang their heads together" probation: if there are any incidents of incivility or disruption between the two of them, they will both be given equal blocks regardless of who said or did what. This might sound a little odd, and I admit it's stretching the "deterrent" clause in the block policy, but it does provide an incentive for each to make sure that there aren't future conflicts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd totally endorse that. There are a couple of beans-y issues, but those would quickly become incredibly obvious. I suggest six months at the outset, to be reviewed at three. Either of them causes a stink with or about the other and they both get blocked, escalating times, reset the BHT (Bang Heads Together) timer. //roux   05:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thirded, though I'd say start the blocks much lower than six months. And having looked at the "extreme" incivility ([37], [38], [39]) that Chrislk warns ThuranX for... Chrislk really does need to step back and let another admin handle this. I'm disturbed by his elsewhere-quotes of "You don't make friends and gain respect by being a dick and I would go as far as to say at time be a total asshole." and "Arcayne is welcome to review everything that you do. In fact, I will be paying a bit of attention to what you do too, espeically due to your long history of incivility." in response to ThuranX protesting that Chrislk was enabling Arcayne to stalk him. If ThuranX's behavior is really that egregious, it ought to be obvious to an uninvolved admin. arimareiji (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A look at the talk page and article page of the article in question reveals that Arcayne was edit warring against at least six other editors by my count, including ThuranX. When Arcayne couldn't get his way, he went to Chrislk's talk page with claims about incivility. Chrislk then leaves a warning about incivility on TX's talk page. Take a look at the three diffs Chris cites as examples - I can't see any incivility in any of them, let alone of the "rather extreme" variety that Chrislk purports to have encountered. No wonder then, that ThuranX considers the warning from Chris as unjustified. Having got a negative reaction from ThuranX, Chrislk then comes here to start a case against him for doing so. But on what grounds, apart from the fact that ThuranX said in effect he doesn't believe Chrislk is acting impartially? That doesn't seem like any ground for an AN/I case to me. It's hardly suprising in the circumstances then, that ThuranX feels he is being victimized.

I therefore see no ground for action against ThuranX, but in Arcayne's case this is not the first time I have seen him making dubious claims of misconduct against other users. I think it would help it he started showing a little less enthusiasm for resort to the umpire, and a little more respect for basic policies like WP:CONSENSUS. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gato, did you actually read that diff? I in no way accuse thuran of incivility however ask that, as a good practice, when in an content dispute that he make the argument about the content in question, not the editor. This is genreal purpose advice that I feel should be offered as a first like in any Dispute. Note that I also very clearly say, " I have no intention of blocking anybody for this content dispute, which is what it is. ." You have either failed to read my entire post, or taken it completley out of context. I am confused as to why you find this a warning about incivility (a word I do not even use in the post). I even summarize my post in a nice conclusion "As I said on my talk page, both sides are most often acting in good faith with the intent of providing the most reliable, accurate and relevant material. However, each side does thid differently due to personality differences and different understanding (or lack of understanding) of wikipedias policies and guidelines. Thanks!". Again, what is wrong with this post? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a second opinion. I gave you one. The diffs you posted as "rather extreme" examples of incivility were, at most, mild violations of WP:AGF, but users are not expected to extend AGF limitlessly, and these two users clearly have a history.

Furthermore I don't believe there is a legitimate case here. ThuranX expressed the view that you are not an impartial admin, you are entitled to disagree, but to continue to insist on his talk page that you are "only trying to help" - and then dragging him to AN/I when he refuses to accept your reassurances - only lends strength to his argument. And what exactly did you bring this to AN/I for anyway? Where does it say in policy that one is forbidden to express a distrust of an administrator? ThuranX has a right to his view, and though you may feel miffed by it, that is no reason to drag him to AN/I. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreicate the second opinion. Please note I came to ANI to have my behavior evaluated. If you had followed the case and the diffs I provided above, THuranX was going to bring this to ANI anyways. In an effort to show good faith on my behalf i requested that MY behavior be evaluated. Afterwards both thuran and arcayne came in guns a blazing. The intent of this thread was to evaluate this comment. While I felt that the comment was not inappropriate, and several other editors did not either, thuran kept insisting that I had made the comment in bad faith. Both THuran and I were frustrated about this which is why I requested a second opinion of MY behavior. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit that when I posted on this matter last night I missed the "go away, you fascist" edit summary which I think was unacceptable. However, I think that when he told you he did not view you as an impartial admin, it would probably have been best for you to just state your dissent and move on. He was obviously feeling victimized at that point and further discussion was only likely to inflame the situation.

No-one's behaviour has been ideal in this situation but ThuranX has apologized for his overreaction, so hopefully we can close this discussion now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gato: That policy was written back in 2004, but its origins are in the dawn of time. (To any whom it may concern: Joke) arimareiji (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring this to ANI anyways, I was saying that would be the next step if he continued to help Arcayne in harassing me. That said, It seems consensus here is I overreacted to Chrislk. In rereading it, I can see how others read it differently than I do. I apologize to Chris. However, I do feel that he kept on pushing and pushing, when he could have easily gotten other Admins involved separately, instead of ramping things up before R Baley showed. I've already apologized to R Baley. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong, Gatoclass. I went to Chrislk's page only when the discussion turned ugly, and not on my part (recall that whole, comment on the edits and not the editor thing?). Indeed, my question to Chris was whether I was acting out of order, and warranting the personal attacks levied against me. And they weren't doubtful; if I had issued the same against you, Gato, there isn't a way in hell you wouldn't feel attacked as well. And I will retiterate that at no time was I seeking punitive action against ThuranX; I just wanted the attacks to stop.

I won't speak to the content issue, as folk here have specifically noted that they don't want to address them. While I do see a lot of protectionist ownership happening in the articles in question ('wait, you want to add real world stuff to the article? How dare you!'), I guess I should allow consensus to be wrong, despite the fact that it violates essentially every other policy that we use, you know, verifiability, reliability, original research, crystal ball, etc. But if you are okay with that and personal attacks ([1, 2, 3 and many, many more), I guess I can be okay with that, too. I am pretty sure that will come back to bite us on the ass, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now every one's arguing, i think we all need to take a deep breath, take a short break from editing to cool off and think rationally, and try to avoid contact except for this noticeboard, further incivil comments (at least try to avoid swearing, that only fans the flames higher) will only make it worse. P.S. i'm moving this discussion down so it won't be archived by the bot since it's obviously not done yet. Elbutler (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the bot cares where the thread is on the page. It archives threads based on whether or not a comment has been posted to it for the last 24 hours. But whatever, I digress.--Atlan (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor revealing too much information?

Resolved

 – User page deleted. — neuro^(talk) 09:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is This user, a minor, revealing too much information on his Talk page? AnyPerson (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. Isn't there a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? ArcAngel (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted their userpage per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and left them a message pursuant to the Arbitration case. Tiptoety ^talk 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

... there is a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? Um, wtf? -- Gurch (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No...the user in question was revealing more information than just their email address. Tiptoety ^talk 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your opinion on a minor posting their name and photo on their user? If the user is an adult, this is acceptable but this is a minor. The child is 15 years old so he's not that young. I think his name should not be there unless he has written permission from his parents. If it's just his photo and not his name, then it might be ok (but I would have to think about it). Chergles (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Second user: resolved. Chergles (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Ed Fitzgerald, whitespace and other manual formatting against the MOS

Ed has been asked repeatedly by many users to stop doing this. He even said he would consider stopping this. Yet, he continues to use "! -- >" page code to enforce his personal style. This isn't a big bad horrible thing, but it is against MOS, he's shown a willingness to revert war over it, he has been politely asked, and a little escalation by an admin to the wrist lash with a wet noodle request to actually stop is a logical next step. Miami33139 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the MOS has anything to say about it, the extra blank lines create an inch-wide gutter of wasted space, at least on my screen. I've discussed this with Ed before and he says it is because he is using MSIE and wants to avoid having too little space in certain places such as above and below divs such as navboxes and the table of contents (hell, I wish I had that problem). — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Godvia

Resolved. There was only one way this was going to end. – iridescent 22:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

An indefinite block is probably in order for User:Godvia. Warnings are not stopping this bad faith editor. Evidence is here: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. This would seem to be pretty open-and-close to me, as the user is way out of line despite repeated warnings. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Nothing here to defend. – iridescent 22:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not really resolved because we have angry users now. The user initially started out with a calmly written comment on a talk page. Later it degenerated. We should work with others so as not to create a hostile situation. It is easy to blame the blocked user. Let's see if we can handle it better in the future. Companies and stores have to deal with the situation all the time...disatisfied customers who sometimes eventually yell and swear. Some companies and stores handle the situation better, especially in the early stages. I'm not blaming anyone. I am merely suggesting that we should work for a calm situation whenever possible. Chergles (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Have you read the account in question's contributions? – iridescent 23:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is marked as an indef block for vandalism, but the behavior of the user was sufficiently strange it's not clear how to classify it. The account made its start on 30 January with a puzzling and discomforting dispute about the race of the actress Meagan Good, which can still be seen at Talk:Meagan Good#Heritage? (Really). User:Godvia started throwing around the term 'racist'. The editor then progressed to obscene personal attacks, four of which are listed by Iridescent at the top of this report. I'm not going to question an indef block for this kind of editing record. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have serious questions about the user's behavior but have started a dialogue, sort of acting like a mini-counselor. The better we work together, the better it is. There's no sense in having the user feel like Wikipedia said to him "F.U., you are banned." Chergles (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:68.231.164.27 stalking User:Hrafn

Resolved

 – Blocked 72 hours, and page protected. — neuro^(talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

68.231.164.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be undoing all of User:Hrafn's edits en masse. A short term block would be helpful, while this is sorted out. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

...and page protected due to abuse. Tan | 39 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New User Creating Extra Accounts

Resolved

 – Nothing to act on, no policies breached. — neuro^(talk) 17:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While doing a little Recent Changes patroling, I noticed a new user creating a new account, almost back to back. My vandalism radar went off, I want to think that it is an innocent account creation, but I will leave that to you all to decide. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 3, 2009 @ 06:23

Two accounts I can live with. Users creating a dozen accounts in a few minutes really set my radar off. Besides, his first article (The Possimpible (How I Met Your Mother)), while needing a lot of help, at least looks like someone going to be an asset here. There's a part of me that says to notify him, but I really don't think that would help (WP:BITE concerns anyone?)-- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You could always welcome and inquire without biting, or appearing to be biting. I'll trust you to formulate that one. (Can be a bit tricky, but is definitely do-able with the proper amount of tact applied :-) Edit Centric (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy against a user having 2 accounts. In fact, there is technically no policy against using 100 accounts, although anyone who actually does is probably using them in one of the ways specified as being forbidden per WP:SOCK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We should consider re-writing the policy because some administrators act as though 2 accounts is reason for indefinite block. The policy could clarify when it is permitted or ban it. Chergles (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:SOCKPUPPET does this quite helpfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Should probably just be left alone until anything untoward happens. –xeno (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio, requesting block

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 days. — neuro^(talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but for some reason I can't find exactly where to report this ... New editor Montaj13 continues to cut and paste content from other sites despite repeated warnings (check his/her talk page for some incidents and diffs). I'm thinking a block is the only way to get the message across? Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 06:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Kafziel

Resolved

 – Barneca is a genius (IMHO) --barneca (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Kafziel has had his usertalk semi-protected since October. As he is an administrator, and one who actively utilizes the admin tools, I don't see how this is acceptable. WP:PPol specifically states that usertalk pages are not normally sprotected.

Bringing this up with him, the only responses were that since I'm fairly inactive I'm not one to talk, that I should bring it up with arbcom if I still feel there's an issue, and that he's in the middle of a fairly large trolling right now and can't.

I still don't understand what the issue is with unprotecting it; it's not like a little trolling is going to hurt anyone, and any troll worth his salt is already autoconfirmed. And of course he's not going to get any requests to unprotect from new users, considering they may not have any means of actually contacting him.

Does anyone else care to weigh in, or point out that I'm just being a pain in the ass, or anything? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The middle option. Tan | 39 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

May I? .. I didn't find any problem in registering and getting in 10 edits. (or whatever the autoconfirmed requirements are). I have seen a lot of admins subjected to a lot vandalism, threats, trolls and such - and I can understand limiting it to registered and confirmed users. Just IMHO — Ched (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC) (I don't have to provide references here do I?) ... just kidding. (copyedit)— Ched (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If there hasn't been a specific issue raised about communicating with Kafziel, I say just leave the situation be. Kafziel's a good guy. I think he can manage protection settings on his user talk page just fine (looks from the history that he has been protecting and unprotecting at his discretion). My .02, but I suspect others may have stronger views on WP:PP and admin user talk pages. -- Samir 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think protection since October when you do a lot of blocking is excessive. Personally, I think if you are going to use the tools, you should be open to getting responses. Otherwise, it just isn't a fair exchange. I've had some nasty vandalism on my page and I'd never think to protect it (or would probably go through the bureaucratic hoops of asking someone else to do it for me). If you don't want to deal with that stuff, give up the mop or don't do stuff that leads to those characters. It just comes with the territory in my view. However, unless there is someone complaining who is specifically hurt by his protection (i.e. an IP he is disputing who cannot talk to him), I'd say let it go. I've seen admins use full protection, another delete and selectively undelete their page to remove conversations and warnings they didn't like, and another unilaterally delete articles and blocked people under WP:IAR, all reported here over the years. The community doesn't find this type of conduct enough of a concern, so move on and let it go. He's going to block people, prevent them from contacting him, and that's the way it is. Yes, it's all probably in large violation of policy but remember that policy reflect consensus, not the other way around. Someone will go and just change the policy soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I watchlist the talk pages of every user and IP address I deal with, and I keep them watchlisted for months. Hundreds and hundreds of them. I'm very responsive to discussion, often willing to spend several hours going back and forth if need be. I tend to deal pretty fairly with new and unregistered users, and all anyone ever needs to do is let me know so-and-so would like to talk but can't, and I will unlock my page. Or they can email me—believe me, they all know how—and I usually reply on their talk pages within minutes. Nobody has a problem contacting me after a block, one way or another.

That said, I'm sure I'll be able to remove protection again soon. Just not today. Many thanks to those who understand. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of the protection log, if every time he has protected his page it as due to a spree of vandalism - then I see no problem, except for the fact that the first time he did it himself. Since, in general, user talk pages aren't protected, I believe that COI plays a major role here. However, once it's been established that there's a problem - he is likely to be the first to know when it needs to be re-protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is easily solved, as has been mentioned by several different people several different times on several different threads on this noticeboard over the years. When I semi-protect my user talk page to prevent disruption by an annoyed vandal, I transclude User:Barneca/Protection notice at the top, and watchlist User talk:Barneca/Unprotected. Vandals usually won’t bother, as they won't be annoying me, and if they do they’re easily ignored. IP’s or new accounts with a real need to communicate have a way to contact me. --barneca (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder threats on article

Resolved

 – Report filed. — neuro^(talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

These three edits include a murder threat at Lingle, Wyoming. I've notified the local Goshen County Sheriff's office by email, but I don't have phone access: could someone in the USA please notify them by telephone by 18:30 UTC (11:30 Mountain Time), 307-532-4026? Here is their website. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have called them and made the report. The sheriff said they had two deputies in the area (which I took to mean they were familiar with the names listed, and it is a very small town) and they are trying to track them down. When I hung up with the sheriff, they had 28 minutes before 11:30 Mountain, so hopefully that's enough time, in the unlikely event that this threat has substance. But better safe than sorry. Useight (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP that made the edit is registered to Wyoming Community College Commission but is also apparently used by many K-12 schools.

Comment:    This large address space is shared by many Wyoming 
Comment:    K12 schools and 7 Wyoming community colleges. When I receive complaints 
Comment:    about any hosts in this range  I have to forward them to the local 
Comment:    network administrators  because I have no means to directly administer 
Comment:    these school networks.

The domain admin name and phone number is available in the whois report. —Travis^talk 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MacedonianLights

MacedonianLights (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of Historian19 (talk · contribs), in that their contributions mirror those of Historian19's most recent sock, IslandShader (talk · contribs), such as this [45] and this [46], both of which feature a lengthly paragraph on Maltese-Americans and Britney Spears as well as Historian19's trademark swapping and resizing of images. Could someone please take a look? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorse WP:DUCK block. — neuro^(talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation of long-time wikipedia editor Keith Simon (wiki editor SimonATL)

I have been editing on wikipedia for several years as SimonATL. My name actual name is Keith Simon. A couple years ago, someone created an new wikipedia account, "Keith Simon" which has only recently been brought to my attention. The creator of this account has used it to vandalize articles even while pointing a falsely accusing finger at me.

Background.

This is a long story, but this comes down to a situation that started several years ago with an article that I created on wikipedia on the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TRA) using my wikipedia account, SimonATL. Around the same time, I started an article on Tweed Roosevelt. I am a member of the TRA and also have written extensively on Theodore Roosevelt and his large extended family. You can check my history on wikipedia as editor SimonATL to see for yourself.

There were some disagreements about factual statements in the article. At the same time, there were also some disagreements among the leadership of the TRA involving the organization's leadership and a past interim director, Edward Renehan.

Anyway, wikipedia editors such as TEDHEAD and another one TRAVENGER, people who sided with Mr. Renehan (whether or not it was Mr. Renehan is debatable, he claimed it was not him) made various changes in the article on the TRA and also on an article on a member of the TRA's executive board, Tweed Roosevelt. I have no way of knowing who has been involved in this impersonation of me and I don't care.

Bottom line, taking the opposite side of the debate, I made some changes in the article on the TRA and also on Mr. Tweed Roosevelt.

This past weekend, when I reviewed the "Tweed Roosevelt" account, I realized that someone a couple years ago - (around Oct 2007) created wikipedia account, "Keith Simon." I know it was not me and since it was not me, I obviously can't sign into Wikipedia using that account. If you look at the contributions of that account, you will see that it made a vandalization change to the article on Tweed Roosevelt on 17:04, 24 January 2009 (edit) (undo) which obviously vandalization. There is simply no logical way that the "real" Keith Simon, me - would have vandalized an article that I started years ago and which I have had to go into and pull out other people's vandalizations.

Questions. 1. How does the "real" Keith Simon, me - get control of that ID? 2. Can the account be deleted so that I could RE-create it, myself.

I spoke with Mr. Tweed Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt's great-grandson, this morning, whom I know thru that organization, the "Theodore Roosevelt Association" to explain that it was not I who had been vandalizing the article. That vandalization had been pointed out to him by several wikipedians who personally know him.

So what am I to do? To verify my identity, I can fax you my drivers license and my military (retired) ID.

Imagine how you would feel if someone created a Mark Ryan wikipedia ID and then began vandalizing articles under that assumed name!

Rather than just block this account, I'd rather just have the account deleted and that I be immediately notified so that I could create a "Keith Simon" account under my own control.

I appreciate anything that can be done to remedy this.

Thanks

SimonATL (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Simon Major US Marine Corps Reserve (Ret) Senior JDE System Engineer - CNC Roseburg Forest Products, Dillard, OR

• Email this to WP:OTRS. They can probably handle the ID issues better than we can. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd. User:Keith Simon and User:SimonATL both edited the article on Theodore Roosevelt Association, in October of 2007, see

Special:Contributions/Keith Simon. [now see Special:Contributions:Renamed vandal 83. Otherwise I'd just chalk it up to coincidence, SimonATL seems a tad overeactive here; after all, the name Keith Simon isn't all that unusual, and User:Keith Simon doesn't seem to be impersonating SimonATL; if he is, the impersonation is old and was invisible, i.e., the edits to Theodore Roosevelt Association seem innocuous; SimonATL edited the article the very next day, and didn't change them. The vandalism of Tweed Roosevelt only lasted for forty minutes until reverted by User:Nunh-huh, so that it was even noticed is odd. It's possible, I suppose, someone involved with the TRA and the flap registered the account in October 2007, used it harmlessly for a few edits, then forgot about it. Until motivated to do some mischief. Based on the report, I'd suggest blocking the account. (There is no reason to delete it.) If the "real Keith Simon" -- the editor who registered that account -- shows up, he could easily be unblocked with any sort of reasonable explanation. Normally, a single vandalism wouldn't be enough to block an account, but I don't like the idea of just leaving this hanging with no action. I.e., there does appear to be some connection between Keith Simon and SimonATL, and it's unlikely that it was that SimonATL registered the account in 2007 and forgot about it -- unless, perhaps, someone has access to his email and could recover the password and then use it for vandalism. Got any kids, Keith, who might play a joke on you? --Abd (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a very unusual set of events. While User:Keith Simon hasn't done anything wrong simply in creating an account with that name, to use it to edit articles which are within the known area of interest of a real (or, just conceivably, another real) Keith Simon looks very like bad faith and deliberate deceipt. I should suggest that User:Keith Simon needs to be invited to explain himself (or herself), and that failing a satisfactory explanation the account should be blocked for a long period. Having said that, I don't believe it's all right (indeed, it may be defamatory) for SimonATL to hint above at possible deception by a named individual, and I would ask him to strike out that name. Xn4 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the peculiar edits of "User:Keith Simon" to both the Theodore Roosevelt Association and Tweed Roosevelt; it's enlightening to hear the story behind them. The Tweed Roosevelt article is the target of frequent vandalism by IPs and what appear to be socks; I would not be surprised to learn that some of them were the user in question. In any case, I think a block as an impersonator is justified, as the User:Keith Simon account has been used for fewer than a dozen edits, and most of those are controversial or vandalistic, which could damage the reputation of the real Keith Simon especially within the TRA. -Nunh-huh 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

05:39, 3 February 2009 EVula deleted "User:Keith Simon" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup). That's good enough for now, I'd think. I'd have some reservations about SimonATL registering that name again. It would make it look like he was the vandal. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the OP doesn't want to do it, I'll create one as a doppelganger. — neuro^(talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If that account has been making edits, doesn't deletion of that account violate WP:GFDL? AnyPerson (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Edits made by the editor now appear as "Renamed vandal 83" see [47]. I only saw one vandalism edit, the latest, I'd have thought that blocking the account would have been enough. The edits that were close to SimonATL's edit didn't seem to be vandalism. I'd have preferred to keep the Keith Simon account, block it, and place a note that explained why. There was no hazard to SimonATL, so I'm wondering why the drastic move of deletion was done. One edit doesn't justify calling an editor a "vandal." Were there others. If the real "Keith Simon" (not SimonATL whom we may assume has the same name) shows up and wants to, the block could then be templated for review. But at least contribs works now.

I still don't think we can leave hints of misbehaviour by another named individual on this page. Xn4 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request a quick maintenence speedy deletion

Resolved

 – deleted and moved. --Dynaflow babble 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaki-gaijin (talk · contribs) is creating an article on a brewer, Philip Harper (sake brewer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who shares a name with the jazz trumpeter Philip Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaki-gaijin decided to make Philip Harper into a disambig page, but instead of moving the original contents, history, etc., of that page en masse, he or she copy-pasted the article onto a new page he or she created, Philip Harper (jazz trumpeter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and then blanked the original article to turn it into a disambiguation page. Can someone do an IAR speedy of Philip Harper (jazz trumpeter) so I can help this guy out by properly moving Philip Harper to that new pagename and then creating a disambiguation page out of the resulting redirect? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

done -- Samir 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Noclador

I'm too busy and do not have the inclination to get in these constant edit wars that this user seems to have become enthralled with this month. Some Admin please look at the multiple citations I included in the article. This user seems adamant to constantly remove cited references and erase terms from the article that do not fit his particular POV. [48] This is but a few lines of text, I believe including more information is better than accidentally deleting cultural and lingual information. Please see Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Icsunonove (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It already appears that Three revert rule has been trespassed on with this edit war, lemme look further. In the meantime, I'm counseling BOTH of these editors to please cease the edit war that has been taking place, and take time to discuss the changes on the article's talk page when the opportunity arises. Please try to apply Bold, Revert, Discuss. Edit Centric (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen, I totally agree, and I'd appreciate an Admin to please step in. Noclador has become extreme this past month and it is becoming absurd. I posted one link with the same text twice, and then he lambasts me as being incompetent. No mention that he actually described my mistake wrong.  :) To me it is unacceptable to remove cited references; these are the foundation of Wikipedia content. Anyway, I'll probably be gone for another week or two now, but for goodness sake stop this ultra-POV erasure of information. Icsunonove (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating. Icsunonove - I'm seeing by the edit history that you have just violated Wikipedia policy on Three Revert Rule. Please wait a while before making any more changes. It's not at all proper to bring another user to AN/I for edit warring, and then go continue the edit war, and violate a standing policy in the process. Edit Centric (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I broke the 3RR rule myself. That said, this complaint is not about reverting edits, they have been doing this for a month now if you look at the article history. :) My complaint is this user going in and erasing cited references over and over again. This is vandalism. I have no intention to edit war, I'd just like an Admin to not allow such behavior that cleanses articles of relevant content. Also, I'm not sure I exactly did 3RR, because I was putting back the sentence and modifying it (taking out one reference with duplicate text). thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm actually at 2RR so far. :) I don't need to edit anymore if simply an Admin stops this user from wiping out sentences and references. I sincerely wish these arguments could simply be issues that are resolved, but it seems in particular this user has made this a rather large part of his life. He can not discuss things calmly, it is as it is some personal war now. Anyway, whatever... @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have one of the admins check me on this, but it does appear that 3RR has been breached. Also, Icsunonove, it's customary to let the other editor know that you've initiated an AN/I discussion about them, so that they have a chance to respond. I've taken the liberty of accomplishing that, so no worries this time. Edit Centric (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Noclador must certainly be at 3RR or more. ^_^ Seriously though, apologies again, I am not accustomed to making such reports. Thanks for leaving the notice. It is just getting very old to come here for an hour, add some language-usage references, and have them wiped out left and right -- with a bunch of insults along the way. I'd just hope for some community watch over these pages, because it is becoming just a constant war this past month. He is deleting my references and sentences simply because he screams he doesn't like or believe the language usage. How can we even contribute to articles or discuss things in such an environment? I mean, just coming back to edit on Wikipedia after a few days off is always the same story with this guy -- constantly and relentlessly raging. @_@ To me, one quick way to resolve this issue is simple -- this user should stop blanking valid edits and cited references. An even longer-term solution would be for this user to seriously chill out and start discussing with editors that disagree with him in a civilized manner. For the best of me, I can't understand how someone can be so driven by waging war on an internet encyclopedia! :) Icsunonove (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my motives on the talkpage: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Adesc_Aut long before Icsunonove arrived. Icsunonove has a long history of edit waring and insulting other users [49], [50], [51], [52]. His modus operandi is insinuations, insults and snide remarks, coupled with lies to anger and hurt other editors, but on a level below actual slander: examples from the last hour: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57].
As usual he does contribute nothing to articles - he limits himself to disrupt the work of editors, who would like to work on articles about South Tyrol, by forcing them into endless discussion about the naming of locations. When then editors get angry through his condescending treatment of them, his insults and insinuations - he switches his style and plays the victim and is all concerned about the other users behavior - while smearing the editors in questions with lies to disparage their standing in the wikipedia community... just see above.
The disturbing part is that for the last year or so he successfully drove away over a dozen contributers (if an admin wants their name, I can email them under the condition that their names be kept confidential)
The term Adesc Aut Icsunonove wants to add to the article is a simple translation of the provinces Italian Name Alto Adige and as shown in my multiple posts on the talkpage is not used. Furthermore I spoke this morning with both, the head of the Istitut Ladin "Micurà de Rü"(the Ladin Institut, that is tasked by the government to protect the Ladin language) and the president of the Union Generela di Ladins dla Dolomites (the cultural association governing the protection of the Ladins culture) and they stated that Adesc Aut is "un nome storpiato italiano" (a deformed Italian name) and that it is a falsification to claim that Adesc Aut is used by the Ladins. They are both ready to write this in an email to ORTS.
Alas, this report is another of Icsunonove myriad attempts to drive me away from the articles about South Tyrol, which I have expanded a lot over the last weeks: i.e. [58], [59], [60]. The annoying part is that every step I take in expanding the articles about South Tyrol I have to fight through with Icsunonove, who - despite being totally clueless about South Tyrols 1500 year German history - insists to preserve his view of the Italian history of the area, This view is factually and historically wrong. Therefore he can't and doesn't bring valid sources - and misinterprets valid sources. He claims otherwise above, but Icsunonove is in fact bad faith disruptive editor, who has driven away dozens of editors that worked on articles regarding South Tyrol, while contributing nothing to expand and enlarge articles. It is strenuous to continually have to defend valid corrections and improvements, because of one editor, who continues to insult and disrupt constructive work. --noclador (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, here he goes again. Why don't you address the here and now, without always trying to generate these grand conspiracies against everyone? I came on here for a few short minutes to add some citations, you then instantly wipe out my edits and valid references, as part of the greater edit war you were already participating in. But, yes, you are always the victim on here, and everyone else is evil, right? Why do I have to hear all these ridiculous accusations that you make after I simply try and add some citations? Who is indeed editing in bad faith? Who is disruptive and driving away editors? No one can even make an edit that is counter to your opinion without getting an ear full or having their edits reverted. This is fact. This topic had finally relaxed some for a period of two years, until you have decided to make it your personal mission in life to bring back the hell for us all, eh? Last time you accused me of being a fascist and getting rid of South Tyrol because I was fixing wikilinks. @_@ You are just giving the impression that you are extremely paranoid. So, I've tried to drive you away from the articles? Oh-kayyy. I've tried multiple times to engage you and Gun Powder Ma to stop this stupid war, yet you have pushed this to a point of an obsession. All you come off as being is extremely, and constantly angry. Listen, we'll try this yet again Noclador. I added references that show usage of the word Adesc Aut. One of the references was a government PDF from the town of Ortisei. They use that term, geez, deal with it. It is not reasonable to simply wipe out other's edits; these edits simply add to the article. You do know that you appear unable to take any POV other than a pure German one, don't you? No, but of course, everyone else is clueless and incompetent except you, right? No one can edit and expand these articles except you. We got it. Yes, all these edit wars here these past months is because of one editor, me, driving you to this extreme behavior. Gotcha. I sure have some power over you, given I rarely have time to edit on here. @_@ Well I'm the big bad editor now, except later when it is Supparluca, or then it is Piccolo, oh maybe later it will be Ian, or anyone else that dares edit the pages as you do not see fit. Whatever Noclador, you have to seriously, seriously chill out. You talk here about "1500 year German history"... that is fine, but it is unacceptable for you to try and erase and belittle other peoples' history. Man, you even post incident reports that you primarily created. At one point, in one day, you setup half-a-dozen incident reports about me, that you had the Admins laughing at you. Then you accuse others of driving away editors? Your mode of operation now appears simply to stalk these pages daily and drive everyone away from these articles, so you can be the sole owner of these pages. That is unacceptable. You are going to have to learn to share, both here on Wikipedia, and in real life with regard to this province. I personally drove away over a dozen contributers! LOL You do not know how desperate you sound making such amazing claims... Icsunonove (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've heard from both parties in this, I'll say a few things here, then let an admin chime in. (I'm surprised one hasn't already!) First, both of you need to stop the edit warring, and the finger pointing and recriminations here. If there is a grievance, please cite specific diffs so that they can be vetted. Also, these past few jabs back and forth just threw WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE right out the window. As I'm not in the habit of telling people what to do, I'll therefore ask both of you, with an implied tone of forcefullness, to please dial it down a few clicks. Edit Centric (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, actually. Edit Centric, the DIFF I included at the beginning of this post is why I made this incident report. The terms were removed from the article (I assume) because the original citations had dropped off, and this editor stated they were included through original research (he was wrong). In the middle of his ongoing edit war, I came on to the article to add back the terms, while making sure we included multiple active references this time around (per Wikipedia policy). These edits were then immediately wiped out because I'm "clueless" and "incompetent", per the talk page and above. Admins chiming in on this would be quite helpful. Every single time anyone edits these pages in a way that doesn't pass muster with this particular editor, this doesn't mean those editors should be subjected to his attempts to soil their reputations or insult their knowledge. Who indeed is trying to push who off of Wikipedia? I, and others, can't come here and make a single edit to these pages, without him coming after us... He needs to stop this, and in general, and permanently -- chill out. Icsunonove (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Icsunonove, and if you want ta make controversial changes to articles, try to prove the contents by references. As far as I know, the term "Adesc Aut" is not used by Ladin institutions and is explicitely rejected by the leaders of Museum de Gherdeina in Urtijei, of Micurà de Rü, and the Union Generela. If Icsunonove had asked them, he would know better. But obviously he doesn't want to know better. I could also write "Oberetsch" in my personal German webpage, and you could cite it, but it would be of no value for Wikipedia, as there are useful and useless sources.

Icunonove is a special case. Obviously he knows how far he can go without being blocked, but I know his way of communicating, and IMO it's awful. I mean Icsunonove (alias Taalo), NOT Noclador. -- PhJ (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Icsunonove has been recently warned by User:Neurolysis for insulting other admins IP (21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)). In the same discussion he has also been found of using addiotionally to his account an anonymous (192.45.72.26) with which he deleted and replaced the name "South Tyrol" in various articles. Generally, the [61] history of the user's contributions shows him quite extraordinarily engaged in debates and discussions on talk pages (ca. 56%) as opposed to his his edits in the main (30%). These 30% are, as a closer look reveals confined almost to the subject of South Tyrol, and here quite often to the change of names of Ladin and German places.

In the specific case, I find little value in Icsunonove's 'sources': Two of them were acutually the same texts only at different URLs, [62] [63], while a third actually refered to a camping site. This is quite clearly not the kind of material which has place in the introduction (keyword: notability), and therefore I find User:Noclador's reverts understandable, without going to the lengthy and sometimes unsuccessful process of notifying admins (it should be mentioned in this context that the one admin, who has been in the past concerned about the subject, User:Gryffindor had been blamed in the past by Icsunonove for having biased views (see link above for insult warning by User:Neurolysis). The quality of the references wasn't such that it was really necessary. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is high time admins do intervene to stop Icsunonove, who has done nothing but disrupt work on South Tyrol articles from the moment he came to wikipedia: first as IP 71.106.163.225, than user:Taalo and later as Icsunonove... If you look at his very first day on wikipedia (October 1st, 2006) you already see the typical behaviour: i.e. insulting other editors: [64], [65], [66], [67]; claims of German POV [68], [69], [70], edit warring with the aim to put Italian before German names [71], [72], [73], erasing German links [74], [75], removing the name South Tyrol [76], [77], [78], putting into the article factually wrong statements with inflammatory comments [79], removing things he didn't like [80], [81], with insulting comments [82], putting his POV into articles [83]... this being his first day: than he created the user:Taalo and proceeded in the same vain leading to two AN/I reports: one for edit warring another one for insulting other editors... in between being Taalo and Icsunonove he appeared under various IP's: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], with the usual mix of deleting South Tyrol, attacking other users and again randomly insulting entire people [93] and trying to devalue sources he doesn't like with factualy wrong assertions [94] and my favorite edit censuring an editor for adding Adesc Aut (!). He also has used IP by TRW Space and Defense Sector from the 192.45. range (i.e. [95], [96]) with the usual name calling, calling for anyone that does not agree with him to be banned, insulting and so on: a little extract as there are to many to collect them all: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]
Furthermore there is socketpuppetry: user:Viewtool, user:Account101, user:Wikifun-usa, user:Nospu, user:Infinity88, user:Jamesbozen, user:Rossifumi-gp and user:Mud-miner were all incarnations of Icsunonove with which he tried to manipulate votes regarding the naming of locals in South Tyrol ceckuser results at bottom of this page
So we have: socketpuppetry, POV pushing, insulting (a extract from the last months: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160]) and all taken together - isn't it time to finally block him for his disruptive behavior? Anyone familiar with Icsunonove knows he fits perfectly into the pattern of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --noclador (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Icsunonove's overall disruptive behaviour becomes also evident at Eisack where he moved the page three times in clear violation of the outcome of a discussion and vote in April 2007 (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco or Isarco River):

1. August 2007
2. September 2007
3. January 2009

Given the long intervals, there is little doubt that his is a long-time agenda. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I have been noticed this discussion (since I've been mentioned). I've not seen Icsunonove around a lot, but from what I've seen, he has demonstrated persistent bad faith. I've not seen the same from Noclador, but you both need to tone down your arguments a little. :) — neuro^(talk) 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion left, I get the impression again that this is a typical example of a user having too much time in order to mob another user with actual knowledge out of the system. Icsunove has now been blocked twice [161] and it would be best if he stops getting on everyone's nerves. My recommendation is to close this post without further ado. Gryffindor (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot messages

There must be an opt-out list for users "who do not wish to hear from bots". Actually, extend that to "not to receive automated messages of any kind". Every month I get a batch/flood of tens of "WARNING!"s I could care less about. This only serves to interrupt me. It is very annoying.

Do I really need a copyright warning for File:25px-Silvercircle.png or File:Silverhalfpip.png? How about File:SL Navy Insigna Type 1.JPG? I uploaded a lot of images (in the past) with a PD license. Simple images I created like File:SL Navy Insigna Type 1.JPG which are not copyrightable at all. These warnings and monitoring is seemingly created automatically without any user input "warn all uploads tagged with {{Pd}} that do not contain a URL without applying common sense of any kind".

Now I am getting a shower of warnings over such ancient uploads of mine. It doesn't seem like it will stop.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some bots will respect {{bots}}/{{nobots}} tags - see the documentation on these pages for details. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The PD template is deprecated. Perhaps making use of it is what is triggering the bot spam? Tarc (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The images linked above were not tagged by a bot, but by Skier Dude (talk · contribs). It would seem there was human input, however lacking in common sense it may have been. - auburnpilot talk 14:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Skier Dude edits remarkably quickly. Look at his edits of January 31. There can't be time for much human input to what he's doing, if any. Is he running an unauthorized bot? rspεεr (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

His userpage clearly states he operates a bot. Tiptoety ^talk 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Rspeer means on his main account. — neuro^(talk) 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with bot edits to my userspace that do not involve automated messages. Bots fix templates, images and etc... BUt when you get 20 or 30 messages per month - that is annoying. This isn't a matter over one users conduct but a complaint over the general practice. -- Cat ^chi? 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a bona fide bot would be able to add each user's "bad images" to a list and limit itself to one edit per talk page per day instead of crap-flooding like this Dude does. "Human" image-deletion notifiers might not have the facility to keep track of such things unless it is built into AutoTwinkProofHug or whatever they are using, but they should at least use a shorter, less condescending template for recipients who already know how the system works. — CharlotteWebb 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed... :( -- Cat ^chi? 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of personal judgement and bias in Wikipedia Article Dorje Shugden Controversy is acively blocked by an editor

Resolved

 – Reverted, blocked 1 week ACB. — neuro^(talk) 08:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there I had a repeated incident with user:Atisha's cook where he judged the person of a linked website as an "anti-Shugden activist". There is no 3rd party record which approves such a claim nor does this person states that he belongs to such a category. I think the claim is aimed to denounce the website owner. For the sake of keeping neutrality I removed that personal claim of the editor, however he always inserted it again. See History in Dorje_Shugden_controversy. I warned also the editor to report this to the admin-board but he ignored, and inserted his pov again. --Kt66 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a BLP issue without a source, I'm warning the user now. — neuro^(talk) 08:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked 1 week ACB. — neuro^(talk) 08:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This helps me to restore my faith in Wikipedia. --Kt66 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Users - User:Snowded & User:Ironholds

Please some assistance. I've tried to be civil and useful but it seems that I can't get a break. I tried to develop neutral census gathering but these two keep following me around every edit I make and has been trying to slander me. It is very discouraging. These two seem to try to make my life very difficult. I've stopped trying to explain within the Naturalism (philosophy) page in order to get down to the truth as they gave me threats of being a troll. I then decided to try to build on the process of "neutral census building" because these two seem to have done the same but they've been warned before from following me around. I believe that the attacks on the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/To-do_list) have gone too far. What I listed was suppose to be a To-do item and has turned into an article to attack me. I know that the other Catholics on in the list would not want such a long discussion on the "to-do" list. I'm stopping all of my editing for now in the next couple days to try to get things resolved and to stop receiving the threats. Theology10101 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already suggested WP:DR for this issue when it showed up on my talk page a week and a half ago. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I (think) that was before I became involved. Everything there has been eliminated apart from informal/formal mediation, which wouldn't work since the issue is Theology refusing to understand what we are trying to say. I did not accuse Theology of being a troll; indeed, at one point I defended him against accusations of trolling; in exchange he all but accused me of being a troll when I followed him to a related page after he violated WP:CANVASS and posted a message asking for people to step in and defend 'the truth' at the Naturalism (philosophy) talkpage. If he considers requesting the assistance of a limited group of editors to defend a particular point of view something for a 'to-do' list then the problem is him, not us. You have not tried neutral consensus gathering, and the problem is not us failing to understand your explanations of, quote, 'the truth'; we understand them, and we've explained repeatedly why they are not appropriate for the article. I've almost exhausted my supplies of good faith, and to be honest it is suprising that they have held out at all dealing with a user who put me on a 'blacklist' on his user talk page for warning him politely about the inappropriateness of a blacklist, attempted to canvass at a potentially biased location and then went basically 'well I'm not saying you are a troll, I'm just saying that if you look at the definition of troll at Metawiki then some of your edits might come close to you being a troll'. All I want is for some way for Theology to accept that the opinions he is touting are inappropriate to be included in the Naturalism (philosophy) article, something I have tried to explain to him politely and in various forms about seven times without success. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Overly hostile editor at the DYK talk page

User:Politizer has been overly hostile to people who do not agree with him for over two months at the Wikipedia talk:Did you know page. Recently, he posted a response saying this in the edit summary: "clarification about yet another Ottava Rima factual inaccuracy. come on, man, learn your shit already". I asked him not to put personal attacks in edit summaries because he has a habit of it. He responds with "don't want personal attacks in the edit summary? fine, I put it in the edit itself" in the edit summary and this in the edit: 1) "Hey genius" 2) "Once again I am in awe of how poor your understanding of DYK is. Non-admins can update Next, and they do all the time. You fucking moron." 3) "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say.".

The user has attacked others besides myself, but it is harder to dig through the archives (I can easily find my name and match the conversations). For instance, there was this where he was warned about his hostility by User:NuclearWarfare. This original diff shows his use of edit summaries to further hostilities ("haha, that's just precious..... oh well. gonna try to avoid this thread now"). As you can see here (" hi asshole :-D") I am not the only one who he does this to. Upon looking at edit summaries, he does it frequently such as here. As a side note, he also has a strange habit of issuing "final warnings" as a non-admin (examples): 1 and 2. (these were found on the same pages as diffs related to the user's actions above). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the other comments right now because I'm in a hurry and other people will be better able to piece through them in an NPOV fashion. As for the final warnings, I issued those two because the users were VOAs who inserted libel into BLPs (for the one) and attacks against living individuals (for the second). But that's really irrelevant to this thread. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Any user can issue any warning. Final warnings aren't limited to an admin. Grsz¹¹--Review 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using "bitch" in one of the edit summaries as you can see above shows that there is a problem with how the user handles vandals. I removed the last two, but the above is enough to show a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really much for me to say here, other than I urge people reading to read the entirety of the most recent discussion (the bottom portion of WT:DYK#Closer look, starting from "I would really like to know who promoted it.") rather than only the diffs that Ottava Rima provided. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And another response...regarding Ottava Rima's "I'm not the only one he does this to" diff, that edit was in response to one of Ottava Rima's buddy editors, who had already attacked me just a few edits before that (in that diff, scroll up in the conversation to Malleus' comment "More experience than you of counting?" If you're unfamiliar with DYK and me, this comment was mocking me for having once challenged one of Ottava Rima's DYK nominations for not being expanded fivefold.) This ANI thread would mean a lot more to me if it were something other than just Ottava Rima and his friend wanting to tattle on a guy they don't like. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why User:Politizer has no warnings for these type of comments in his/her recent edit history. Looks like there should be a warning for being chatty around the holidays (Wikipedia is not your personal chat room or some such), but it seems that an editor who is this hostile would have lots of warnings for personal attacks given on their talk page. I'm not going to be reading the entire conversation because no one felt the comments by this editor were serious enough when they were made to warn him/her from making them. --KP Botany (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, which comments are you questioning if they are hostile? The one set (the old set) were deemed hostile by Nuclear Warfare who mentions that. The recent set says "You fucking moron" and "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say" which seems blatantly hostile. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning if any comments are hostile. What I am questioning is whether or not you considered the comments blatantly hostile at the time they were issued or continued to engage him at the same level, and, if the latter, why there is an AN/I discussion about an editor who has no user talk page warnings.

It's hard as an outsider to see what is going on. Your comment about his edit summary, in the first diff you list, is an aside, and an order to him, not a request. Obviously your telling him not to do an admin-only task that apparently was not an admin only task was more important than the command to stop being hostile. If his behaviour was so bad, it should have merited a direct civility warning, rather than an aside to the more pressing issue of his editing pages he shouldn't have (which, I assumed you were wrong about, because admin only edit pages are protected). He next calls you a "fucking moron," and this does not merit a civility warning on his user page. Huh? I'm lost at what he is doing now that tops that, but, again, it did not merit a civility warning.

The exchange with Nuclear Warfare does not appear to have been escalated by Politizer. The conclusion about this exchange seems to be that Politizer was whining about something that happened in the past, not that he was being particularly hostile, and, again, it didn't merit a civility warning on his talk page. So, again, I'm just lost about what is going on here.

I checked out his talk page, going back 500 edits, and I don't see a pattern of this editor receiving civility warnings. Congratulations, barn stars, thank yous, holiday greetings, yes, but civility issues? No, I don't see it there, and I don't see that the way it has been handled according to the diffs you provided, that it's all that big of a deal right now.

Please reread my post where I don't say anything about questioning the hostility of the editor's comments. Then please reread the diffs and consider them from the angle of someone looking to see what is going on, and I think you might see that in both cases you read something that wasn't necessarily there. Potty mouth? Yes. The hostility though, if it was really an issue with this editor, probably would have gathered more comments and some serious user talk page warnings and discussion. I can't find this. --KP Botany (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of talk page warning does not justify a user's behavior, nor does it mean that their continued disruption should not go to ANI. It is obvious that there is a discussion involving a DYK issue and he is being disruptive with his language. He has a history of being disruptive with his language. It seems that you want to justify bad behavior because of a previous lack of oversight. Why would you do something like that, by chance? What possibly motivates you to want to bend over backwards to make it seem like someone has the right to act in this way? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "being disruptive with his language" means. Wikipedia has no rules against using language that you don't like. If you believe I am disruptive, please comment on the substance of my remarks, not the words in which I put them. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see my self bending over backwards about anything. You raised an issue in a public space, it sounded dreadful, I clicked on links, it seems overblown. You keep making what I am saying into something completely different, though. I think you're not paying attention to what others are saying. Which is not unusual when someone is upset about a situation, so it doesn't matter that much. However, I don't see Politizer coming across the way you have presented. And, I only looked at the diffs you provided to show this, and his talk page, because it (the latter) was rather boring, and I wanted to see a really bad and nasty editor who was getting away with murder--I had a paper due and was procastinating. What I see is someone who has been foul-mouthed on Wikipedia for a long time, and no one has really called him on it. When I reviewed his talk page to see how many other editors were outraged by his behaviour I found a bunch of congratulations, DYK comments, barn stars, and holiday greetings. The issue isn't justifying his bad behaviour, but, rather, trying to decide why it's become such an issue now, when it does not appear, from his talk page, that it has been a real problem before this for any other editors. Anyway, someone did give him a talk page warning to chill out with the bad language. He seems to have taken it rather mellow. --KP Botany (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated that there is hostility. I never said there was a large amount or anything. I didn't characterize it in any way. Therefore, the large portion of your claim that what you saw doesn't meet what I stated seems to have no connection to what I say. Compounded with your claim that I am upset, which is clearly not the case, I think it appears that you are trying to dismiss me as someone who is emotionally upset and wanting to whine about it. Clearly, that is not the case. As I stated before, you have characterized his comments in a way that is apologetic. Combined with your recent posts that demean my initial entry through claims of an emotionally charged entry, I feel that you are simply trying to rationalize bad conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So then, a trivial amount of hostility that you're not upset about....definitely sounds like the kind of thing that needs to be brought to ANI. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see anything that requires any admin action. The editor hasn't even been recently warned for incivility, so there's absolutely no call for a block over this incident. This barely warrants a wikiquette alert, and only because both sides of that argument need to take it down a notch.

And on the point being bickered over: if there's a page in the DYK project that only admin are allowed to edit, why isn't it protected? -- Vary Talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to Vary Because it's not a page that only admins can edit. The pages that only admins can edit (Template:Did you know and the queues) are protected; as I mentioned in the conversation that sparked this ANI, the DYK rules clearly state that non-admins can edit Next, and in fact most of the editing of Next is done by them. Just for some clarification. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There was. It was the DYK queue. Then that was moved onto the Template talk page and was no longer protected as before. The protection was lost for whatever reason. Only admin are allowed to edit the main page and this loophole allows for a contradiction against a greater consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only admins do edit the main page. Nothing moves from Template:Did you know/Next update to Template:Did you know except through an admin; the admins generally review the stuff at Next before they move it to the queues and the template. So that's how it goes: anyone can move hooks from the DYK suggestions page to Next, and then only admins can move them from Next to the template. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd how Vary seems to apologize for the user's edits that were made just recently because he wasn't warned over them. He was asked by me not to continue. He was asked by NuclearWarfare not to be so hostile. So even then, there were two warnings. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to interject something here, as a disinterested third set of eyes on this. Ottava Rima, he wasn't exactly asked by you not to continue, he was told. (See again the DIFF that you yourself quoted above. Granted, the response was a bit on the hostile side, and Politizer should not let things escalate to this point. IMHO, what I think needs to happen here is a warning for Politizer to try adhering to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF a bit more, and refrain from letting things like this get the Wiki stress level up. Like your userpage says Politizer, think happy thoughts. When you feel like you're going to type something that you know is going to fly in the face of civility guidelines, back off from the keyboard a minute, breathe, and take a moment to compose your thoughts in a more productive fashion. Here are a few suggestions:

• Turn negative statements into neutral or positive statements.
• Try disagreeing agreeably.
• Never start a sentence with "You", always start with "I" or "We". You tends to sound attacking, where I or we is more neutral. Try, instead of "You're wrong to feel that way!", "I regret that you feel like that." It puts you in the position of taking the moral and conversational high-ground.
• Try nodding your head when you type your response, soon you'll be looking for more affirmative statements to type than negatives!

All of these can be applied by not only the editors involved in this dispute, but also all others that are reading this. Edit Centric (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2009 (

(outdent edit conflict) To provide some context, Mid-December Ottava and Politizer had a argument regarding the use of block quotes in size calculations. Thread 1, Thread 2. Both Ottava and Politizer have had their altercations, but nothing that, at this stage, deserves admin attention. Edit Centric is spot on. » \ / (⁂) 05:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• A few more - 1 ("I'd rather not go back to dealing with that imbecile at wt:dyk") and 2 (taunting). Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If he has in fact been advised by uninvolved editors that his conduct of late is out of line, then take it to wikiquette if you must. Taking something like this straight to AN/I (do not pass go!), especially when there is no urgent admin intervention required, just increases drama. I'll say again, though, that both sides of that discussion needed to disengage: you'd both be better off dropping the issue, taking the advice above and using it to avoid escalating any future conflicts you might have. -- Vary Talk 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this at the DYK talk page are a disruption to a process. Wikiquette does not deal with that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly what the Wikiquette alert noticeboard deals with. Other than your terse order to Politizer to "Stop now," it seems like there was no attempt at dispute resolution at all. AN/I should not be your first stop for something like this. -- Vary Talk 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken. This is about disruption at a process through language. This is not a content dispute. Therefore, Wikiquette is not acceptable in any regards. ANI is for immediate action in terms of disruptions. Your persistence on the matter is quite interesting, especially when you overlook the fact that the one you are defending even admitted that he was personally attacking. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, the only thing I've said on the subject of Politizer's comments is that both of you needed to disengage and that immediate admin intervention wasn't warranted. (And since no admin tools have been used as a result of your complaint, it seems that none of the admins who've read this thread disagree on that point.) I'm not defending anything but the clearly stated intents and purposes of our various noticeboards; Wikiquette alerts is for "impolite or uncivil communications" (as the template at the top of this page that asks "Are you in the right place?" explains). Whether or not the problem is a content dispute is irrelevant. And I think it's 'odd' and 'interesting' that you seem to equate comments about your choice of venue with defense of cursing and heated talk. I can disapprove of losing one's temper and of overreacting to lost tempers, can't I? Feel free to have the last word, if that's what you're wanting, but I do hope you'll try to avoid this sort of unnecessary escalation in the future. -- Vary Talk 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disengage from what? I didn't throw insults, nor do anything but talk about the topic. I don't respond in kind to him. That has always been obvious. The fact that you try to skew what others can see serves no purpose. Or do you have some reason to do that? It wouldn't be the first time you did such things. I could count at least three times you did the same thing before. Seems interesting that you would show up again and contradict the blatantly obvious and try to make it seem that someone repeatedly using edit summaries to attack others is appropriate. Perhaps you need to disengage, because your comments here are completely off base. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, these are moot at this point, we get it. There's been disagreements. Again, a warning for Politizer to be better about adhering to WP:CIVIL, and quite possibly a nudge for Ottava Rima, try my suggestions above. I looked a bit at the two threads cited by \/ (reminiscent of OJ Simpson? Sorry, just HAD to!), and it looks to me like Ottava is fighting an uphill battle on consensus issues. Ottava, those suggestions might work in the context of these discussions as well, instead of the apparent finger-pointing and recriminations that I'm seeing. (Instead of the "you're wrong" conversation track, try "Hmm. You know, you might be right there, however the way I'm reading this guideline, and I could be wrong about this, but...") Try that. Edit Centric (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement? No. There are attacks. Why would you attempt to soften his actions with such coded language? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of content disagreements, Politizer has crossed the line several times. I'm going to give him a warning and ask him to act more in line with our behavior expectations here. RxS (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:FadulJoseArabe

This was brought up earlier but no action was taken. This FadulJoseArabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock up of Fadulj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Compare contributions with those in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fadulj. I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj four days ago, but that too has no response. Thanks, Grsz¹¹_Review 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the username does sound obvious enough. ~ Troy (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't jugde anything by username, a checkuser should be needed in this case --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a checkuser whatsoever. This is reasonably blatant. — neuro^(talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right then. I was going to say that there is a reason why checkuser is not for fishing. If at all possible, it should not be used as it looks into private information, which is avoidable at best and necessary at the least. In this case, it's too obvious. Therefore, there should be no need to infringe on private information. ~ Troy (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So then block? He says who he is on the userpage, the same as the other accounts. Grsz¹¹_Review 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would say so, provided that a reasonable summary is given in the block log. However, I find that the best option is likely to wait for a response on SPI first; the clerks can take it from there. ~ Troy (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI is incredibly slow at the moment, if it is as blatant as this I'd just suggest an admin should block. — neuro^(talk) 08:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? if he is not using the SockPuppet accounts to disrupt, then let him do what he wants. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is, he's been blocked for using multiple accounts. Making another one and not (yet) disrupting doesn't make it okay. If he feels he can contribute constructively than he needs to request an unblock of the primary account. Grsz¹¹_Review 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to raccoon by User:DavidOaks

The user DavidOaks is constantly inserting questionable content to the raccoon article which has got overwhelming support as Featured Article candidate (2 strong supports, 5 supports, 1 oppose based on image placement) just one and a half months ago:

[162]: invalid statistic from a probably unreliable source, re-inserted many times

[163]: meaningless information on preparation methods; and more: [164]

[165]: use of an obviously unreliable source (wisegeek.com) for one of his edits

[166]: non-notable information (trivia), less than 1,000 Google hits for a “popular” saying

[167]: addition of totally redundant information, parts of it contained in the same chapter

[168]: removal of important information from the lead without explanation

[169]: removal of a headline without explanation

[170] (sentence about acorns): change of the meaning of a fact

[171] (paragraph about camping): 1st sentence: redundant information violating NPOV; 2nd sentence: unencyclopedic, too wordy phrasing; 3rd sentence: how-to style without adding significant new information; all sentences: no reliable source given; more of the same: [172]

He has also added some other pieces of information to the article without providing reliable sources.

According to the file history, DavidOaks is probably the only editor with a particular interest in the chapter “Food and foodways” and is thus trying to write as much information about the topic as possible, giving this minor topic, according to all monographies about the species, undue weight.

Outrageous claim. The article has a section on "distribution outside of North America" AND one on "Distribution in Germany" where there are probably fewer than are killed in a single US state in a given year. The foodways section is among the shortest. Moreover, I understand the case here to be essentially that a number of my contributions were reverted or modified (almost always by N.A.) If it's wikipolicy that such a thing gets one placed in a special, restricted category, it's news to me. I'm being insulted here, and wish very much to avoid responding in kind, but I cannot help feeling that there's some unusual impulse to control here, and I'm feeling pretty persecuted. Never had any such experience before. DavidOaks (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since DavidOaks’ edits are beginning to be disruptive and my last try to speak with him about the issue was not fruitful, I propose that he should no longer be allowed to make changes to the article (based on this revision), not including copyedits, without establishing a consensus about the proposed changes beforehand on the discussion page and the mental approval of the fact that the article got overwhelming support as Featured Article candidate recently and is therefore not in need of an extensive revision. I myself will adhere to the same procedure.

N.A. most certainly did not adhere to any such procedure, as is clearly documented buy the timestamps of his edits. I did in fact comply, though I saw myself as being under no real obligation to do so. I am acting with goodwill, and am being targeted by an editor whose long and good work on the article has given him the idea that he's the chief arbiter. This is some kind of personal vendetta being carried out under the guise of a content dispute. I have really never encountered anything like this on the wiki, and I have a long history of construcvtive editing. DavidOaks (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the given revision contains a copyedit and some useful additions to the “Food and foodways”, and “Mythology, arts and culture” sections by DavidOaks. This means that he is able to work on the article in a constructive manner but choses way too often not to do so.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the process is for this, since it's my first experience with such accusations (I believe my record speaks for itself). I'll just respond to the silliness above. The article lacked much cultural information. I supplied some, well-ref'd and with consensus. N.A. did a lot of undiscussed reverting, and in the process was consistently uncollegial in tone, and continues so. Not good for the article or community, and too bad in light of his ability and dedication. But no, his accusations are bogus, and he needs to look to his own disruptiveness. Except to the extent that he makes things public and personal, it has been my preference to communicate with him directly as little as possible. There is a peculiar territoriality to his attitude, and he needs to get past that. The presumptuopusness, arrogance, haughtiness of his repeated "I'm getting annoyed..." gives a sense of his attitude towards the collegial process, his own role, and that of other editors. I'm frankly pretty shocked. The issues that are upsetting him are his own, and admin action against another editor isn't going to fix them. DavidOaks (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DavidOaks does obviously not want to come to a consensus which information belongs in the (alreday quite long) article and which does not before editing. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

After a little research I'm forced to ask - Why is the NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS COMMISSION a "probably unreliable source"?

And why is WiseGeek "Obviously unreliable"? Your unwillingness to accept various sources because they conflict with your two books is what sticks out to me on the talk page. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of these sources was also questioned by other editors:

The source is not reliable for the statistic. The Roadkill project is sponsored by the NSF as an educational project for school kids, and not as a scientific research project. - Abecedare here

I'm going to remove the wisegeek.com ref. That does not meet RS standards, and as I'm not the only who thinks so, I think that is firm enough to do without establishing consensus first. I'll replace it with a cn tag. - carl.bunderson here

I have added Wisegeek.com at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeek.com for more opinions.

Uh, please check the discussion and revision history. I was very cooperative about reverting where consensus called for it. I participated in discussion. I myself was part of the assessment discussion of roadkill discussion, among other points of article and source improvement. Nor did I make difficulty about removing wisegeek, though I believe it is reliable enough in relation to the pretty noncontroversial claim made. There's something personal and targeted here, and N.A. is engaged in what I can only call harassment. DavidOaks (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It are six and not two books, by the way, and there is a large number of other sources in the reference list. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the edit that you are contending is regarding the number of raccoons eaten, not the roadkill project. Just because there's questionable material in one section does not mean the entire site is unreliable. As for most of the other stuff, I am seeing a bit of WP:UNDUE in Davids edits. That Raccoons are eaten is notable David, past that unless you can provide irrefutable proof that it is way out of line with current beliefs (which means you'd have to establish what the current belief is and then find a way to refute it) the entry is good enough. Please don't make this WP:POINTy. Full disclosure: I'm not an admin, this probably should have gone to 3O or some other level of DR. Padillah (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't my intent to make it pointy, and that's much to be avoided. Good suggestion, to demonstrate that food-use is non-mainstream; I would have thought that was common knowledge, but in order to make the point of the discussion clear, it's probably rhetorically necessary. In fact, that's already present in the sources already used, but needs a contextualizing sentence to bring it out. The now-deleted-but-recoverable KC Star cite, which won approval from most commentators as RS, notes that it's a non-mainstream food not available through usual channels.

• This is a content dispute. It doesn't belong here. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Free username

Hello,

My question may be inappropriate. If it is, I appologize.

I was trying to register the same nick I always use ('OhReally'), but found I couldn't because it was too similar to 2 other usernames ('Ohreally' and 'OhReally?'). Would it be possible to have this name freed, so I can use it? Normally I wouldn't ask this, but in this case both users have registered in 2006 and have never made any contributions, so I thought it might be worth a shot.

Thanks for considering, Rob la Lau ([email protected]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.21.80.126 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Usurpation. This is only possible if the registered accounts made no significant edits. Please ask questions like this at Wikipedia:Help desk since this is not an incident involving administrator attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation is not necessary. You should go to WP:ACC. Algebraist 12:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term "usurpID". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no User:OhReally. Create a new username, such as TempReally. Then, while logged in as TempReally (or whatever), go to WP:CHU and follow the instructions to change TempReally (or whatever) to OhReally. Kingturtle (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Go to WP:ACC; those of us with the accountcreator permission can override 'too similar' usernames. //roux   18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this would be a lot easier than tying up 'crat time. –xeno (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Decentralizing the Arbitration Committee

This probably is not the right place for this but for anyone interested, I have proposed we decentralize the Arbitration Committee. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have come to tell you that this is so epic.... Synergy 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's going to be controversial. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fun Fun Fun^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clever. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I've just read it, and still cannot work out whether you are arguing abolition, restructure, or whatever. If you are proposing substantial structural changes here, I think you need substantial structural reasons, and I don't see it. --Rodhullandemu 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I want it to be decentralized. My proposal explains how conflicts can be dealt with. For anything else the Arbitration Committee does (like CheckUser) we can discuss an alternative. I honestly don't know what alternatives people want. I am waiting for them to bring them up for discussion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But ArbCom is a group of community-appointed individuals situate in disparate locations, and so by one point of view, are decentralised. If you are suggesting replacing that with community consensus, you haven't made it clear; neither have you given reasons for doing so. And ArbCom doesn't do CheckUser per se, although there may be an overlap between arbiters and checkusers. If you don't know what alternatives people want, I'd say you need to make a case for change, and so far, you haven't. --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom gives CheckUser permission. Consensus will work, and I have given reasons. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue anything else on the proposal talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shall I marked it as failed now, or should we let the drama and arguments run for a while first? Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Happened upon this. Seems I saw a link to some RfC on Arbitration policy at top of contributions page yesterday (not part of my watch list) but it disappeared. Anyone know what it was? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It just popped up again, in case I whetted anyone's interest! Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_enforcement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That RfC deals with the enforcement process. There has also been some occasional discussion about updating the Arbitration Policy itself, and I had prepared a draft revision to the policy which some people were going over, if that is of interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that the proposal boils down to replacing ArbCom with the system that ArbCom replaced because it didn't work. What we need is more Arbs like Newyorkbrad - people with real world experience in evidence gathering and setting aside personal feelings. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Admn attention needed

I am accused repetly by Jalapenos do exist (talk on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict of disruptive editing [173][174][175]and editing out of concensus. Also he/she waring with other users just now.[176] Please help us put an end to this nonsence by asking Jalapenos do exist (talk to calm down. Brunte (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To make your case stronger you might want to avoid providing diffs that contradict your contentions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Brewcrewer and I usually can't agree on the color of the sky, but this here by Brunte is uncalled for. In fact, Brunte should be given a logged WP:ARBPIA warning ASAP by an uninvolved admin, and then watched. Jalapenos has been reasonable and has defended reasonable inclusions of sourced material, presented in NPOV ways - and he has recognized publicaly in multiple ocassions when he has overstepped. Apologizing for things should count. This is editwarring like I haven't seen in days, and mostly a result of Brunte's dramatics. Sorry but thats it. --Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

see these for more background: jalapenos violated 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#jalapenos_3rr many editors agreeing to trim down the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#.22anti-semitic_incidents.22 my comment that the section in the main article should summarize the spinoff article (international reactions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#antisemitic_incidents_edit_revert

i personally wouldn't have brought it here, just as i didn't try to ge jalapenos blocked for his blatant edit warring, but i tend not to take personal attacks (such as "ninja editors" - made by both jalp and cerejota) to admin boards. btw, i haven't seen any apologies from him (not saying there weren't any - just i haven't seen them) and cerejota, while i usually find you to be a fair editor, you are ignoring jalapenos edit warring while placing all the blame on brunte. Untwirl (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC) here's another one, just for fun. example of jalapenos refusing to see consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#reactions_section this refusal to recognize a consensus is disruptive itself. Untwirl (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been tremendously happy with Jalapeno's opinions, but I haven't seen anything rise to the level of edit warring. I'd say if anything, there has been a lot of presumption of bad faith (even with 3rr... this article almost invites legitimate 3rr!) Dovid (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violator

Resolved

 – Persistent copyright violation is a blockable offense. Brief block, with a notice that next block may be indef. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Red devils4life (talk · contribs) has plagiarized content (from here) after having already received a stern warning from me. Could someone have him temporarily blocked, so that he gets the picture about how important it is not to do that?

(I'm not saying he should be "punitively" blocked, but that a block would be preventative because hopefully it will show him what happens when you engage in persistent copyvio.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:91.108.194.116

Resolved

 – Blocked. — neuro^(talk) 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has made two legal threats on their talk page, and is blatantly abusing the {{helpme}} template just to get attention. They also want to know Jimbo's home address. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by J Milburn. — neuro^(talk) 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for [email protected] / User:Robert Sieger

Resolved

 – Sense of the community is to unban / unblock. I will unblock. Admins should feel free to reblock if there is return to disruptive behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Re-adding this here as it was archived too soon, and without conclusion - Alison ^❤ 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• And again!! - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81^(C) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Wikipedia and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support [rms125a] on general principles, if [he has] not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison ^❤ 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison ^❤ 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Wikipedia risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Wikipedia:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison ^❤ 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Wikipedia without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this in my plague archives: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected]. Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Wikipedia? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Keeping him from Wikipedia isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Wikipedia, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Wikipedia-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that belief is an issue here; it's actions subsequent to any unbanning that are going to be the issue, and any edits on Troubles-related articles are inevitably going to scrutinized. Of course, anything along the lines of the events that got him banned are going to result in a reban, simple as that. If he makes edits that, if made by any other editor without any baggage, would be considered legitimate and constructive, then they should be treated on their merits as such; however, if there is a pattern of edits where he "plays the player, not the ball", where there is good reason to believe he is editing against another editor or editors rather than on the point, they aren't going to escape notice. There are enough neutral editors involved in the Troubles articles nowadays that someone is going to call him on them; even in six months, a year or two years from now, because of the history of the Trouble-related articles, it's highly unlikely that there won't be more than enough neutral editors who could easily - and quickly - come to a reasonable conclusion. Hey, even bleeding-heart liberals like me sometimes take comfort in knowing there's a Big Stick around the place somewhere :). People might be willing to let his past stay in the past and if things go to plan, the past can be forgotten, but he will still be subject to the rules on neutrality and personal attacks that all the rest of us have to work with. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While I have some of the same reservations and Moreschi, if durova, alison, and eliz all think rms has gotten past the rediculous behavior; I would support a short leased unbann (following eliz's conditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. If the people above are willing to supervise, and the user will follow the restrictions, then good luck to him. (And them.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. support unban Willing to see how this goes. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Weak Support, with concerns - I note in that RfC above that his interests in bigotry range far and wide from Irish topics; I think that point 10 needs at least 6 and 6, not 3 and 3, and needs to be expanded to cover any political conflict in which two or more common populations are involved - Ireland, Serbia, Slovaks/Slovenes, Ukrainians, and so on. To be blunt, I'd like to see it mroe stepped = 3 months of theater and film, and 3 months of general culture and sciences and so on, with the step 10 material to kick in AFTERwards - so that it goes from generally exclusive to generally inclusive over time. I realize this complicates it, but this isn't an easy situation. If hes' truly interested in editing the project, it shouldn't be too hard to abide by, and if he's interested in combat, then it'll be over fast either way. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. Can a neutral, uninvolved admin possibly review the above and close with a decision. please? The thread keeps getting archived :) and it's been well over a week now. Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that several admins have commented here, but nobody has unblocked either account, I suggest that there is insufficient consensus to overturn the ban at present, as no admin is willing to unblock. Robert's inability to respond at present only makes the case for overturning the ban more difficult. There is more support here than last time, so perhaps another look mid-year is appropriate. Kevin (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Multiple admins seem to be supporting it. This seems to be more that people were waiting for a consensus to form. Do people think there is a consensus to unban? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly willing to unblock him myself, to be honest, but am deferring to the community, as is proper. There are other admins okay with unblocking, so I'm not seeing the criteria for a community ban still being valid - Alison ^❤ 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Moreschi (which doesn't always happen, I can safely say). I really dislike leniency towards bigoted users. What has this editor done that's so wonderful he should be given a 341st chance? IronDuke 00:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should bigotry be treated any differently than any other POV? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think so. Someone who insists on creating Captain Kirk was the greatest Enterprise Captain Evar has a POV and is a bit annoying, but that doesn't create a toxic editing environment; bigotry does. IronDuke 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but I firmly believe that Robert's days of bigotry have ended now. I really do. Besides, if he decides to travel that road again, I'll block him myself, and fast! We always have that option, as we do with any other editor who doesn't treat others with respect. RMS has a POV - we all know that - who doesn't, indeed, but he seems more than capable of keeping it in check and besides, Eliz81's unban criteria should address that. Basically, he's spent the last year or so wikignoming on movie-related articles, and subjects relating to breast cancer. I think there must be redemption for just-about everyone, sometime, and I believe his time is now. WP as a project has little to lose - Alison ^❤ 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point about editing environment. However, regarding someone who thinks that Kirk was the greatest captain ever: That's not a POV. That's just the truth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a POV pushing deluded fool who should be hardblocked with no email allows and no ability to edit their talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Make it so. (Ooops -- did I just earn a hardblock?) IronDuke 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm a little worried about antagonizing next gen fans. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• On a previous incident on AN/I, about a sock puppet case that may well have been true, I said the rush to judgment represented the worst of Wikipedia. I ran across this item because it's below a different problem I'm dealing with (see two sections up) and have to see that this represents the best of Wikipedia's community efforts. I like the support Rms has been given and the trust that is being placed in him. I hope he has learned and that he succeeds. Good work, folks. RoyLeban (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked / unbanned per my resolved notice, unblocking the original User:[email protected] account. I see an interest in seeing him shift account names or accounts, but I feel that that's better handled as an implementation detail after unblock, via normal process, than holding up editing access now waiting to resolve what to do there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, GWH. Much appreciated :) - Alison ^❤ 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block for Benkillin (talk)

Resolved

 – blocked, unblocked, hopefully chastened

This user keeps trying to make this into a joke article. It never should have been created by him in the first place. Please block him. Thanks! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've speedy-deleted the article and left a note for the editor. It's not blockworthy at this time, IMO, but we'll see where things go from here ... - Alison ^❤ 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked, however if anyone wants to unblock, that's ok with me. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I've unblocked following his request. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Honeymane

Resolved

 – not appropriate for ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This User is acting like an Admin by reverting my edits on the Breast article witchout discussion it. I did write only true facts. can explain further later if anybody would look deeper. --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you mean this edit, it seems pedantic and silly. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well some spell correcting could be needed but reverting the whole work is overdoing it. It’s a clear fact btw--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And you have reliable sources to back up your claim? Regardless, reverting another editor's edits is not "acting like an admin". AnyPerson (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This don’t even need sources. The headline I did create is witnessed by everyone, It’s like a cat have a noise, you don’t doubt that do you?  --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that you don't need to provide reliable sources for The breasts are grown to many sizes and shapes, some ethnicites which have large breasts are Africans and Middle eastern aswell Europeans in some degree, small breasts are more common on Asian and south asian woman is laughable. Provide the source and this will all go away. AnyPerson (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it laughable?, I thinks it’s laughable when someone need “reliable” sources for African , Middle eastern and European woman have large breasts? And South Asian and Asian woman have small breasts? Now you have read the line, tell me what’s not truth in this?. On the Chest Hair article is provided which kind men have the most or less hair on their chest why can’t a line about ethnicity and breasts be there?btw I don't think there are sources for something that known and that common --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:V? And Chest hair has a reference to a medical study. AnyPerson (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread has already been closed. Please, let's continue the discussion at Wiikiiwriter's talk page, or the Breast talk page. And remember not to feed the trolls. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This could be the poster child for "original research". For some reason this Barney Fife line is echoing in my head now: "You're a boob, Gomer!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You gotta cite for that line? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that was from the Andy Griffith episode about "Citizen's Arrest". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Red-footed Booby (Sula sula) flying.jpg

Booby on the wing

Boobies. That is all. HalfShadow 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Confucius say, "Man obsessed with mammaries liable to end up in booby hatch." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was called a sucker

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

---

Resolved

 – per de minimis non curat lex. Bishonen,13:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

[177]

Will some editor please warn the user? Thank you. 212.200.240.241 (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Take care, a quick look at the discussion suggests you are not altogether blameless. Deb (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, he's received his warning. Deb (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That "personal attack" is on the same level as "you silly pudding" or "you gunky". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a slush-ball, do you Bugs? Padillah (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For "Junior Barnes"? Nope. It's below zero outside. Not a slush in sight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs, I now have my sig for this month. :) caknuck _° is a silly pudding 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of soyvice. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for those who don't speak proper American English, "sucker" is a very old and quaint slang word with many related meanings, most mildly derogatory but usually humorously so. It usually means someone who has been taken advantage of or is vulnerable, or fails, or is emotionally attached to a particular thing, due to their own naivete or gullibility, as in There's a sucker born every minute or "you're a sucker for Prada". The word had a bit of a resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s when it seemed to become part of black / urban slang, as in "so long, sucker", something that might be uttered by a criminal in a bad movie as he escaped the police. It also means a lollipop but I doubt they were calling you that. It also seems to be a non-specific noun for a thing that has attention, as in "I picked that sucker up and now I'm going to put it down". I don't think there is any sexual connotation, even though the word sounds dirty in that way. Here's a dictionary definition.[178] Hope that helps, sucker.Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is strictly a G-rated and very mild insult. My guess is that "sucker", in the sense of a "mark" or someone gullible, suggests someone who can be pulled into or "sucked into" a scam of some kind - and morphed into "suckered in", as in the comment by Slim Pickens near the end of Blazing Saddles. It was associated with P.T. Barnum in the 19th century, as you note, and it used to turn up in movies during the Hays Office era, so they obviously didn't have a problem with it. In the case of a lollipop, it's something literally sucked on (or simply licked when it's huge, like an "all day sucker"). Totally G-rated since at least the 1800s. I thought of a couple of examples that are more like the usage that the complainant complained about. One is a line from the no-nonsense black policeman in The Blues Brothers, who said to his partner about Elwood, "I'm gonna get that sucker, if it's the last thing I ever do." Then there was the mock-sad song from around that time also: "You stomped on my heart, and you mashed that sucker flat; you just sorta stepped on my aorta..." etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put rampant trifles on WP:ANI, 212.200.240.241. Your post was removed by an administrator at least once; you should have taken the hint and not put it back. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Nonadmins on both occasions, actually. Algebraist 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another editor put it back. It appeared to be a good faith complaint by someone who does not know English well (or so he says), and it deserved an explanation that it's a very low-key "insult". P.S. He posted something about it on Wales' page. That should give Big Jim a laugh. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, looking up sucker in a dictionary or encyclopaedia would have avoided all this drama. If only there was some kind of online encyclopaedia... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite. But let's suppose, assuming good faith, that he was enraged and not thinking clearly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have stricken the offensive word and added more about this policy violator. When will such experienced users who have usernames but deliberately use IPs to avoid scrutiny get punished? This editor is gaming the system and playing sensitive, which should not be rewarded, but punished. I suspect this is a banned user and something needs to be done. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is closed but maybe it shouldn't be. Please take a look at the user page here. The IP has admitted to having another account. On the talk page s/he attacks multiple editors. I think someone needs to take care of this IP because socking to avoid scrutiny isn't allowed, which this appears to be to me. Thank you for your time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a long time problematic editor who is attempting to avoid scrutiny. WP:BRI should be applied whenever he shows up. Verbal chat 18:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has told me to "fuck off" and "get a life" several times. Using many different IPs allows him to stir up shit like this without scrutiny. NJGW (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See, this is why i removed this is the first place. The user left some of the story just to get someone in trouble. This user actually has numerous sockpuppets and is starting an edit-war on WP:NOMORE, on wether or not the page should be a redirect. Elbutler (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a known editor, but this may not be enough abuse to justify WP:SPI. If you intend to file a sockpuppet case, and want some data, leave a note on my Talk. Some other editors in this thread seem to know who he is already. Given the feedback, he may back off and we won't have to do anything. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lakinekaki is doing this quite deliberately. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is forbidden here. We can only AGF when we maintain a certain amount of transparency in the editing situation. Whether we call it a "sock" or call it "avoiding scrutiny", the point is that it engenders distrust, confusion, and is a slap in the face of the community, and it needs to stop. When an IP becomes visible here, it is an "account". We try to hide innumerable IPs being used by one person behind a single username. We try to limit the number of accounts to one account, and by using a username, an editor can use all the different IPs they wish, and travel all over the place, while figuring as one username here. That keeps things simple. This user is not acting in good faith and needs to be stopped. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This user is no sockpupet as he does not use multiple accounts. He is not logging in, because it is his right [[179]]. Users who dislike this are free to leave the project. If you want to know why I told NJGW to fuck off, it is because he had an obnoxious history of persisting that I login where he joined another editor in that request, a case [180] which was mediated by an arbitrator. For ignorant people (ignorant is not insult), dynamic IP due to DHCP is not a sockpupet account. If you back of, I'll back of. Don't stalk my edits, and I won't need to go into discussions with you. I don't want to discuss with you. It is not interesting to me, but you simply make me do it. Luckily, Wikipedia is a huge place, and hopefully we won't be crossing each others roads in the future. Let other admins deal with it. As for accusation that my edits are disruptive, that's just amusing, taking into account that accusation comes from an editor who ignores Wikipedia policies to redirect a page s(he) does not like. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

General Turgidson, in Dr. Strangelove: "Mr. President, if I may speak freely, the Russkie talks big, but frankly, we think he's short of know how. I mean, you just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand a machine like some of our boys. And that's not meant as an insult, Mr. Ambassador, I mean, you take your average Russkie, we all know how much guts he's got. Hell, lookit look at all them them Nazis killed off and they still wouldn't quit." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 5 February 2009 (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.

Personal attacks from IP editor

I have now received 3 personal attacks (1 abusive edit of my page and 2 slightly abusive comments on my talk page) from the same editor who is obviously on a non-fixed IP address. The guy seems to have a bee in his bonnet about me for some reason. The guy is currently editing on 79.75.236.49, with previous edits on 79.75.171.39 and 79.75.154.89. I realise a ban on IP range is not going to happen, but would it be possible to get the current IP blocked for a few hours? Hopefully he might create an account then. --LiamE (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to have your pages semiprotected for a while? That might make him create an account all right. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Yup, good idea. If it doesnt work it might be an idea to semi protect List of University of East Anglia alumni for a little while as it seems to be my edits to that page they have taken exception to. Hopefully wanting to revert me there would make him create an account and then the edits can actually be discussed. --LiamE (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi'd for three days. Please let me know if the problems recur when that time is up. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the help, will do. --LiamE (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you are now a Real Wiki Editor and can now proceed to Requests for Adminship - where named accounts can call you all sorts of names. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled accross this page by accident, while checking out liame's recent edits. I am the supposed "IP vandal" who merely wants to see 2 dubious inclusions wiped from an alumni list. That said, i probably went about the wrong way and may have made personal attacks against liame in the process. sorry. However i have since moved the debate to the List of University of East Anglia alumni discussion page, where perhaps liame, and any other experienced wikipedians might be willing to share their opinions. Regards 79.75.236.49 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade. You vandalised my user page with a personal attack and you are on an IP address ergo you are an IP vandal. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... in any case I have replied about the "dubious" edits you want removed on the talk page of the article. --LiamE (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid further provocations or escalations, LiamE. IP editor came here and has admitted that he thinks he made a mistake. Either they understand what they did wrong, or they don't. Counterattacking here doesn't help the situation. If they continue abusing later we'll respond appropriately, if not that wasn't a useful response by you either.

Please keep it civil and cooperative, even if someone else was abusive at first. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Catch-22

• Kalupinka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When we met to discuss completly different thing, my old good friend, Kalupinka, complained to me about totally unbased blocking and asked me to fill a petition for unblocking, since Kalupinka is blocked totally, even at own talk page.

I did it. At first my petition was denied, because I am not Kalupinka, which is absurd. Kalupinka cannot edit any page and did not wish to spam every admin asking for unblocking.

Then my petition was denied because: "No valid reason for unblock given". This makes from the Wikipedia the real Catch-22. Kalupinka was blocked because being "giant sockfarm". No evidence provided for this absurd claim. Then my petition was denied because I did not prove that Kalupinka is not "giant sockfarm"? How?

Could anybody solve this absurd approach towards my friend? —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

His talk page doesn't seem to be protected, and the block log makes no mention of the "cannot edit own talk page" option being turned on, so he should be able to. That said, the right move would be to bring this up with the blocking admin, User:YellowMonkey. I've dropped a line on his talk page notifying him of this thread. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True. And since Yellowmonkey is a CheckUser, it is entirely likely that the giant sockfarm is indeed present. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reactions.

1. His talk page doesn't seem to be protected No, it is not.
2. and the block log makes no mention of the "cannot edit own talk page" option being turned on Yes, perhaps wiki bug. Kalupinka really cannot, I believe what I was said.
3. And since Yellowmonkey is a CheckUser Was Kalupinka tested? There's no record.

I know Kalupinka for 5 years personally. I guarantee that Kalupinka is no giant sockfarm. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, only another CheckUser can really verify and most regular admins aren't going to touch that type of situation. Still, your friend has the option to email Arbcom directly. See Additional details here for specifics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for page block

Resolved

 – Requests For Page Protection is over there

//roux   18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy is attacking the Ambigram page, deleting significant content worked on by multiple editors over a long period of itme. This is not the first time he has done this with this article and it has still not quite recovered from the first time because I initially assumed the edits were in good faith (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ambigram#Recently_Deleted_Content). I reverted his edits but he reverted my revert. I don't want to get into an edit war which he will win under 3RR. If you review the edit history (and his edit history), you can see that he has cut a wide swath through this article and many others.

If he has problems with significant content, he should take it to the Talk page, not just start deleting things.

RoyLeban (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please visit Requests For Page Protection to have a page protected. ANI is not for content disputes. //roux   18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Roy has a WP:OWNership problem and a major WP:COI on the article and is overly dramatic, declaring anything he doesn't like an "attack". DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Roux. I've been editing Wikipedia for eight years, but this is the very first time I've wanted to ask for page protection. For now, I'm holding off, hoping DreamGuy will take it to the talk page for consensus. We'll see. RoyLeban (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions please

Can a few people take a look at this user, Didiervanryn (talk · contribs) and see if they can spot something I've missed, something about them is setting off alarm bells, has been for a while. Also, there are one or two oversighted edits to their user talk page, they posted a mass of personal detail, to the depth of stuff like passport numbers etc. They actually approached me first with this very strange add to my talk, [181] --Jac16888^Talk 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a speedy deletion of the user page which is currently advertising some service or other. File under "odd user". I'm not sure there's much more to see here right now until the user makes their next move. I'll give the user a warning of some sort, for good measure, and a welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted now. A welcome detailing spam policy will be exellent.  Marlith (Talk)  04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Activator technique: Let's prevent an edit war

Resolved

 – hold a watching brief

The Activator technique article is the subject of an IP's attentions, with edits introducing unscientific nonsense as if it were legitimate. I'm not interested in edit warring and would like more eyes on the article. Currently it is only sourced to the promoter of the instrument and technique, which is used by a significant portion of the profession. At one time it was banned by a provincial branch of the Canadian Chiropractic Association as the quack instrument it is, but that was later rescinded, which is par for the course in the profession. Quack instrument or not, the article needs improvement with better sourcing. It needs some kind of tag to draw attention to the need for secondary and tertiary sources. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've stuck a couple of {{fact}} tags on the new additions, which replaced an equally uncited refutation of the leg-length thesis, and put it on my watch-list. There's probably nothing much more to be done at the moment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now let's see what happens. The Activator technique is pure pseudoscience, and the article, in common with other chiropractic articles, is vulnerable to the attempts of chiropractors to promote their favorite quackeries and pseudoscientific ideas. For an idea of how conservative ("straight" or "real") chiropractors think, the chiropractic article was actually worked over by such a visiting chiropractor and the result was this "straight" version made by User:69.127.37.241, who made this massive revamp of the existing Chiropractic article, leaving us with a version as only a very typical and truly deluded straight chiropractor could wish it. A very interesting object for study of the straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2009! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievable to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. PBS did a special on alternative medicine and chiropractic, and Alan Alda hosted it and can be seen discussing the Activator with a former chiropractic professor. It's very interesting. Go to the "Adjusting the Joints" section. Then turn on your speakers and watch the video. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

Resolved

 – No action needed at ANI, vandalism can be reported at AIV. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There were many recent vandalisms of this page, and upon furthur investigation, most of the vandalizers were contributing nothing but vandalisms to other pages. 67.58.85.10, 168.216.189.8, 75.146.39.25, 68.34.169.216, Dr james peanut are a few of the offenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactusbin (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Report vandalism on WP:AIV. --TS 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Peanut was blocked, and presumably his evil Italian cousin, Sal Monella. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war erupting at James Hansen

There are a number of editors attempting to remove long-standing sections of the article and an edit war is ensuing. The war began as a result of this edit. I would recommend that appropriate action be taken to address the situation and to restore the article to the stable version which had existed prior to that change. --GoRight (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd call it an edit war. A number of different editors have each made one revert. Nobody has reverted twice and I don't expect anybody to do so. A discussion will probably start now. Possibly the "stable" version wasn't as stable as previously thought. --TS 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and I don't think it requires administrator intervention. -Atmoz (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Two of the deleted sections have been there for over one year. I think that qualifies as stable. The entire section, with 4 separate subsections, has been deleted and restored 3 times without a real discussion. One subsection was being discussed and Atmoz decided to delete all 4. Q Science (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long a section exists in an article. If it is disputed it can be removed. It has been deleted and restored by separate people, which certainly establishes a dispute. --TS 08:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a policy or guideline justification for the first two sentences of that? My understanding of WP:CONSENSUS is that the longstanding stable version of an article is presumed to have consensus absent a good reason to the contrary. Anyone is free to be WP:BOLD and remove once in good faith and within reason, but if it is a change to a longstanding stable version of the page, a legitimate serious editor's reversion of the proposed deletion is the "R" part of WP:BRD and should stay while the matter gets discussed if presented on the talk page. The exceptions would be certain blatant policy violations like WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP. There is indeed a content dispute, but edit warring to get the leg up on the "right version" rather than discussing, or while the discussion proceeds, on is a behavioral problem and not a content issue. Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant; TS invents "The Vandals Charter" - if you can get a few puppets to support editing an article to the effect that the subject "sucks" then this is no longer vandalism, it is a content dispute! Go play with a zebra crossing, Tony, if you really want to argue that black is white. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon adding unsourced material and nonsense

58.71.168.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hee Yit Foong is a Malaysian politician whos recently been involved in a political controversy. I've been fighting a combination of vandalism (juvenile name calling etc) and unsourced non-NPOV edits with the help of a few other editors (I raised the issue on BLP/N). Some vandals have already been blocked. In the latest case, the editor has been adding a variety of inappropriate stuff (some unsourced stuff which may be okay with a source, some clearly nonsense), but since it isn't clear cut vandalism [182], I haven't take it to WP:AIV. I have already warned the user they may be blocked for addition of unsourced non-NPOV [183] (as well as a previous warning for clear cut vandalism) and given the lack of any attempt to discuss the situation and the lack of any appropriate edits, I feel a short block is warranted for this user. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakeislebron

Jakeislebron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is carrying on with vandalism after recently being blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantpole (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Report him at WP:AIV if he continues to vandalize. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious block by William M. Connolley

William has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs) after a complaint on AN3 by a content opponent (Collectonian (talk · contribs)). Collectonian offers four edits in evidence, but there's no question of DreamGuy violating 3RR; if anything, Collectonian himself is closer to doing that. DreamGuy's edits are less than recent, and are spread out over three days. So I presume William's block reason, not explained on DreamGuy's page except in the form of "We don't all have Ed's admirable patience", is edit warring and not 3RR. However. DreamGuy is the one who is following policy in his editing of the article. What he does is remove, repeatedly, an absurdly over-long plot summary, leaving a concise summary in place. Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, subsection "Plot summaries", which he has repeatedly referred to. I will not review Dreamguy's unblock request, since I know him and have supported him on other occasions.. But could other people take a look at this block, please? WP:NOT is serious business. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, the idea that "being right" justifies edit warring is simply wrong. There are very few exceptions to 3RR and editor warring in general (BLP, copyright infringement) and "too much plot summary" is not one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, William seems to think being right (or rather, being wrong) justifies edit warring by Collectonian. Both users, if any, should have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Please back up your false claim that I was edit warring with two reverts after someone posted about the situation at WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no violation of 3RR - there were four edits over the course of six days. The highest he got in a single day was two. There was no discussion on the talk page from DreamGuy, but he does seem to have tried talking with one of the editors. DreamGuy has a point about the plot summary and WP:NOT. It seems his original edits were to trim down the plot section; perhaps a bit too much, but in accordance with policy. The most recent total removal was probably a bit over the top, but I still don't think it was enough to block without any chance to explain the edits. I'm prepared to unblock, however I'll wait for a few more comments first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor is he "right" in this issue. The plot summary is not "absurdly long" it was only 100 words over the guidelines, and there IS a talk page discussion which resulted in it being cut down below the guideline recommendations (discussions which he ignored). He is not shortening overly long plot summaries, he is ripping them out. Please explain how I am closer to doing 3RR before making such accusations. I reverted him twice, after he was reverted 3 times by another editor. As noted in my report, which clearly stated this is beyond 24 hours, DreamGuy has an extremely lengthy history of edit warring as is evidenced by his block log and his ArbCom injunction from last year. He is not following policy in editing the article nor in his warring over it. He is violating policy, and making some pointed disruptions in various places. As I also noted in the edit warring report follow up, others have attempted to discuss his inappropriate plot removals with him, and he is either ignoring them completely or giving replies that are uncivil and falsely claiming that he is just following WP:NOT. He told one editor, who tried to correct his claim, "it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Wikipedia") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only 'assistance' you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing." He's also doing a lot some rather NPOV editing to various biography articles, claiming that he is correcting their neutrality because, in his opinion, multiple personalities are not real so he is removing them from articles where people are said to have them. I do hope more admins will look at his actions of late because they are very concerning, as are his false statements on his unblock request claiming that I "took no effort to solve any dispute" - he warned to stop reverted and instead said "don't template the regulars" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... so simple disagreement means you're going to ignore clear policy, label it edit warring, bring up a history of people making similar accusations from the past, and expect to get me blocked over it? That's not even close to a reasonable attempt at solving conflict. On top of that, multiple editors with more experience here are clear in selling out that your interpretation of WP:NOT is completely in error, so continuing to insist otherwise isn't helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no simple disagreement. You are pointedly attempting to claim that WP:NOT is a justification for your ripping out plot summaries from a range of articles on no other view but YOUR interpretation, which is not backed up by other guidelines. WP:NOT does not say that plots can only be X number of sentences, its says "concise" which is defined by various MoS for the articles you are ripping apart. Your removal of the Near Dark plot summary was ridiculous. It was not excessive to the point of needing complete removal, if was only barely over the guidelines, and there is clear editor consensus on the talk page against its removal. Why not read further down in WP:NOT about not being disruptive to make a point, which is all you are doing. Your interpretation is the one in complete error as shown by the overwhelming consensus among multiple projects, FAs, FLs, and GAs. You are the one not being helpful by attacking anyone who dares to correct you under some claim that you are just enforcing policy and that you've been here longer and somehow know better. And yeah, considering your block log, your history IS relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that you aren't willing to listen to the people here and elsewhere who pointed out that you were wrong. Good luck on getting WP:NOT changed to support your rather unique interpretation. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No real justification to block. Wouldn't be the first time either for Connolley. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, that was out of line - please keep comments here relevant to this situation. Not that there are likely to be too many more comments, since it seems he's been unblocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:57, 3 February 2009

Well, the admin in question does have a questionable editing history, so it would have certainly been highly relevant to the question of whether his block was proper or not. I think personally that he ought to be told in no uncertain terms that he can't use his admin status to try to further his history of personal conflict. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Past history of making bad blocks without justification is a strong enough justification to desysop someone, let alone undoing the bad block. It isn't out of line but 100% completely relevant. You may like Connolley, but you can't alter what his history with the tools says. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done work like this--some of our articles have ridiculously long plot summaries that make the article difficult to read,and put off anyone wanting to obtain a concise summary of the plot. Having said that there's no excuse for edit warring. In what way is this a bad block? --TS 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A user was blocked for a 3RR violation on an article he appears to have only edited once in 48 hours. The block was reversed, so it doesn't particularly matter anyway. - auburnpilot talk 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a user was blocked for the reasons I specified, it would be good if you took the trouble to read what I wrote. You might also find V's recent contribution history interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about this block:

19:36, 3 February 2009 William M. Connolley blocked DreamGuy (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring on Near Dark)

this shows the relevant editing history. In particular I note that DreamGuy did not go to the talk page at any point. --TS 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, he was indeed edit warring on Near Dark, although not past 3RR. He had 4RR over a 48 hour period around the 31st, then another one yesterday and at no time did he take his concerns to the talk page. I wouldn't call his edits vandalism, but he's interpreting WP:NOT as a license to delete, rather than improve. Dayewalker (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvements can be achieved through deletion. In this case, deletions were definitely needed. Seeing as how Jimbo has come out strongly against excessive plot summaries, fancruft type entries, and the rests, I think it is obvious that we should lean towards those who try to correct this and chastise those who tend to want to put it back in, especially seeing as how those who want plot summaries and the rest tend to use forums, have friends who reinforce them, etc, to game the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I disagree with every single thing you've said. Dayewalker (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is so beyond insulting to dozens of editors who do none of the kind, but are following the actual guidelines and consensus regarding plot summaries. I find it slightly amusing as well, considering most editors consider me a deletionist and anti-plot and regularly attack me for going against excessive plot. Excessive does not mean NONE at all, nor does it mean you rip out an existing summary for a completely useless one without discussion, tagging, etc. Please actually point to a single change at WP:NOT that negates all of the existing plot summary length guidelines, rescinds the featured article status of all articles with plot summaries, and with Jimbo saying specifically "I want everyone to go out and remove every plot summary from every article right now." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, your view of "actual guidelines" is contrary to what they are, as has been pointed out to you multiple times here and elsewhere. If you find that insulting, you're choosing to find insult in what's a pretty clear cut noncontroversial topic.DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has said that here or anywhere else. You are attempting to twist this into justification for your inappropriate ripping of content from articles, then adding insulting edit summaries as you went back and reverted the undoing of those ripping. Multiple people have said that you need to discuss instead of just ripping, but you attack and dismiss those people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"No one has said that here or anywhere else." Are you kidding? Multiple people in this very section say that. And, honestly, if you continuously choose to interpret someone revering you as an "insult," you need to grow thicker skin. I think you need to calm down and get some perspective... and read for the content of what people are actually saying and what policies actually say instead of just what you want to believe. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to double check that I was reading the diffs right! There are many really excessive plot summaries which can be trimmed without the least objection from anyone, and there are many too short or cryptic that need expansion. Both of these give enough work to do for everyone interested, without fighting about those that are tolerable or better, or defended by good editors. As we slowly move towards compromise in this we need to watch for edits that would disrupt whatever agreement there is. DGG (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I seem to recall making many edits to trim and even remove whole plot summaries (though it's thankless, plodding work and I eventually became disheartened at the size of the job). Good editing practice, though, is to use the talk page in case of disputes. I see that he did make one discussion edit two days earlier on his own user talk page in response to an expression of concern by User:Rydra Wong. He then removed an edit warring warning, which indicates that he was aware of an ongoing issue. This was an editor committed to edit warring. --TS 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing a warning and taking it to the other user's talk page is proof of intent to edit war? You've gone beyond a mere lack of assuming good faith to assuming bad faith. Oh wait, you always do that when you see that it's me editing. Bottom line is people agree that the way it was was wrong, and I was nowhere near 3RR. The admin who made the block did so without any attempt for input and after a well-vocalized history of trying to find any excuse of lashing out. Admins have to stop thinking they can block for no reason, and if it really was edit warring then both sides should have been blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arboropia, a recommendation

I just looked at this, but it seems to me that a vast amount of tree discussion was going on, at the expense of the forest. A person was blocked. The block was for an ambiguous or incorrect reason. An administrator brought up an improper block. What then resulted, above, was a vast and wasty discussion of the general principles of editing, of the content, of similar content, of whether the editor's position was good or bad. When you see someone coming to AN/I to talk about a block, would you please discuss the block, not the general, you know, philosophical, like, stuff, or how much you agree or disagree with the edits. It's about a block. If the block is going to be reversed, then you can say, "What is the way forward?" Then you can ask if the blocking administrator needs interdiction of one sort or another, if the blocked user needs mediation of some sort, if the people complaining about the blocked user need policies explained, etc. Here is the cart, and there is the horse: let's make sure they're put in proper order. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect this is just not true. It was brought as a block to review and marked resolved when someone unblocked it. The unblock was at least as arguable as the block especially as the unblock reason (not 3RR) did not even match the block reason (edit warring). This was a process abuse. The block should have gone through the appeal process for blocks. IF (a big if) the reviewing admin had unblocked it then perhaps it should have come here.--BozMo talk 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So the assumption is that any admin who doses something should always be considered right even if multiple admins disagree? You've got consensus backwards. Especially in a case with an admin who was not at all nuetral jumping in to block when he already saw another admin trying to solve it -- admins should get agreement BEFORE doing something, the presumption should not be that an admin has to agree before anything they did was undone. You're asking for a system of red tape where any single admin can make any action with consequence and bad admins can gain the system to strike out at editors they don't like. Beyond just overruling admins like this, ones that take such questionable action should be disciplined so they don't do it again. The idea that the admin has to be contacted and discus it is often gamed by admins who do bocks and then sign off specifically so nobody can discuss it -- further most admins who take these actions never admit they were wrong, even when an overwhelming majority of other admins agree. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I thought that, when you blocked established users it was standard practice to bring it to AN/I. I guess I haven't been keeping up with "process." Apparently you block established users, and then an unblocking administrator has to justify that on AN/I? Something's surely backward. I thought default was "not block" and "block" took something unequivocal. What a fool's paradise I've been in. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...particularly now that DreamGuy is using it as a justification to continue making personal attacks against myself and any other editor who disagrees with his plot ripping from articles, and turned around and "restored" all of his removals claiming that this AN/I thread has proven that he is correct and dozens (if not hundreds) of other Wikipedians are wrong.[184][185] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The block was quite proper, but Geogre is correct to say that there was a lot of nonsense about side issues when the block itself was the question. --TS 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Funny... User:Collectonian above claims that there was a problem with multiple article edit warring, when there was no such thing happening, but then he/he seemingly looked at my edit history and went around reverting edits I made to many other articles beyond the one he had a conflict with me on. Apparently he wanted to start edit wars on multiple locations. On top of that he falsely labeled my edits as "vandalism" -- which I think is actively deceptive.

I also note that User:Arcayne, who has basically essentially unilaterally decided I cannot edit the Jack the Ripper article by blind reverting every edit I make there (typically with claims that it wa not discussed on that talk page, despite the fact that it was but that he had deleted that discussion before reverting me by "archiving" it for no reason despite the discussion being active and current) showed up at Near Dark (the article at which my editing down the overly long plot section initially drew User:Collectonian's wrath) to insert himself into the controversy. It's no wonder we have people freaking out and calling for blocks at any sign of dispute when I have an editor with a long history of filing bogus charges against me to try to get me blocked showing up to egg things on.

I think both of these editors should be strongly warned against such behavior. User:Collectonian seems to b e actively involved in trying to escalate a controversy through methods (edit warring across multipe articles) he was accusing me of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud.... this guy who was supposedly objecting to my shortening/removing plots that were too long allegedly without discussion has gone and removed the tag I added saying that th plot was too long even after the person who first objected to my shortening the section there agreed it was too long and multiple editors here have said it was too long. Apparently he doesn't care about discussion or resolving anything, just in undoing my edits. DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely seems like Collectonian is the edit warrior here and may be in breach of the WP:HARASS statements in regards to Wikistalking. This should have been obvious to the original blocking admin, which only verifies an extremely bad block. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is harrassing anyone here nor is anyone stalking DreamGuy. When one does a disruptive behavior, it is common to check recent contribs to see if it was done elsewhere. However, DreamGuy has now accused no less than four people of stalking him, with the latest here[186]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Collectonian, but following an editor to multiple pages, declaring their action as vandalism, and constantly reverting is the very definition of wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but wrong, again. I looked at his first page of contribs to see if he had abused other film articles (and yes, ripping entire chunks of valid, if bloated, content from articles without discussion, tagging, etc), and reverted 3 or 4. He had many other contribs I didn't look at at all, only those specific to a film/play/book and his summary noting that he'd removed the entire plot section without consensus nor discussion. Nor am I "constantly" reverting. I reverted inappropriate actions that is NOT in keeping with any policy nor guideline, despite his erroneous claim that WP:NOT support his actions and his later dismissal of the MANY other guidelines that do not (calling them guidelines without consensus because, you know, WP:MOSFILMS was created by two people with no consensus despite it being held to standard for FA discussions). I am frankly appalled that you seem to be giving him carte blanch do to what he likes without even remarking on his rampant personal attacks, his edit warring with MULTIPLE editors (note that I was NOT the first to revert his edits to the Near Dark article at all), and are basically excusing it away. I sincerely hope I'm wrong in this, but I suspect, unfortunately, that I'm not, showing an extreme prejudice in how this was handled. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC

Saying that I am wrong does not make it so, nor do you provide an adequate defense for your actions which are easily visible for all. If I was in your position, I would apologize immediately and stop following people between pages to start revert wars. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You aren't even an administrator, and considering your block log is as length as his for disruptiveness, why are you attempting to tell anyone what's right or wrong? ~ignoring~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an administrator on other projects and run an administrators ethics projects. I am also heavily involved in those wanting to become administrators. My block log is meaningless in terms of -your- actions. Your own attitude right now only proves that you should probably be immediately blocked as disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)*sigh* See the article talk page (as I said in my summary). On the talk page, the plot length was discussed and has since been edited down and is still being worked on. Sticking a tag on there when there is already an active discussion and efforts being made to fix it just seems spiteful and pointless. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you choose to interpret adding a tag, one expressing concern that the plot summary is too long -- an opinion expressed by multiple people on that talk page and on this page (see above) -- as "spiteful"? Good lord. There's that bad faith again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll *sigh* along with Collectonian. Look at DreamGuy's edit history before you jump to conclusions. RoyLeban (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do... The admins who do instead of just taking the word of the people who complain tend to find that the people complaining are the real problems. Roy, for example, might be headed for a block for WP:COI problems, edit warring, and so forth. No, Roy, I think, is acting in good faith, unlike some others, but he doesn't yet seem to understand how Wikipedia works in general, and he seems unlikely to learn if he's joining up with people attempting to game the system and thinks that their behavior is acceptable. (He followed the lead of Collectonian in choosing to falsely label my edits vandalism, for example, and is going to various talk pages to complain). But of course I leave that to any interested admins to look into if they want. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, i've been watching this discussion since yesterday, because DreamGuy's talk page happened to be on my watchlist (probably because of a dispute I had with him ages ago) and I was bored. I've looked over the contributions that have been called into question, and although I think DreamGuy is probably overzealous with applying WP:NOT, and there should probably be a separate discussion on whether or not said policy allows this, I feel that his block was extremely improper. I believe that DreamGuy is attempting to follow policy, so some people need to reread WP:AGF.

That said, there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed. There seems to be disagreement over whether or not WP:NOT supports this sort of editing. Although i'm not an admin, I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be something along the lines of DreamGuy voluntarily agreeing to not edit plot summaries for, say, a month, while a discussion is made at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not to determine if substantially shortening plot summaries as DreamGuy has been doing is in line with that policy. I think that with a little work, all involved parties can agree on a solution without the need for formal dispute resolution or sanctions.Firestorm (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT certainly supports removal of unsuitable material such as ridiculously long blow-by-blow plot summaries--in that sense DreamGuy was right. But what he blocked for wasn't removal of unsuitable materal, but edit warring, which he did without once going to the talk page. Edit-warring in good faith is still edit-warring. --TS 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that neither side is completely right here. However, I maintain my position that the block was improper. There are many means of dispute resolution that could have been used before it got to AN/I (actually the block wasn't even done after AN/I, it was at AN/3), that were not taken. I think that the issue of edit warring can be dealt with in an informal, MEDCAB-style mediation. If all involved parties just sit down and talk things out without threatening to block, etc, I think we could reach an agreement that everyone would be satisfied with.

User:Bb515200000001‎

This user has been copying barnstars and other such things (when they havnot been awarded to him from User:Alansohn and user:Mufka dispite repeted warnings in edit summeries and one on his talk page.

also: his last edit summery (EDITING MY PAGE! I DID NOT STEAL ANY OF THESE BARNSTARS! I KNOW THE ADMINISTRATOR! HE'S MY COUSIN! SO CUT THE S*** OUT!) seems to contradict statments made to him in the said talk page by the above User:Alansohn.  rdunnPLIB  10:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ownership aside, I can't help but remember the "Major Asshole" scene from Spaceballs for some reason. MuZemike 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2 things

1st to the above= please explain.

i think Wikipedia:User page (or some where anyway) used to say that this was not allowed.  rdunnPLIB  16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Few week long edit war?

Hello! Could you please look at this as there appears to be an edit-war going beyond 3RR that if you go back appears to have been going on for weeks now and I believe those involved know better per this and this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and warned both users that the next revert will result in a block. - auburnpilot talk 16:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request block review

I just blocked 201.19.174.239 (talk · contribs) without warning for a week (the AfD period) for interfering with an active AfD by changing a comment [187]. The same IP also attempted to delink the AfD from a deletion sorting page [188] and I believe is the one responsible for multiple past attempts to redact an old closed AfD on the same article [189]. But since the comment that was changed was my own, perhaps I was too precipitate and should have let someone else handle this, so I would like to open up this block for review. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you just warn him once? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of internal processes such as AfD seemed to me much more severe than adding "penis" to some random article. And it didn't seem to be a first offense, though there had been no prior warning. By the way, an editor with a similar IP has since added two questionable and conflicting comments to the same AfD; I haven't done anything about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have probably given a 12 hour block for being disruptive, however a 1 week block is reasonable. Obviously, if the IP posts an unblock message, then we can look at the situation again. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist edit warring on BLP violations

Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit warring across multiple articles to insert more or less identical poorly sourced / unsourced claims that a Palestinian-American professor, Rashid Khalidi, printed a "fabricated" or "bogus" quotation in a New York Times editorial. This has continued for several days despite numerous warnings, talk page discussion, discussion at WP:BLP/N#Henry Siegman - "anti-Israeli" criticism and reversions from several different editors. I have found five articles so far:

• Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:[190][191][192][193] leading to indefinite article protection.[194]
• Henry Siegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:[195][196][197][198][199]
• Moshe Ya'alon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:[200][201][202][203]
• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A single edit by Historicist[204] in what looks like an edit war by multiple parties but it is hard to tease out.
• Arnaud de Borchgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One edit, no edit warring.[205]
• Alleged Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Original location of this material, created by Historicist[206] then turned into a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

The edits have been reverted and/or opposed on the talk pages by Nbauman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), GrizzledOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), myself, and Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the first four of whom removed or refactored the material on BLP grounds, and the last suggesting administrative intervention on the Khalidi talk page.[207] I can see at least a couple editors who added or restored Historicist's material, but Historicist seems to be by far the main editor involved.

This continues a month's long pattern by Historicist of adding poorly sourced derogatory content to the encyclopedia, then edit warring it in against consensus. The presence of administrators has in the past not been enough to stop the edit wars or to keep the talk page discussion fair or civil - there was full page protection at least twice. The earlier trouble dates back to the period when Khalidi was a political football over the John McCain "pals around with terrorists" smear of Obama. I bring this report with some reluctance because in the past these reports have turned into forums for making ridiculous accusations against me for my role in keeping the peace.Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Many of the edits you provide as diffs are old and some of them aren't reversions. If you think there's edit warring you should report it to the appropriate board. Instead you are stringing together edits to make it look like edit warring and casting aspersions on his motivations, this strikes me as being disruptive and tendentious. As I recall, in one of the cases you cite Historicist signed on for mediation and you refused and obstructed for months. Without commenting on the merits of the content he's trying to add, it's not like he's making it up out of whole cloth and without any citations. I find your attempts to treat every content dispute as a battle that requires administrator intervention unfortunate. Personally I find that you are aggresive with warning templates and abusive in your accusations of edit warring and other accusations where there is none. Certainly Historicist could act with more prudence, but he's not the only one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the matter at hand - you are an involved party here, having defended historicist and participated in edit wars and accusations on Historicist's side, and I'm tired of dignifying these tit-for-tat complaints with a serious response. Historicist's diffs speak for themselves and show edit warring BLP violations against consensus. Four editors reverted on BLP grounds, and the sourcing for this derogatory material is unquestionably weak. The problem is that as in past incidents he does not stop unless he is stopped. This has gone on for months and it has now flared up twice the last three weeks, resulting in long term full protection of the article both times. Neither policy, nor warnings, nor pleas to follow BRD, nor failing to obtain consensus, have prevented him from simply reverting again and again, until the article in question gets protected. There is nothing to mediate here. It is a behavior problem. This is the correct forum for such things. Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon mentions part of the problem, but not all of it. In the same obviously inappropriate paragraph that Historicist added (and both ChildofMidnight and he then reverted into place), Historicist also attributed to Efraim Karsh a comment about Khalidi's "blind nationalist belief," that it "reduces his academic work to the level of mere 'political polemics.'" In fact Karsh said nothing of the sort, commenting only on a specific quote of Khalidi's that it "may have some merit at the level of political polemics."[208] Historicist's addition is, in other words, a blatant misrepresentation of source material, intentional or otherwise, on top of the other issues. In fact I do not see how ChildofMidnight should be editing this article either, however, as his interventions have been almost entirely to replace not just poorly sourced but mis-sourced material, while attacking editors on the page but refusing to engage or discuss the content. His replacement of this paragraph without any explanation in talk is just one of several examples over the last months. In most articles I would be more willing to deal with this, but considering it is a BLP I think that administrative action is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are both setting a new standard for false accusations, personal attacks and incivility. Are we to believe that if there were a legitimate instance of edit warring you wouldn't have reported it immediately? Making false accusations is itself an offense, so save us the fake dramatics. You've brought up concerns over the content, and now you need to work through the discussion and dispute resolution remedies to decide what can and should be included if anything. Did you try rewording or was the edit simply reverted in its entirety? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight seems to have some weird problem keeping his cool about this page, and for some reason has been shielding Historicist via edit wars, personal attacks, assumptions and accusations of bad faith, etc. Most of this seems to come from thin air and/or a complete misunderstanding of BLP. BLP violations and POV pushes do not have to be rephrased or agreed on - they are deleted on sight. Yet we have worked with the problem editors for months to try to make peace, without any improvement in their behavior. I did not include him in the initial report because until now most of this was a little stale and his role in the latest flare-up was relatively slight, but this report seems to have triggered this bizarre reaction again. A review of his record on the page shows that he has been seriously disruptive and quite at odds with policy and editing process - he probably ought to stay away from the page as well. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If a comment is false, it helps to say why (and please do show what I said that's uncivil). I addressed earlier, here, your replacement of an earlier paragraph created by another editor that substantially misrepresented the source material. Again here you arrived on the page, without discussion, to do the same. What's odd to me is that over this time you still won't see that it is in fact extremely shoddy material that is being added to this article, and that this is why people continue to remove it. Instead you seem to think people should somehow just fix it even though you admit the material is problematic and show no ability or attempts to do so yourself. This isn't complicated in any case. The material Historicist added here, and you replaced, clearly misrepresents the underlying sources. My experience is that when editing is this bad on a BLP, the editors responsible are prohibited from editing the page. If we aren't at that point now I think we must be pretty close. Mackan79 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Content issue

The most obvious issue here is ongoing edit warring that resists all attempts to stop. However, lest this get into a discussion of content and the applicability of BLP, please note that the only reliable source offered to date is an editor's note in a New York Times editorial noting that the widely repeated quote (which did not originate with Khalidi) could not be verified and does not appear in the source it is generally attributed to,[209]. The source does not say that anybody "fabricated" anything. The material disputed on BLP grounds includes accusations that are synthesis, opinion, or original research, or sourced to editorials appearing on pro-Israel attack websites / organizations Middle East Forum and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA, which has a notorious history here - see CAMERA#Wikipedia Campaign).Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the explanation of WP:BLP guidelines, I had to revert his changes as well. He seems rabidly insistent that his derogatory and poorly sourced opinions be included, despite consensus against him. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rabidly insistent"? How about this comment [210] where you say "Historicist's butchery of the English language was just so painful, that I had to go and vent my frustration somewhere." That sounds like a personal attack to me. I think everyone involved could do a better job of following the appropriate dispute resolution protocols and civility guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the use of this remark to get at Khalid Rashidi and Henry Siegman is questionable. Both the Camera and the Commentary piece flaunt the 'bogus' claim to a purpose, to smear the former's scholarship and the latter's competence. For the record, the phrase translated as 'sear into their consciousness' did not arise with Moshe Ya'alon, but was IDF jargon, used in contexts for harsh military, as opposed to political, measures against any Palestinians involved in any form of revolt against the Occupation, during the intifadas. Both the Ricki Hollander, Alex Safian, and Jason Maoz's pieces from activist sites make out that this is a total fabrication, one drawn 'ad nauseam by Arab news services, neo-Nazi websites and leftist bloggers', and the innuendo is obvious. Yet Hollander and Safian's own construal is questionable, and like Maoz they ignore the fact that a distinguished Israeli scholar like Yoram Peri uses it in his highly regarded book,Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy,US Institute of Peace Press, 2006. Peri is on the other side of the political fence from both Khalidi and Siegman and yet uses much the same language of Peri's remark, which created an uproar in Israel when it, and his remarks before the rabbinate some weeks earlier, were published. I suggest in the meantime that Historicist dig out what is now an idiom in Hebrew, and provide wiki editors with the full Hebrew text, so that at least those fluent in that language can examine the source and its translations, and allow us to judge for ourselves. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - My choice of adjectives is not the issue here. The edits by which Wikidemon has asked for administrator intervention IS. If you wish to accuse me of harassment, derogatory statements or such, please do so within the context of this issue, or do so separately. Looking through Rashid Khalidi history, you appear to have a record of supporting Historicist's edits. As I see it, you are not an unbiased party. Pot kettle black?GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional civility issues

• I've seen enough from User:Historicist here and elsewhere to know that the user hasn't really adopted what you might call "expected norms" of Wikipedia editing. I am of the opinion that a short block could be appropriate, especially if the edit warring continues. I would keep a watch on the situation and impose it myself if needed, but I've been attacked by the user in the past as being biased on a number of fronts, so he wouldn't view me as a neutral assessor in this case. And I probably wouldn't be, since the user has been rather uncivil to me in our past encounters: he said I was "disturbingly aggressive" (apparently for asking him on his talk page to avoid personal attacks) and then said I have a "bizarrely twisted mind that renders (me) of questionable use as an editor of Wikipedia". Interesting. But that wasn't the best doozy. Later, he said I was guilty of "Holocaust minimization, lies, ... defense of pedophilia, insensitive jokes about the Holocauset (sic), obsessive attacks of people who ctiticize (me), and ... threats. Yikes. As I said, someone in a more neutral position should really have a word with User:Historicist to help him understand WP's expected good editing and civility practices. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say your comments show clear signs of a bias against Historicist and I don't see how bringing up old gripes does much to help the situation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's purpose was not to help heal anyone or any situation. It's purpose was to put the user's specific behaviour in this case in the context of a broader pattern of incivility and problematic editing. If that disturbs you, look away. But any admin who is going to address this will benefit from knowing the whole history of problems with the user, and this was intended to assist him or her in that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that what you offer is a one-sided portrayal rather than a fair assessment of all sides involved. In this very thread there are examples of problematic edits from others, but you've ignored them. This is a content dispute, and while it's certainly appropriate to remind Historicist and everyone else to use dispute resolution protocls rather than editing back and forth over content, I don't see anything to be gained from your negative characterizations and assessment of one party with whom you've had difficulties in the past. If he's expected to show restraint so should you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was one-sided—the personal attacks were leveled against me. The target of the attack usually can't help but be "one side" of the issue, and the target is not a neutral party. That's why it's not me who is pursuing the issue as a type of "mediator", as I stated above. Any admin who is neutral and is further interested in pursuing the issue could (and I expect would) examine the entire thread of our discussion to see what my comments were, so your concern that I am being "one sided" is a red herring. If you yourself would care to examine the discussion, I think you'd probably conclude that I had "showed restraint", as you put it, whereas he did not. (Or, just ask the user—he could simply tell you the "other side" of the story.) The entire point is that the user's behaviour has, in the past, gone well beyond mere "content disputes" into personal attacks, which they very well could end up again. Let's try not to have such a spider's-eye-view of the matter. I would prefer that editors try to address the underlying problems and not just deal with every issue as a discrete content dispute with no connection whatever to previous or future actions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A little reality check

• User:Good Olfactory appears to engage in rapid-fire requests to delete categories, many are useful, but when I happened upon him he was attempting to eliminate two Holocaust related categfories and do so in the language of Holocause minimization, his claim was that "merely" suriviving the war in Europe as a hunted Jew in hiding was not Wikipedia worthy unless the Jew in quesiton had been in a death camp, his casual dismissal of the mass murder of millions of European Jews outside of the death camps is the definition of Holocaust minimization. I have cooperated with Good Olafactory on other articles. But Holocaust minimization is vile. I am troubled that he is still defending his remarks and behavior.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a gross misreading or mis-statement of my comments devoid of context. The comments were made in the context of a CfD discussion–proposal to delete a category. I did not say that a mention that someone was a (non-concentration camp) Holocaust survivor "was not Wikipedia worthy". I was suggesting that a certain category for Holocaust survivors did not fit into the then-existent WP categorization scheme. There is a vast difference; it is one that almost every editor that participated in the discussion (except Historicist) has realised. I have explained this to him before and even (twice) apologised to him that my comments were misunderstood. But even if I had suggested what Historicist seems intent on misunderstanding me as meaning, that is no excuse to engage in incivility and attacks on another WP user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• User:Wikidemon patrols the Rashid Khalidi page. It took me three months of many-times-per-day editing argument on the Rashid Khalidi talk page to enter the straigntforward infoormation that Khalidi was a PLO official in the 1970's and 80's. This despite the fact that the info I was struggling to enter was sourced to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times Pacifica Radio the New York Times several well-known reporters who interviewed Khalidi in Lebanon as a PLO official and academics who have written about the periof. Wikidemon and accomplices argued for three months that all of this evidence was invalid. The arguments Wikidemon used them are the same kind of personal attacks on me that he is using now.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that unruly POV pushers always accuse the accuser? That's one of the tiresome things about dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli partisans, they're so jumpy. My record is clean here and that morass is not really my little corner of Wikipedia. Historicist keeps trying to source disparagement of Khalidi (and possibly other opponents of Israel) to political attack blogs, think tanks, letters to the editor, and opinion pieces by partisans and pundits. The text he tries to insert in the article does not even follow from those non-reliable sources. For example, the Republican presidential campaign talking point he was pushing for months, that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO but lied about it (and hence, his supposed friend Barack Obama, as Sarah Palin put it, palls around with terrorists) did not have good sourcing, was flat-out contradicted by some sources, is denied by the subject of the article, and may in fact be simply untrue. It's pointless to argue content here though. Now he's been trying to add to five articles material implying that Khalidi fabricated a quote, which is clearly untrue. These ongoing BLP violations, however blatant, are a content issue that we could easily deal with on the article page. The months-old behavior problem, which shows no sign of acknowledgement or abating, is not proposing the material. Anyone is free to propose content for the encyclopedia. It's the drama when he does not get his way - gross incivilities, wikigaming, and accusations against those who disagree on the content, then when asked to stop, blowing smoke by accusing others of the same thing. Historicist has been the source of most of the edit problems on the page, with occasional fly-bys from less frequent editors. Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is whether crtiticism is allowed

• The material at immediate issue consists of:
• 1) A fabricated quotation, published by Khalidi no fewer than four times. It was not only removed, the removing editors implied that the quote was not fabricated. Note that the correction ran 22 days after the fake quote. In that time the Times contacted Khalidi (departmental scuttlebut) and Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote, and failed. If Khalidi couldn't rind it, and the Tiems couldn't find it, its a fake. The quotation was first published by journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, without a citation. The citation to a particular Ya'alon interview was first published by Khalidi. That is, he fabricated the citation to a source twhere the quote did not appear. In a junior professor, this sort of fraudulent scholarship lieds to denial of tenure.
• 2) an academic article about a second instance of Khalidi publishing a quotation from a Christian cleric with a fabricated attiibution to a Zionist, and also making a verfiably false claim about a book by Theodore Herzl. That is, I was adding to the Khalidi page three well documented instances with good sources in which Khalidi published false information about what a Zionist had actually said.
• 3) an assertion by a distinguished historian Efraim Karsh making a widely shared criticism of Khalidi as writing books more as a propagandist for the Palestinian cause than as an objective scholar. Similar statements appear on the Wikipedia pages of many of the pro-Israeli historians whose work contests Khalidi's claims. I point out here that Khalidi self-describes as an advocate fo the Palestinian cause and actually worked for the PLO as a young man as an official propagandist. Many historians view Khalidi's work as part of a centuries old tradition of nationalist historians promoting their national cause. It is not a category to be scorned; most of us regard Herodotus as a nationalist historian, he gives about as balanced an account of the Greek cause and the Persian Empire as Khalidi does of the Middle East. When historians write as partisans, it is appropriate to say so. I admire some of Khalidi's work, I use some of it, but I recognize it as an entirely one-sided account of reality, polemic in the best sense of the word.
• My purpose in adding the material critical of Khalidi was to begin a section that might, with time, develop into an appropriately-sized section on academic criticisms of this highly controversial academic.
• The real issue here, as I see it, is whether well-soruced material critical of Rashid Khalidi will be allowed onto his page, or whether anyone trying to add such material will be required to run the gauntlet of a months-long battle on the talk page and subjected to false accusations and personal attacks.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were rejected because you provided poor sources, inflammatory/libellous language and made personal inferences on the facts. Just as you are doing here. Just taking what you said of Khalidi's quote issue...

• "fabricated quotation" - There's a world of difference between "unverified" and "fabricated". Perhaps you could provide a source where Khalidi specifies his source for the quote, and the original interview transcripts (I assume they're in Hebrew), so that editors can view it more impartially? Perhaps a neutral 3rd party who has done so?Failing that, the NYT wording of "unverified" has to be accepted.
• "In that time the Times..."

1. "... in that time..." - you imply that the NYT investigated the quote for 3 weeks (actually, you said so specifically, elsewhere). There is no source documenting when the NYT first questioned the source. If one is to accept your argument, then CAMERA has been researching the issue for the better part of 6 years? And it took them that long to figure it out? Is this the subject of a feature film?

2. "contacted Khalidi" - this isn't mentioned anywhere in the NYT article.

3. "Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote" - he did? Your source? Where does it say that?

4. "fraudulent scholarship" - this sort of statement is potentially libellous and has to stay out of BLPs. I don't think anyone rejected the possibility that an error was made. But an error is quite different from fraud. Your use of inflammatory language is not justified. If he has committed academic fraud, then surely you can find neutral 3rd party sources which have covered the issue of the alleged fraud?

This is an example of how you failed to support the allegations you brought up. Inflammatory language, poor extremist sources and a failure to address any concerns which the other editors brought up. It is not, as you claim, a vendetta to slander Ya'alon. You could help by finding a source where Siegman specifies his source of the quote, and the original Hebrew transcripts. It'd be original research, but it would at least help cast some light on the issue.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can we please not argue content here? The content is poorly sourced, as most of the editors on the various pages concur - and Historicist's argument above is as leaky as a sieve. Per a whole bunch of policies it is the responsibility of the editor proposing content to provide adequate sourcing, and obtain consensus for disputed edits. That is not going to happen unless there is a new development because the sources are just not there. The reason this is an AN/I issue isn't specifically that Historicist keeps trying the more prudent editors' patience with months of these weak proposals, but that he causes unending trouble when they are rejected. By revert warring poorly sourced material into the article again and again, he leaves the well-behaved editors few options. I will revert him once, or maybe twice, but he will take every one of these edits up to 3RR, badmouth those who disagree with him, and if he didn't get the last revert he will start again another day. Dispute resolution, discussion, etc., have not seemed to work here. If he does not stop the only reasonable outcomes I can see all involve administrative intervention.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Long answer to rhetorical question

In a spot check of Historicist's edits, I see two main focuses - articles about politics, and uncontroversial articles about various Jewish and Israeli organizations. With respect to the former, nearly all of Historicist's edits are to repeat criticism made by pro-Israeli or pro-American partisan groups and individuals of people perceived as anti-Israeli or anti-Western. Overall it displays a weak appreciation for our standards of neutrality and sourcing, in that the criticisms are backed only by primary source citations to the group leveling the criticism, and many make claims not contained in the source or contain on-Wiki editorializing.

As an example, Historicist's most recent edit ats the moment is adding to the "criticism" of Amnesty International article, and to the "praise" section of NGO Monitor a claim that the Asian Tribune has "praised" NGO Monitor for "pointing out" that Amnesty International is biased against democratic regimes. Omitted are the disclaimers that the Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden, that NGO Monitor is an Israeli partisan group that defends Israel against its repeated run-ins with Amnesty International over Israel's human rights record, or that the source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely, if there is criticism of Amnesty International worth noting in this encyclopedia there must be stronger sources. A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.

As another example, a couple weeks ago Historicist created an article about Gary Gerstle, who is apparently "one of the nation's leading historians" (though the citations come online from his own department). He then created an article for another professor, Janice Radway, with little content other than that her scholarship is noted for "radically anti-American" for covering American oppression, domination, and imperialism, cited only (and with a long quote by) Gary Gerstle to that effect. The link is not online so I cannot tell if that is what Gerstle really said, but the fratricidal tendency of history professors to tarnish each other's reputation is not the stuff of encyclopedias, at least not unless it can be cited to neutral reliable secondary sources.

So in answer to the rhetorical question of whether criticism is allowed, yes, if it meets all of the various Wikipedia policies on verifiability / accurate reflection of sources, reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, BLP, WEIGHT, and so on. Even at that, criticism is generally supposed to be worked into the article for context, and should be relevant to the notability of the subject of the article - not just criticism for the sake of criticism. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for repeating poorly sourced partisan accusations. And it is certainly not a place for edit warring poorly sourced material against the protests of other editors, then calling them names for disapproving of your substandard content.Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Guinness Question

This is getting me wondering, if there's a Wikipedia record for the longest thread in an WP:ANI posting... or perhaps the greatest number of forks. If there is, I'm curious which we'll hit first - a record, or an admin doing something? I'm not certain. Better check the records... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That would probably go to one of the many discussions that got moved to a subpage. This isn't even close. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Defending falsehoods on Wikipedia

The Henry Siegman page contains the bogus quote as an example of Siegman's writing. I inserted a brief statement explaining that the New York Times has established that the quote is bogus. It is, in fact, an inversion of what Ya'alon actually said, and, as such , something of a canard. Which is, of course, why Rashid Jhalidi has published it four times. User:GrizzledOldMan and USER:Wikidemon immediately removed my explanation. I expostulated on talk. They accused me of various high crimes and misdemeanors. If they are sincere in their protestations that they wish to uphold Wikipedia standards for reliable, souced information, they will insert information from the New York Times establishing that the quote it a fabrication on the Henry Siegman. Their failure to do so establishes that they are simply interested in using Wikipedia to promote anti-Israel propaganda.Historicist (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that personal attack, which you repeated on the Siegman talk page,[211] shows zero attempt to come to grips with the BLP vios, incivility, or edit warring. The content you edit warred over, despite being asked to stop, was reverted by three different editors on BLP grounds on that page alone, you are the sole proponent there, and it is a BLP violation. If you are not blocked or banned from editing Israel-Palestine related articles, will you promise not to impugn the intentions of other editors you disagree with, and not to restore content that has been removed or disputed until and unless you get general consensus / agreement from the editors on the page? The New York Times article says nothing of the sort you claim it to. So while we are at it, it would be nice but not mandatory for now that you make sure the content you add is actually supported by the sources you propose, and not to source disparagement of people you consider anti-Israel to partisan pro-Israeli blogs, think tanks, and editorialists. Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel general enforcement

I just came across the arbitration committee's decision here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. The repeated edit problems on the Ya'alon, Khalidi, and Siegman articles, and this aspect of the CAMERA article, are clearly over the Israel / Palestine conflict. Can we simply warn any offending editors that they will be expected to stick to 1RR, civility, etc., that they are expected per BRD not to make disputed changes before gaining consensus, and that there will be a zero tolerance policy with blocks or topic bans for further violations?

The Khalidi article is now indefinitely protected. None of this discussion seems to be getting through to Historicist, and I see little chance absent some administrative action that his edit warring, BLP vios, incivility, etc., will stop if article probation is lifted. If a version of the content gains consensus, fine, it can go in the article. If not -- the far more likely outcome -- he needs to accept that. In the meanwhile it is unacceptable that he or anyone else would edit war this material (4RR between two editors over a 7-hour period) into the article without gaining consensus, particularly when it is challenged by multiple editors on BLP grounds. If this discussion ends without a block or a topic ban, can we use arbitration enforcement or some other appropriate tool to ensure editors don't do this again?Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I think Historicist is actionable now. His personal attacks are continuing - in the past few minutes he has cut-and-pasted the above personal attack, that another editor and I are "simply interested in using Wikipedia to promote anti-Israel propaganda", on one of the article talk pages.[212] Clearly, the warnings and the fact we're here on AN/I are not slowing him down - and if you look at his record he has already been blocked twice over doing the same thing on the same subject matter. Can we please put this one out of its misery? I believe editors who do this sort of thing repeatedly get blocked or banned from Israel-Palestine related articles.Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Before this thread goes to the great blue yonder of the archives, per this suggestion on my talk page[213] should no action be taken on this report I will give Historicist the required notice per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions that any future edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, or accusations of bad faith will be reported to WP:AE. I'll also suggest unprotecting Rashid Khalidi (no concrete proposal has been introduced there since the protection and this AN/I report began) and attaching the {{sanctions}} tag to that and the other articles affected by article probation. If anyone sees any flaws or has objections to this approach, please let me know.Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... I do. Sorry to make this difficult, but being a BLP, it specifically comes under the exception. As I read it, edit-warring really only applies to those who are trying to put in objectionable content - it doesn't apply to those removing those changes. Or have I misread things? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're missing something. My reason for proposing this is the same as for my filing the AN/I report, to restore sanity and civil stable editing on a number of article pages. Anyone can revert in good faith content they legitimately dispute - once - without it being considered warring. If they do it properly, with an explanation, edit summary, etc., then per WP:BRD it is supposed to stay out until and unless it gains consensus, BLP vio or no BLP vio. Anyone reverting it back in is violating the arbitration decision by edit warring and, if they have been put on notice of the decision, is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions by a neutral administrator. If that doesn't work and a perceived BLP vio remains in the article, you can take your chances. You can revert again and carefully explain why you are doing so, warn the offending editor again, take your chances, complain, and/or ask for help or guidance. Getting into a revert fight, even to remove perceived BLP vios, is always iffy - except in the most blatant urgent cases you take your chances on whether people agree with you and it is often best to ask for guidance first. That's always the case, whether or not we are under general sanctions. However, at this point it should be clear from this article and the discussions on all of the pages affected that there is no consensus to add the material, it is legitimately challenged as a BLP violation, and the involved people know full well at this point that they are not supposed to keep reverting it back into the article. Increased attention by administrators who are helping to keep the peace on the Israel-Palestinian corner of Wikipedia are a lot more likely to do something about the problem than the administrative or editor community at large, who sees a lot of smoke and fighting, and often has trouble making sense of exactly what the fuss is about. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You may have misread only in that Historicist was adding the incorrectly sourced negative material, not removing it. I think the approach is fine, though I believe that only an admin can give the "official" notice under the case. If it's raised on the relevant board, in any case, an admin should deal with it one way or another. Mackan79 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll give the notice if no admin will, and if they object they can repeat or endorse it. The point is to make sure the person knows about the policy before they are sanctioned for violating it, not to get into details about how they know. Wikidemon (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I see that the notice is supposed to be given only by administrators, and that reports are supposed to be made at WP:AE, which I did and note below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AE

Because nothing is happening here, and the edit warring[214] and incivility continue on one of the articles, I have gone ahead and asked for help / guidance at WP:AE as discussed above.Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not stopping his edit warring - it continues here. I think article protection is needed on Siegman's article as well. Or admin intervention. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a note on Historicist's talkpage. --Elonka 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Luck by Chance

User:Legolas2186 has for several days been posting uncivil edit summaries threatening fellow editors with "reporting" them, and blanket reverting good-faith edits by calling them vandalism. [215] [216] Some of his edits are genuinely useful, but many others involve movie fancruft.

Regardless, he posts hostile and threatening posts such as this at Talk:Luck_by_Chance:

Don't try to act high and mighty by wiki-linking as if you know everything. You are continuously removing information under the assumption of gossip when they are reported by authenticable sources. As i said before, if i do see you again removing info, I'll make sure your editing priviledges are blocked. "Legolas" (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out this WP:OWN behavior and incivility on the same talk page, and have left a note with this editor, who has also been uncivil on my own talk page. Can anything be done about these threats and the unnecessary hostility? I believe my editing record shows someone who tries to work with other editors and discuss things (such as here). I ask for any help you might give in fostering non-hostile dialog. Thank you very much, very seriously, for your taking time on what is a voluntary effort on your part. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think Legolas has done anything wrong here. First of all, your edits have been removing references and prose without giving a rationale; this is the wort of thing you usually get a {{uw-delete}} template message for. Secondly, Legolas has not always been calling your edits "vandalism," and at least one time he specifically said that your edit was good faith but had to be undone because it removed references and added unsourced material. I think in your first paragraph you have mischaracterized Legolas's actions. No admin action against him is needed, and I don't even see any point keeping this thread open; if no admin action is required, the discussion needs to be continued elsewhere. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Politizer and Legolas appear to be tagteaming at Luck by Chance and now here. Legolas' own words, above, illustrate better than I could his hostility and incivility toward others. Judging from Talk:Luck by Chance, I'm not the other only editor who believes so.

Indeed, Legolas is threatening and bullying me again on my talk page, and excusing his vicious rudeness as "trivial":

There was no point in going to ANI for such a trivial matter. Learn editing first, then try your quarreling attitude. I still have kept good faith and didnot report you. But remove valid references again, this time i won't forget that.

I have not reverted his edits since this began; this isn't about his fancruft content or the fact I did not, in fact, remove references but simply moved them to EL after removing gossipy fan trivia. I'm coming to you now because of Legolas' inappropriate behavior, in which he insults and demeans other editors and their edits, and threatens other editors, in addition to displaying WP:OWN. I don't believe these represent "a trivial matter". Thank you for any help. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, since Legolas has erased it, I'd like to excerpt here my attempt at politely trying to initiate discussion and collaboration with him, which he rebuffed with unaccountable, and unacceptable, vitriol.

This post, which he erased despite this current request for admin help, said: "There's no need to be rude. I direct you, please, to WP:ETIQUETTE, which you are violating … I left a good-faith note on the talk page suggesting we discuss your edits. I ask this again. … What do you say? And, please, say it politely. There's no need for the hostile behavior you've been exhibiting. Thanks."

It's not proper to spit back angry, threatening posts when a fellow Wiki-editor exhibits politeness and asks to discuss things and collaborate, is it? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Your accusations of tag-teaming are unfounded. I have never interacted with User:Legolas2186 before you came to this noticeboard and brought your edits to everyone's attention; I've only communicated with Legolas once, to notify him of this thread (it is common on WP to notify another user when they are the subject of a discussion on a noticeboard somewhere). Please don't try to characterize yourself as "exhibiting politeness" when the very fact that you started this ANI thread and misrepresented other users is quite impolite. As I said above, there is good reason why your edits were reverted, and the fact that I reverted them again isn't because I'm in cahoots with Legolas but because I agreed your edits were unconstructive. In any case, it seems you have started making more constructive edits to the article now, and I urge you to keep up with making constructive edits and let this unconstructive dispute end. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointedly, you make no mention of Legolas' bullying, his threatening, and his rude incivility. If I misjudged the familiar-sounding banter in your various posts to each other, I apologize. But the point of this request for intervention is Legolas' vicious, vitriolic posts and edit summaries. What do you -- or more importantly, what do admins -- have to say about his behavior and language? That is the issue here. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above and in my talk page, I don't think it's something that requires administrative action, as it's not egregious at this point. A civility warning could be issued, although I won't give one (personally I don't think it's necessary, as I don't think a line has been breached), but someone else reading this discussion might think it's warranted. I'll wait and hear what an uninvolved reader here has to say. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken on good faith your claim that you and Legolas are unfamiliar with each other. I'm sure you can understand now how it must appear when an ostensible outside party as yourself is expending so much time and effort on something that is between two other parties, Legolas and myself.

I would ask that you please let an admin decide whether such gross incivility as "Don't try to act high and mighty by wiki-linking as if you know everything" and "if i do see you again removing info, I'll make sure your editing priviledges [sic] are blocked", among many other examples, is in any way acceptable. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across this thread and weighed in with my opinion. You came here looking for an uninvolved editor, and that's what you got. Since you persist on leveling accusations against me, I'm done here. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Politizer, who is now User:Rjanag, I came here seeking help from an administrator. I have found your efforts to thwart my grievance confusing, though I appreciate your willingness to leave the discussion to Legolas, myself, and, hopefully, an admin.

The pertinent issue is, will Legolas be allowed to continue bullying, threatening and being uncivil to other editors, as he has done to me and others in his posts and his edit summaries. I ask for help. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:WorldFacts

I have indefinitely blocked WorldFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making legal threats per our policy on legal threats for the following comment I think litigation is in order. This bullshit ends now.. The background is that I recently warned the user against edit warring against consensus at USS Liberty incident. Their response was to come to my talk page to argue that consensus was with them and then to release the legal threat when I commented that current consensus was clearly against them. Since I don't have any time today to do any follow up I am listing the block here for comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question - how do you know he wasn't talking about the possibility of opening a request for arbitration? Our own Signpost newsletter refers to arbcom cases as "litigation". --B (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case they can be unblocked as soon as they clarify their meaning but NLT is about removing the chilling affect of legal threats and I read that sentence as being a threat to go to court. I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only one who reads it that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see how that would go: 'Your Honor...The Wikipedians...they...they were being mean to me!' HalfShadow 07:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For information, User:WorldFacts has been a long term problematic SPA, with a single-minded campaign to insert a POV edit into the USS Liberty Incident article. The proposed edit falls down on a number of counts WP:RS (source is a blog on a hard core porn website), WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. A somewhat pointless exercise anyway, since the report he insists is mentioned, is actually already included in the article. He was recently warned that he would be blocked if he repeated the exercise. I would wholeheartedley endorse Spartaz's actions over what is a clear legal threat. Justin talk 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has been building up a head of steam for some time, this was to be expected I think. Before any admin thinks about unblocking him should he recant, I would suggest they look over his contributions to users talk pages. Like this one on EdJohnston. After blocking WorldFacts for a 3RR breach, we are informed how Wikipedia is 'crawling' with 'Sayanim' (A Jew who helps a Jew, also used to denote Mossad helpers, adopted as an anti-semetic 'code word' for part of the zionist conspiracy in some cases), and how Ed having blocked him is obviously now a Sayanim. Really, before any admin unblocks, consider whether it would be a net gain, or any gain at all. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

May I draw it to people's attention that this is the third time, just recently, that allegations of antisemitism have been made against other editors (either personally, or generally) in discussions concerning this article (2 of the allegations made at ANI). And it is the 5th block handed out recently on those attempting to write the article to policy.

May I also draw people's attention to the fact that the problems at the article are quite sensational, with the RS completely flouted (and thereby UNDUE, 60 missing citations, OWNERSHIP etc etc etc). As anyone examining the TalkPage can see.

I would add that I personally consider WorldFacts particular concern to be relatively trivial in the scale of things, and I think this is the first time I've appeared to "support" him on anything. PR^talk 14:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I point out that User:PalestineRemembered has repeatedly asserted that other editors have made allegedly made accusations of anti-semitism. However, this is simply the case of a comment made being taken utterly out of context. In addition, PR frustrated attempts at mediation, for utterly specious reasons and has claimed consensus based on head count rather than the weight of argument. A number of blocks have been handed out but solely because those involved violated wiki processes to pursue a POV agenda. PR himself was blocked for legal threats at ANI. Justin talk 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Acctually Justin, in this case I am saying that we have to look at the tone and wording of WorldFacts constant Jewish statements, inline with his clear status as a SPA, and consider whether it adds up to a disruptive SPA; obviously I think it does and so would urge that his recanting (a prompted recanting no doubt) be ignored as there are more reasons to keep him blocke than let him back. I would also point out that the headcount PR uses is often wrong. His famous 5-2 against-for count is really 3 clearly against (PR, Wayne and a short lived account called Yellabina or some such), 3 clearly for in the circumstances (Myself, Justin and Jayjg) and Ken wavering between the two though favouring against. So even if Wikipedia did work like that, the picture is never quite as clear as PR paints it. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Going to back up those claims? I especially like the idea that because the page is in a bad shape you are right. It is a good leap of logic. Remind me, what was your reaction to a mediated attempt to drive the article forward? As I recall it was that the US military would engage in a conspiracy to subvert the article through BQZip. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need mediation at this page to reconcile different points of view, we need administrative action to deal with the OWNERSHIP, to stop the shovelling in of bad sources and the shovelling out of good sources. But administrative action to stop the personal smears of good-faith editors would be a useful start. PR^talk 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, no you wouldn't like to back it up. You don't find it a little odd to moan about accusations when you yourself then make one, only you use neither evidence or cohesive argument? Ah well, to each their own I suppose. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• What Narson said. He won't be missed, at least not given his current persona. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kinomakoto

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours following report to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The only edits of Kinomakoto (talk · contribs) have been adding hoaxes to Wikipedia. Since the edits aren't recent, I haven't reported to WP:AIV, but (s)he has vandalized after a final warning and I think someone ought to at least keep an eye on it. JuJube (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with Americana to say that all edits are hoaxes, but the few I am sure about certainly are not based in reality. I suggest an indef block once there is agreement that this editor is not producing material for the benefit of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that I blocked the editor at the same time you were making your comment at AIV [217]. Based on the initial AIV report (and without any knowledge of this AN/I thread), I blocked the editor for 31 hours and issued a final warning before being blocked indefinitely [218]. Any admin who feels I was too harsh/lenient should feel free to adjust the duration of my block as they feel fit. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Vienna2 - repeated page blanking and edit-warring

This concerns Lydia Caruana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vienna2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created this article about a living (and only moderately notable) opera singer in December. It was unformatted, did not conform to the Manual of Style, was poorly referenced and did not adhere to a neutral point of view - it read like an advertisment for the subject. In the course of the last two days he/she has repeatedly reverted all the formatting, addition of references, wikification, and copy-editing by two different editors as well as all maintenance tags. He/she has now blanked the article 3 times in the last two hours. No edit summaries, no engagement with repeated warnings on the article talk page and their user talk page. I have reverted the blanking again, but don't want to end up edit warring, even though it it has now become a form of vandalism. Can someone please take a look at this. I strongly suspect the editor in question also has conflict of interest issues. Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Update: User has now blanked for a fourth time.[219] Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I spent a while wikifying the article. Although a number of red links remained these could have been resolved by an expert in opera, which I believe User:Voceditenore is. I've just reverted to a version that does not lose the work that I, Voceditenore and also User:Folantin have put into it. Agreed that this needs attention, also that there may be COI. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another PoliticianTexas sock: RCK11

Resolved

 – Blocked by Protonk. Thanks! --Uncia (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RCK11 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is probably a sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). PolTx has generated several dozen known sock puppets. The last was HoyaFan! (talk · contribs · logs · block log) who was blocked 05:18, 28 Jan; the RCK11 account was created 06:53, 29 Jan, and has edited a total of 3 pages, all of which have also been edited by PolTx. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Some more specifics:

• RCK11 reinstated an edit to Piedra Vista High School made by AndrewGirron (talk · contribs) (known PolTx sock): RCK11 diff; AndrewGirron diff; last RCK11 version vs. last AndrewGirron version
• characteristic capitalization of most words in edit summaries: RCK11 diff; HoyaFan! diff
• The three pages edited by RCK11 and also by PolTx are: St. Pius X High School (Albuquerque) (edited by TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs)); Piedra Vista High School (edited by AndrewGirron (talk · contribs); Los Alamos High School (edited by JWillems (talk · contribs), Thomasalazar (talk · contribs), Martinez07 (talk · contribs), BradlyRM (talk · contribs), Evhs00 (talk · contribs)). Northern New Mexico high schools are a favorite PolTx subject.

How about a block on this editor? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent editing against consensus

User:Wolfkeeper is involved in a long-standing dispute at Glider with a number of other editors (including myself) over what the scope of the article should be. Although discussion has been protracted and at times acrimonious, there has been visible progress towards a middle ground (see the table in this section). There appears to be broad consensus as to what the article should and shouldn't encompass, but Wolfkeeper persists in editing against that consensus and restoring material that other editors don't feel belongs in the article: here, here and here.

At one point, Wolfkeeper asked for a Third Opinion. When this opinion was contrary to what she or he hoped for, he at first agreed to abide by it, but has apparently changed her or his mind since then.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what triggered the latest reversions. The article had been pretty stable between 20 Jan and 4 Feb, but note this aggressive post on the talk page.

I'm not going to edit war over this, so I would appreciate it if someone else could remind Wolfkeeper about building consensus before making controversial changes, and restore the article to User:Jmcc150's version here. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the gliding articles are a mess at the moment. There's

• Glider Which is about sailplanes
• Gliding Which is about sailplanes and replicates most of the same material
• gliding (flight) Which is more general, but replicates most of the same material
• Sailplane Which is a redirect to glider
• Unpowered aircraft Which is more general, but replicates substantial material about sailplanes
• Soaring Which is a disambiguation stub

It really needs someone with a heavy hand to reorganise (which is happening at the moment) and this appears to be ticking off many of the regulars. Stable != good. AKAF (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, AKAF pretty much has it right. The long term contributors (who appear to me to be mostly sailplane pilots) are trying to force and define gliding/glider=sport sailplanes (only) but there's a lot of non sport gliding (birds, the space shuttle) as well as other types of sport gliding (hang gliders) and NASA and others define it much more widely, and the history of gliding/gliders includes military gliders for deploying troops and so forth.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Haven't we seen this show before? This is at base a content dispute and doesn't belong at AN/I. Take it to MEDCAB or MEDCOM and work out your disputes together. //roux   17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the dispute is spilling over into unrelated articles. For example, at one point Wolfkeeper was edit-warring to tag Gimli Glider (an article about an airplane accident) under Category:Glider aircraft to prove a WP:POINT. --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences

Can I get a few more eyes on Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, please? A persistent anonymous IP is adding unsourced negative information; I've reverted twice, but I have a conflict of interest and would prefer to hand it off to someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted, and left the IP a polite note about WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Black Kite 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reverted once more and left a clear warning about blocking. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SPA drama on Jewish-related AfD

Resolved

OK, Ignatz Lichtenstein was a rabbi who was controversial in various ways. The AfD was started by and is being peppered with SPAs;

• Joseph3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jacob Cohen 1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JewishTeen111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ParisYid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what the best course here is but maybe a rummage through the sock drawer? Also, user name ParisYid seems likely in violation. -- Banjeboi 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why ParisYid would be in violation of the username policies. However, these do look like socks. Note for example that all three of the first few are of the form NameNumber. Also the second account in question responded on a talk page to a comment I made to the first account. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should probably add Texas Muslimah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list... it's another SPA who just joined in on the discussion. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph3333, Has been started. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The Afd seems to be hovering at snow keep at this point. Could an uninvolved party consider closing? -- Banjeboi 11:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Closed, as a speedy keep (As far as I can tell, a speedy keep of a bad faith nomination helped along by clear socking is within the bounds of what is allowed by WP:NAC. Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The sockmaster was confirmed and blocked in this matter. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

Resolved

 – via talk page.

Jayen466 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson, has been in the news these last few days over a robocall recording in which she jokingly used Bart's voice. According to both the Times [220] and Fox News [221], the robocall went out to Scientologists, inviting them to a Scientology event in Hollywood. (The robocall message used Scientology jargon, making it quite clear in my mind that the recipients were Scientologists.)

Our article on Nancy Cartwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made no mention of the fact that the robocalls were sent to Scientologists, creating the impression that they went to members of the general public. Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) has three times reverted a sourced addition to the article which follows coverage in reliable sources (i.e. Times and Fox News and others) in reporting that the robocall message went out to Scientologists.

• Edit summary: rv Some PR edits
• [222]
• Edit summary: rv. Get a source that says definitively that only Scientologists received the message. The previous version was more neutral.

I've asked Scorpion to self-revert, which s/he has failed to do. I don't want to edit-war over this, but I don't want readers to worry that their 12-year-old children will be called by Bart on their cell-phones and be told to attend Scientology events, because that quite clearly isn't what happened here. Note also that this is a BLP. Jayen466 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 10 minutes of correspondance and you're already going to ANI. I had a class I had to go to, pardon me for giving my real life precedence over wiki life. All it says is "she used Bart's voice in an automated telephone message promoting a Scientology event in Hollywood." The way you are reacting, you would think it says "she called and annoyed thousands" or something along those lines. Neither of the sources you quoted are clear and I just think you need one that definitevely says it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, we have two very good, first-class sources saying the calls invited Scientologists to the event. There is no good reason to withhold that information, and there is no good reason to edit-war over the inclusion of material sourced to the Times and Fox News that is uncontradicted. Jayen466 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said at Talk:Nancy Cartwright, there are two ways you could interpret it. 1) The message was to everyone but she was speaking only to Scientologists (which is how I'm interpreting it) 2) The message was sent only to Scientologists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to interpret anything. This is what the Times said:

that is what Scientologists were led to believe this week when they received an automated telephone message featuring the voice of Bart inviting them to the Scientology Flag World Tour, an event being held in Hollywood tomorrow.

This is what Fox News said:

her voice message urging Scientologists, in Bart's voice, to attend an upcoming conference.

I would like to add this reliably sourced information to the article. Jayen466 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute not requiring Admin intervention; I suggest parties take it up on the talk page and thereafter Dispute resolution if you can't negotiate a consensus. --Rodhullandemu 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466 is using scare tactics. I told him I didn't want to make a big deal of this and he immediately adds it to ANI and the Scientology ArbCom case. He's just trying to make me say "bah, it's not worth it" and give up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, you have reverted the addition of this three times now. If you don't want to make a big deal out of it, don't edit-war. Jayen466 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying every minor content dispute should be taken to ANI and ARBCOM? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this but this doesn't belong here, it's a content dispute. Padillah (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't hate to say this (respects to Padillah): it's a content dispute. Am I missing something? Aren't Scientologists part of the general public - it's not like they're holed up in some caves or cloistered in monasteries or convents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't be too sure about that. Tom Cruise and John Travolta, for example, are well-known for being shy and retiring recluses. One thing that's unclear from the citations is whether it was only scientologists who got this call. However, it doesn't sound very important either way. Content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ericthebrainiac

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by yours truly. --barneca (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ericthebrainiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was last discussed here in May of last year (Archive 417, Archive 423). He is an editor fixated on telenovelas, which is fine, and specifically his own ideas for telenovelas, which is where he runs into trouble. What valid contributions he makes are always unsourced and frequently rely on a translation from Spanish, which hinders fact-checking. Unfortunately, the rest of his contributions make me believe that fact-checking his stuff is essential.

I'm most concerned, though, by this message that he left on my talk page this morning: Eric not only fails to understand that stuff he made up one day isn't suitable for Wikipedia but seems to think that it's a moral imperative that he do so (and seems to use a fictional story to justify the same). He followed this up by posting his stuff to Requested Articles. I've warned him repeatedly that our patience for this sort of behavior is limited, but that's clearly not making an impact.

As a result, I think it's time that (should consensus warrant) he be told, in no uncertain terms, that his chances are up, and that any further mention of his soap operas, fictional cities, or whatever else in that category, will result in an indefinite block. And now, I'm off to notify him of this thread. — Lomn 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Having looked through his contributions and, most tellingly, the sheer volume of warnings on his talk page, am inclined to hand out an indef block. Anyone else have any views? _Gb^T/c 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He's either a kook, or someone pretending to be a kook. (I know, namecalling isn't nice, but I can't think of a better word to describe this behavior.) I would concur with a indefinite block at any time for reasons of exhausting community patience and/or no useful contribs. He's had a good while to learn what Wikipedia is about, and shows no signs of getting it. Friday (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully support this. He's infamous for asking nonsensical questions on the reference desks and will sometimes ask the same question over and over even when he's been given a sufficient answer. The fact that he's still creating articles about his made-up soap operas shows he's clearly bad for the site. It seems like every time he gets into trouble, he'll make a bunch of good edits right away to try and balance out the bad. I'd say 3.5 years on the site is more than enough to understand policy. --Ouzo (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support indef block. As Ouzo says he should have got a basic grasp of policy by now. Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for the better part of a year, with no apparent change in approach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on my review of the previous ANI discussions, his talk page, his recent edits, and the developing consensus above, I am going to block him indefinitely for long-term disruption (assuming no one else does it while I'm typing this). Enough final warnings, enough second chances. I hesitate to guess how many hours of other peoples' time has been taken up dealing with this user. --barneca (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very appropriate block. His plea that he should be allowed to use wikipedia for publishing his own ideas, clearly indicates he either doesn't get it or doesn't care. And either way - blockeroony. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacommand ban evasion: User:Ringkjøbing

Resolved

 – User blocked as ban-evading sock. –xeno (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser indicates that the account User:Ringkjøbing is operated by User:Betacommand. --Deskana (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you not block him for reasons of conflict of interest? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Every single edit to make the same minor change to a bunch of random pages? Who'da thunk it? – iridescent 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's a banned user, conflict of interest doesn't matter. Secret ^account 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The account's been tagged as indefblocked, but not actually blocked as yet. Can someone block him? Algebraist 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done –xeno (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Back last spring or summer, in one of the many discussions about this guy, someone warned there was no point in blocking him because he was astute enough to get around it anyway. I wonder if these sockpuppets are all he's doing, or if that's just the tip of the iceberg? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a good reason to nip problem users in the bud, rather than letting them build up a serious addiction. If he'd been handled properly years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation. Friday (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be like not locking your door because a burglar can just break the window. –xeno (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ... no. Betacommand was running bots on his admin account for a long time. Many of us (I am among them) were more than willing to look the other way because we agreed with the outcome of what he was doing. That is our failing (I count myself among that when I say our) and we should have enforced the rules that were there. --B (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who took a fair amount of stick (from a wide selection of admins) for raising concerns about some of BC's problematic behaviours in the past, it is gratifying to see that there are at least a few admins willing to admit that things could have been handled better. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a few things to say.

• I got criticism on IRC for not blocking the account myself. Checkusers are duty-bound to report what they find with the tool. I didn't want to block him because I happen to like him. That has nothing to do with checkuser. I did my duty as a checkuser. If I don't want to block an account, I don't have to. No administrator does. If you think that's condoning ban evasion, it's not. Not saying anything about the account would be condoning ban evasion.
• I also got criticism on IRC for not keeping this secret. To those people I have one word, and that word is "No". By suggesting I have the power to decide whether or not I keep things secret or not, you are also suggesting that checkusers have the political power to decide when the community is wrong and overrule them on their decisions. They don't. I reject the idea of checkusers having such power.

If people have a problem with what I've said above, then ask me to resign my checkuser ability on my talk page, because what I've said above is not changing no matter what anyone says to me. --Deskana (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with your actions... I was initially confused as to why you didn't perform the block yourself, but I didn't feel the need to press the issue... Oh, and keep off IRC, it'll melt your brain =) –xeno (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism for not blocking? That's silly. Providing the information and letting someone else evaluate your results and decide whether or not to block is exactly appropriate, especially since you have personal feelings about the issue. I've been in similar positions myself, and it's much easier and fairer to let a third party with no druthers one way or another wield the knife. I've no idea what you were supposed to keep secret; it's hardly news that Betacommand has used socks in the past -- and as such, will regularly be checked for continuing similar behavior. Oh, and, keep off IRC, it'll melt your brain. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We are volunteers. Someone will carry out a block you do not do. No issue here. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Especially when there may be personal connections (pro or con) with the target, it is absolutely proper to want a third party to implement any blocks. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with Xeno who I think says the same thing) Simple solution: don't listen to people on IRC. I'd endorse pretty much everything you just did and said. --barneca (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your actions were 100% correct. Ignore anything said on IRC, problem solved. --B (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This just makes me that much happier that I have no involvement with IRC because it's apparently full of people who don't know what they're talking about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "people who don't know what they're talking about" you mean a good chuck of ArbCom, almost every ArbCom clerk, half the active CheckUsers, the entire WMF technical staff and most MW developers... I could keep going but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. BJ^Talk 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

People we can ignore, correct? seicer | talk | contribs 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If people have issues, they should raise them publicly on wiki.

Deskana's actions here are not only permissible—they represent our very best practices. It's absurd that someone should be scolded for declining to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner, and it's equally absurd to suggest that Deskana ignore the community. By presenting the facts here, the community (the actual editing community—not the subsection of voices on IRC) could make an informed decision. Good job. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Dan. You did the right thing. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Having extra eyes look over actions is always good - I have seen other checkusers await admins to act upon their findings. It does make a nice check-and-balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though in this case, since the CU was the only thing identifying Betacommand (there's nothing behavioural as far as I can see), it would've been impossible for a non-CU admin to actually confirm. Black Kite 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just add me to the list of people saying "Deskana, you're doing it right." Your approach is reasonable and ethical. Anyone criticizing you for this doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and can be safely ignored. Friday (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since I don't go on IRC (I am told I need to have a brain, for it to be melted) I don't know which people were criticising Deskana for advising the community that BC is again violating WP policy and consensus; I suppose these same people would then have no problem with me abusing my sysop flags by executing short blocks on those accounts as encouraging a banned user to evade the consequences of policy violation? Lucky old us that I hold IRC in such contempt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. --Kbdank71 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"zomg I hate IRC." Shut up. To hate a medium of communication is not one of the dumbest things I've seen on this site, but it certainly makes the list. As others have pointed out, the Wikimedia technical staff, a good chunk of ArbCom, and hundreds (if not thousands) of Wikimedia users use IRC every day. And to Seicer's "People we can ignore, correct?" Um, no. Some of them are some of the brightest people we have on the site. Others are directly in charge of saying what is and is not appropriate for technical matters. Though I'm starting to think MediaWiki needs an ignore option if people are going to make such inane comments on pages like this.

As to Deskana's post, as Thatcher and others have pointed out, ArbCom regularly ignores CheckUser results (or manipulates them) in the interest of politics (wiki and otherwise). To act as though there's a duty to report every finding that they make, while noble, is complete nonsense when it's compared with the reality of how these things actually operate. (Peter Damian being a prime example in my mind.)

The point that I brought up on IRC regarding this was that Deskana seems to have not blocked not because of a friendship, but because he couldn't bring himself to block a non-disruptive account. That's my take.

We need to get back to basing users and accounts on their contributions and little else. As I said on IRC (quick, get the pitchforks!), if I were to create an account and edit like MascotGuy and be blocked a sock of him, that doesn't make me MascotGuy. It just means that the behavior of the account was similar to behavior that we've (rightfully) determined is inappropriate for this project. Try as we might to ban people, we will only ever be effective at banning behaviors and actions.

I would appreciate it if people diverted their time and attention from attacking a very old medium to instead figuring out a way to do away with this noticeboard. It's a plague on the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone once said to me.. "Could you assume any more bad faith here?" SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is worse, attacking a medium, or attacking people? You're right about one thing: we do need an ignore option. --Kbdank71 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, MZMcBride - the admin who undid the consensus derived protection of the Sarah Palin article after a quick chat at IRC, and got brought up before ArbCom for it... Perhaps my disdain for the channel is simply coloured by the closed shop superiority inclined drama mongers who are part of the population there rather than the medium itself. Speaking of which, is the transparency of the admin noticeboards (open to all to view and most - not just admins, luckily - to post) not to your taste? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever was doing the criticising on IRC ought to have the balls and the honesty to say it here, where the community can comment. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride did say I could mention his name here, and has commented here himself, so at least he's not hiding away from what he said. That is more than can be said for a lot of people. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a serious accusation of malfeasance as ArbCom regularly ignores CheckUser results (or manipulates them) in the interest of politics (wiki and otherwise) really ought not to be asserted without substantiation. A year and a half ago Kelly Martin claimed to have been pressured into giving a specific checkuser result regarding Poetlister. Nobody confirmed Kelly's version of events and Poetlister was eventually caught with three admin socks on a sister project. That was one master manipulator who cajoled a spurious claim, period. Any other examples, MZ? Substantiated examples? If you've got 'em, provide diffs and I'll open a second RFC on ArbCom. Otherwise please withdraw the accusation. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair point, though. This is unrelated to the Beta sock mentioned above, but there are probably quite a few accounts out there that are editing 100% productively, but that are socks of banned editors. Put yourself in the shoes of member of ArbCom X who accidentaly picks up one of those during an "unrelated" checkuser; what do you do? Do you indef the account, despite - in some cases - a long history of good edits (provoking ZOMG drama when the block is noticed), or do you just ignore it and keep an eye on the account in case it goes rogue again? I know which course I'd pursue. Black Kite 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The Wikimedia Foundation runs 650 wikis, about a dozen of which are in English or Simple English. So banned users who wish to demonstrate their ability to edit productively and abide by wiki norms have plenty of opportunities to do so. The key difference between whether an individual gets banned has more to do with whether they're willing to curb problematic behaviors in accordance with norms. Every editor sometimes ends up on the short end of a consensus. Most of us accept that; a few don't. And ban evasion is fundamentally a refusal to accept that part of the social contract. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, English Wikipedia gets a fair amount of stick from other projects for dumping their problem users elsewhere. Simple English Wikipedia in particular has expressed concerns. There is little in common with the other projects except language. Several of these projects also have some very odd practices that aren't acceptable on Wikipedia, either: Commons doesn't have any policy comparable to BLP, Wikiquote's interpretation of copyright is not in line with this project's, and Wiktionary's sourcing policies are not at all like ours. Wikiversity too has had serious problems with some of our banned users. Risker (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is a good reason why actually mentoring them on those other projects is a good idea too. As an admin on three of those sister projects, what I hear from my colleagues goes two ways: partly what you're saying, Risker. But also that they're glad to get people and often find people blossom in a smaller and mellower environment. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic on the whole IRC bit. I was a former IRC user myself until recently. seicer | talk | contribs 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting the checkuser result, and allowing another admin to do the block, was an excellent call. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Per followup by MZMcBride I have opened a request for comment on the checkuser policy. Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Request_for_comment. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Threat by disgruntled user

Resolved

 – blocked for attempt to extort an unblock of an IP address Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I received the following on my talk: [223] from user User:Moviemaker92. Seems he/she is upset by a schoolblock I made (least I'm assuming that). Could someone leave a note on the users talk about this, they'd probably not react well if I were to do so. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued them a suitable response. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS election has started!

Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll leave my two cents.  Marlith (Talk)  01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentor for newly unbanned editor

User:[email protected] has recently been unbanned following a discussion here on ANI. Now that he has been unblocked, per the terms of his unblock, he needs a community-appointed mentor to help him through the early stages. Although he has been dealing with unfortunate IRL stuff and is unable to contribute at this time, I nevertheless wanted to put this to the community now. Is there an experienced editor who would like to volunteer for the position, or do you know someone who would fit the bill? Experience in Troubles-related disputes could help but isn't necessary. Volunteer and/or nominate away! ~Eliz81^(C) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean [email protected]? swaq 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my improper capitalization. Fixed. And yes, him. Any ideas? ~Eliz81^(C) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't care about that, but is there a name change condition somewhere in the unblock agreement? Aren't there technical problems with @ signs in names now? --B (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if an administrator was to grant rollback, IPBE, etc. The software doesn't like @ in Special:Userrights. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to be a mentor. I would recommend that someone else agree to be an alternate or assistant mentor. My qualifications are that I am neutral regarding the Troubles, I have been certified as not being a RMS sock (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADurova&diff=267423818&oldid=267422659 ) and I have a genuine desire to help any and all Wikipedians. Chergles (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not available to take on more mentorships at this time. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering, Chergles. Anyone else want to step up and co-mentor? ~Eliz81^(C) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

201.19.218.49

See the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos nemer by 201.19.218.49 (talk · contribs) and in particular the diffs [224], [225], [226], [227], and another one from another IP but apparently from the same server [228]. The users (it appears to be multiple users using the same IP) are engaging in what seems to be disruptive editing not limited to refactoring others' comments, soapboxery, and making personal attacks. I haven't seen a situation like this before with several people commenting from the same IP, so I'm not quite sure what is going on, so I'm bringing it here. MuZemike 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think the anonymous IPs 201.19.174.237 (talk · contribs) and 201.19.212.234 (talk · contribs) should be added to this incident. --Crusio (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And 201.19.96.129 (talk · contribs). What's funny is that all these IPs are also editing each others' comments, for which I've left vandalism warnings on their talk pages. Thinking about it some more, I don't think all of this is so funny anymore. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Request block review, a couple sections up, re 201.19.174.239 (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential edit war developing

I was wondering if someone experienced in the art of diffusing edit wars could keep an eye on the contributions of Radioist (talk · contribs) and the article Internet radio, which SlubGlub (talk · contribs) has been diligently improving over several months. Radioist seems to have a vested interest in having this paragraph about HardRadio retained in the article, despite it being completely unsourced and unverified, so I'd appreciate it if somebody who knows what they're doing (which excludes me) could give Radioist the low-down on what they're doing wrong, and stuff like that. I just really don't want SlubGlub to get dragged into an edit war and potential 3RR block when he/she does such great work. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to have been brewing for quite a while. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-20 Internet radio. Toddst1 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Radioist is a WP:SPA engaging in promotion of HardRadio. I will issue a warning. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevewunder making abusive comments at Talk:Ayn Rand

This user was twice warned not to engage in disruptive editing (see User talk:Stevewunder. In response he posted [this to the talk page. Note that Ayn Rand is the topic of a current ArbCom case, but this user has not been closely involved with that and given the contents of that post and that the user who warned him is on the "other side" of the case than I am, I doubt that any administrative action against him would be controversial. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As this was more of a WP:WQA issue for now, I gave him a little warning (not exactly the right one possibly) but it met the wording I wanted. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Deeceevoice

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Pursuant to WP:ARBCOM/Clarifying motion RE:SlimVirgin "administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard" I'm asking for consensus on the validity of Deeceevoice is banned [..] until 5 May 2009. [...] Tom Harrison and further discussion at User_talk:Tom_harrison#Banning.

Without (at this stage) going over the exact he-said she-said, the motion linked above additionally states that "It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors." This was in the context of Elonka warning a user and was that warning an administrative action.

I feel that the Commitee needs to provide greater clarity. Tom has, in my opinion, warned a specific editor. However, Rather than being forced to go to arbcom, can I not unwarn them? Can consensus here at ANI unwarn them? Am I smoking crack again?

I'm hoping we can avoid a long and rambling thread, so please attempt to make your replies succinct: Is the topical ban valid until removed by arbcom?
Thank you.

brenneman 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brenneman, I think Tom has banned an editor, which can be undone by a consensus of uninvolved admins. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with philknight that a topic ban can be undone by a consensus discussion at a general forum such as AN/I. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on the quasi-legal question, but it's fine to get it clarified. I guess we could meta-ize it one more level and ask if it can be clarified by a consensus of uninvolved admins, or if it can only be clarified by arbcom. (But who to ask?) Anyway, if the community decides my 3-month topic ban of Deeceevoice was unwise, I'll lift the ban, let someone else monitor the article probation at Ancient Egyptian race controversy , and return to my crucially important work on the History of English land law. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've looked in more detail at this, and I've reached the same conclusion as Jpgordon, that is Tom's ban of Deeceevoice isn't valid. Tom has tried to ban Deeceevoice under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, however these clearly aren't applicable in this instance. I've moved his log of the ban from the pseudoscience case page to the talk page. Obviously, an edit war would be unseemly, so I urge anyone who disagrees to gain clarification from the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Um. I could argue fairly easily that ancient egyptian race controversies could easily be classified as pseudoscience. It is "history" and not "hard science" per se, but that isn't the important facet. The important facet is the opposition of mainstream historical thought and a POV which makes "scientific claims" for non scientific purposes. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Protonk, you and others are totally misconstruing the purpose of the article and my role in it. The purpose of the article is to discuss what gave rise to the controversy in the first place, the competing/contradictory portrayals, perceptions and historical accounts of the people of ancient Egypt from dynastic times, through classical antiquity to the present -- nothing more. And even within the context of the article itself, there is simply no evidence of POV pushing on my part. The ban is wholly bogus. deeceevoice (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not insinuating that you are pushing a POV or whatever. I don't know whether or not you are. I'm just asserting that the controversies themselves could fairly easily fall into the umbra of "pseudoscience". Protonk (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In spite of PhilKnight's removal of my log entries, Deeceevoice is still topic banned. As I said above, if the community decides it was unwise I'll lift it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

These kinds of "questions about arb enforcement" threads are probably more appropriate for WP:AE, not WP:ANI. Can we change venue? --Elonka 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, as long as it's okay with brenneman. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Aaron brought this here because he wanted input as to whether community consensus was enough to lift a ban. So far, there seems to be a rough consensus that community consensus indeed can do that. So, I believe it would be more appropriate to keep the question open here.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka tells me I didn't follow the correct steps to impose a topic ban. I will not be enforcing the topic ban on Deeceevoice, or having anything more to do with the page. Thanks to all those who've taken time to look into it and express an opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Long term block for 125.255.113.214

I've blocked 125.255.113.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for two years for persistent vandalism. I was going to block for 6 months but came across these charming threats: [229][230][231] and that this is the ip's 11th block since June 2007. It's registered to an ISP in AU. I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. Feel free to change the length if discussion warrants. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is a way to get rid of this. just find an Australian user willing to call police in Melbourne and report his various death threats. I don't know anything about Australia's data privacy and carrier protection laws, but I bet the police can get that ISP to divulge his name/address without any trouble whatsover. Should stop the problems pretty soundly. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• It's registered to Pacific Internet, but the hostname (mail.rhac.nsw.edu.au) refers to a school, Rouse Hill Anglican College. —Snigbrook 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A serious and dangerous movement, inside some Wikipedia Italy administrators

Good morning

I'm an University Professor, now living in Italy, where i do my researches. I'm really sad to post this denounce but i think that it's my right and my obligation to do that.

There are som Italians Wikipedia administrators who operates by an totalitarian way. Sometimes they have some racists attitudes (unfortunately most present in Italy at those days). They works against the liberty of expression and opinion. They are a sort of "militarized group" (in my opinion, an "anti Wikipedia" concept) who "hunts" some people (specially who make some observation against their acts), penalizing those people with abusive and offensive acts. You can see easily that they uses icons and pictures who reefers to a military uniforms and patents. It's a gang! A dangerous Italian gang, who hides, behind an authority of Wiki administrator, racists, fascists attitudes. (as i said first, unfortunately that's an sad and dangerous social phenomenon who is present in Italy at this time, mainly with the younger people). Probably those "administrators" are teenagers (i think, at least, Vituzzu is). Maybe teenagers can't be administrators of an important stuff like Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia is not an RPG GAME, where teenagers hunts and kill people for fun, but an important tool that works for the democratic culture and research!

Their login names: Austroungarika, Vituzzu, Dedda71

My login name: edulevy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edulevy (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the Italian Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is not a place to discuss problems on the Italian Wikipedia. The Italian Wikipedia is thataway. Algebraist 13:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have only four contributions on the Italian Wikipedia, all consecutive ones to the talk page of User:Austroungarika (so basically just one edit). [232]. You are coming to an unrelated language version of Wikipedia to complain about a Wikipedia where you have one edit, naming three editors you have had no interactions with and who yu have not notified of this discussion (as requested in the instructions for this page and basic decency). The only "military" pictures and icons I see on AustroUngarica's userpage are a couple of barnstars he received, just like they are in use on the English Wikipedia. When your first edits are to accuse someone of racism and fascism without any justification beyond the "military" barnstars on their userpage, it's quite logical that you get blocked there for trolling and personal attacks.

If you have a serious complaint, with evidence, then you can contact Meta or User talk:Jimbo Wales or the foundation: the English Wikipedia has no authority over the Italian one (or vice versa). If, on the other hand, you are just making baseless claims and trying to create drama, then continuation of this will get you surely blocked here as well. Fram (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has no authority over the Italian Wikipedia, either -- Gurch (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking foundation, which wa a helpful edit. However, please don't strike out any of my comments again, I don't appreciate it. You have raised your objections below my comment, which is sufficient, and I will strike out any part of my comment if I feel the need for it, just like I will not strike out your comment if I disagree with them. Fram (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We really don't know what was he dealing with but when I saw him insulting Austroungarika (saying she's racist) I blocked him for a day, btw his beaviour is showing I'm right thinking that's only trolling--Vituzzu (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I love unintentionally ambiguous headers like "A serious and dangerous movement, inside some Wikipedia Italy administrators."
I think I'll skip off to the store and get them some Pepto-Bismol... it's helped me through several serious and dangerous movements. arimareiji (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss or reach consensus by JuStar (talk · contribs)

JuStar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly reverted good faith edits on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite sincere efforts to discuss the matter on the article talk page, plus a message I left on their user talk page (diff), this user has refused to discuss the disagreement. If you look at JuStar's contribs and check for contribs on the Article Talk and User Talk spaces, you will see that they have made virtually no edits. As much as I appreciate their efforts, if they are unwilling to discuss their edits and simply continue to revert other's good faith edits, I suggest that they be considered for administrative action. (EhJJ)^TALK 14:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wall?

I have no idea what's going on between them, but Foxcow (talk · contribs), David the Dogman (talk · contribs) et al. (see their talkpages for some more "participants") seem to be doing some networking via Wikipedia relating to something to do with Wall. (Your guess is as good as mine.) Thoughts?  GARDEN  21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are attempts to use Wikipedia for social networking growing? This is the 3rd incident I've seen in the last month. Indef blocks? That's what I did last time after a warning. dougweller (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The b-man had some interaction with one of these folks, maybe he can lend some insight here... –xeno (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about them---I blocked one of them for making legal threats and then again for block evasion, but have since come to the conclusion that the person I blocked might be part of this cliche. I suspect that they are all a group of HS friends/buddies. Beyond that, I can't really add much.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC with Xeno)We apparently have several bored schoolchildren in Florida, who are using Wikipedia as a substitute for social networking sites which are blocked by the FCAT explorer software (or the school's IT people have installed a similar filter). I'd suggest nuking the user talk pages, and directing them to any of a number of social networking sites, all of which should be accessible from their computers at home. Since Balloonman has changed his name, I suspect that would confuse the kids. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the talkpages that were pure vandalism/testing/advertising/whatever and blanked the others, leaving a friendly message on each. Might be worth noting that someone created Ihatefoxcow (talk · contribs) and at least one other account to attack these users.  GARDEN  22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"wall" is a reference to Facebook, with the "wall" being the place that you post comments, see what the person is doing, etc. Wikipedia is not Facebook (WP:FACEBOOK not withstanding). Users that are here solely to socialize should be told to contribute to the project as a first and final warning; if they don't get that, they should be forcibly shown the door.
For the record, I'm all for friendly chit-chat; however, such chit-chat should come secondary to positive contributions (either mainspace edits or project-level edits). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh! God, I'm so out of touch. Which might be odd considering the stereotype for my age group. Okay, your idea seems strict but fair.  GARDEN  10:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize your points and will start making positive contributions like I did to Page (servant) and Squire and I will use all I know to help the articles. David the Dogman (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also want to now why you deleted my only copy of the book of wall. we worked hard on that. David the Dogman (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I have nothing better to do I will tell you guys everything. I created a account. I then told David the Dogman who created Rangersarecool. We after a bit both got blocked I was able to get unblocked while David created several other accounts. Now he has David the dogman. We created a fake religion, called Church of Wall. He put it on my talk page and his. I didn't know about the no chats like myspace and stuff like that rule. Sorry.--Foxcow (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Soundout

Hello,

I have noticed that all the articles written by User:Soundout include links toward a (his?) website: Audioville. For example, have a look at these three articles (there are tenth of similar ones):

The_Boarded_Window_(radio)

The_Fall_of_the_House_of_Usher_(Radio)

Apocalypse_(radio)

The "Media" section of all these articles is basically the same and include a link to AudioVille where they sell copies of these radio shows. There are also one or two AudioVille links in the "External links" section so up to 3 links per article. The articles themselves are reasonably well written and referenced, but it still really looks like a disguised advertisement for AudioVille.

What is the policy in this instance? Should the articles be deleted as spam? Or should we just go through the articles and remove the links to AudioVille? For information, all the articles have already been nominated for speedy deletion although it was decided to keep them: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al

Any suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1979 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's a spamsite, delete it from the articles and warn the contributor to stop. If he won't stop, turn him in to WP:AIV. Unless a kindly admin decides to take action from here first. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• audioville.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Looks spammy, Soundout has added 205 of the 210 linkadditions in my database. Maybe some cleanup would be good here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put a spam warning on his discussion page. Is there any automated way to remove the AudioVille links? I have started removing some manually but it is going to take me a while. Laurent (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to XLinkBot, which should stop new additions by new users (it will not stop Soundout, but they is watched now). Unfortunately there is no automated way to really cleanly remove the links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I have reverted his spam. Took me half an hour but that was worth it :) Laurent (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's more to it. The guy likely wrote those articles for the express purpose of advertising the product. That's my take on it, anyway. We'll see what he has to say, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be working for or on behalf of Radio Tales, however I'm not sure what we can do about it since his articles are otherwise well documented and the topics seem to be notable enough. He also wrote a lot about the videogame soundtracks produced/composed by Winnie Waldron and Winifred Phillips, who both work for Radio Tales too. Laurent (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that Radio Tales itself is notable, but I doubt that the individual story dramatizations are. Adaptations like these usually rate no more than a mention in the articles about the source works of fiction. Deor (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Page BLP Violation (In the News section)

The use of the phrase "investment scam" is incompatible with WP:BLP - everything is alleged, nothing is proven. This should be re-worded in a more NPOV way and link directly to the article at the current NPOV title Enten currency investigation rather than the redirect it currently links to. Exxolon (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't say we can't include negative information or claims about living people. It says we can't do so in an abusive manner and without proper reliable sources. I don't think either article about the incident or person, or the main page entry, are abusive. The sources seem to be plentiful and reliable. Does not appear to be a violation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia

I have received an email from the person behind the User:Manhattan Samurai account. This person is also believed to be the same person behind the User:BillDeanCarter account - which, as far as I am aware, is an account in good standing, but which hasn't been used since Feb 2008. The Manhattan Samurai account, however, has been troublesome and was recently blocked. The only personal information in the email is the name of the person, and the email address which I am not repeating, the rest of the information is clearly intended for this board so I repeat that here:

You might want to save this email. Consider me the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia now. A high-profile prank has begun. I have figured out how to change my IP address and now many biographies are swapping stories between themselves and fictional families are rising up across the Wiki landscape.

If you want to know, the last straw for me was fucking with my featured article "List of works by William Monahan". Slowly and methodically I will have my revenge. Find a way to terminate Bali Ultimate's account and reverse the damage he has done and I will hand over the names of the accounts that I'm now using

I don't doubt that this person will do as he says, but such vandalism occurs everyday and is dealt with by the systems we have in place. I don't see that there is much for us to do with this information, but felt it was appropriate that I pass it on immediately. SilkTork *^YES! 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give him what he wants. Sorry Bali. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Papa! I'm scared! Drmies (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia ey? Clearly we are dealing with a criminal mastermind deluded 12 year old here Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to reblock with email disabled. Any objections? Stifle (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Never mind, already done. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  If you're looking for socks, you might as well start here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) sent out around 50 emails in the past two days, to a wide variety of users (looks at first glance like one email per recipient). Zdefector (talk · contribs) is looking a bit sockish, as mentioned above, and is a  Confirmed match for Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs), though I'm not seeing a direct connection between those three and the MS account. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I received an e-mail from this user on Sunday, one that seemed at face value to be a good faith request for me to pass on his desire to see the Manhattan Samurai account unblocked. His reasons amounted to his "sincere" desire to reform and quietly work on potential featured articles. I was mulling over whether to pass the request on, intending to look into the editor's history a little more closely first, when I saw this. Either the editor is simply trolling, attempting to disrupt the project as much as possible, or is so highly-strung that he genuinely changed his mind from wanting to reform to wanting to vandalise in the space of a few hours. One other thing: he explicitly asked me not to reveal his name on-Wiki. If he made a similar request to the OP, vandal or no, it may have been inappropriate to reveal it here. On the other hand, this might have been a ploy to stop my revealing the name of one of his accounts. Either way, despite my belief that many problem users are redeemable in some way, I suggest that should the account ever be unblocked (highly unlikely), it is done so only if the editor is placed under strict mentorship, with several thousand strings attached. Steve ^{T • C} 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has revealed the name of the email account here. To see where people have previously made a connection between the Manhattan Samurai account and other Wikipedia accounts, do a Google search for "Manhattan Samurai". That such a claim has been made on WikipediaReview doesn't mean it is true - it is simply another piece of information in this tortured case. Given the "playful" deception that the user behind Manhattan Samurai has previously used, it is equally likely that the user is NOT behind the other account but - for fun - wishes to make us believe he is. Who knows? SilkTork *^YES! 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he sent me an email saying he was User:BillDeanCarter, which mostly made me wary of belief. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(To SilkTork) What I meant was in reference to revealing the previous account name, he said: "Please be sensitive about revealing that my real name is [X] because I wanted to abandon that account so that my real life information was kept secret." Editing histories seem to indicate that this at least is the truth, but whether this is something we do for people who subsequently turn out to be vandals is something I'll leave for more experienced vandal-fighters to deal with. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be uncivil, i knew that MS was trouble the moment i met him (his "wiki-conspiracy"). It seems we've found another Bambifan101. Elbutler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling himself the "lex luthor of wikipedia", does he mean that he's going to repeatedly come up with numerous elaborate and convoluted schemes which always have fatal flaws which the good guys/gals always exploit easily, resulting in the scheme failing and him going to jail?--Jac16888^Talk 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much, like Superman, Wikipedians can't be blackmailed easily. Lets just whack every sockpuppet account that pops like a whack-a-mole, after sooner or later he'll come to sense and realize he shoudn't waste his life on "getting revenge on Wikipedia", but if he does waste his life, he/she is a deluded child. Elbutler (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he realize that Lex Luthor is just a pain in the ass who never actually wins? He should think of himself as the Washington Generals of Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, as if those drawn here aren't into pain? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor! Lex Luthor fired nuclear missiles into the San Andreas Fault in an attempt to plunge the entire West Coast of America into the sea! At the moment this guy is somewhere inbetween Mister Mxyzptlk and Toyman. Stilh, he made me laugh tho, so I say we comply with his request. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Bibbo Bibbowski of Wikipedia" or "The Kandy Man of Wikipedia" don't have the same ring to them, though. – iridescent 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread gives him the drama he craves. His apparent point at wikipedia all along has been to play games, insert fictional memes here and there involving inside jokes between him and his pals. I don't know which are his socks or even if he has many, but there is always lots of sock-type behavior around him (if you look at almost any article he's edited heavily, there's always a series of SPA's that make 50 or so edits, then dissapear when a brand new SPA comes along). However, i've been deeling with abuse from Zdefector (talk · contribs), Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs). This sockmaster is at least a confederate of MS, yet no blocks have been handed out over the confirmed socking?

All three now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• So, articles are the new real estate? rootology (C)(T) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Domain_name#Official_assignment, think of en.Wikipedia topics as something alikened and all the kerfluffle becomes much easier to understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I got an email from MS too. I blocked him from sending email from his account. Just deny him and he'll go away. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be a good situation in which is would be appropriate to revert/undo all edits made by confirmed socks. Especially based on the threats of providing false information. This would further support to deny the attention this 12 year old craves as well as ensure that content has not been compromise. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I received an email from him, too, but the one I got seems to have good intentions behind it. What would you guys suggest I did? — neuro^(talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He has obviousley stated his bad intentions. I say delete the email and ignore him. His account has also been blocked from sending email (and all sock accounts should be similarly blocked as well IMO). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't checked my wiki email in a few days. Got the same one, also claiming User:BillDeanCarter as a sock, as well as User:Smith Jones and User:Deathdestroyer. //roux   17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we need to take theses sock, "confesssions" carefuly and ensure that they are socks and not good faith editors that MS has a grudge against or wants to get blocked for the hell of it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur totally. arimareiji (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It will come down to behavior. I'd bet the farm that Billdean, deathdestroyer and MS are the same. Smith jones while an odd character (he deliberately uses mispellings to create double meanings as well as spoonerisms and prose that is generally so impenetrable that it can't be by accident) i have no opinion on. But MS would absolutely love to cast suspicion on "innocent" accounts. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SJ was one of MS' more ardent supporters/friends, which casts some suspicion. Should we be opening a specific SPI thing on this or are Checkusers handling behind the scenes? //roux   19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin did run a CU, looks like, from the post above; not sure if another one would be appropriate to try and connect with the other claimed editors. I suspect MS is just trying to take some innocent victims down with him at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• By 'Lex Luthor' I thought he was stating that he we made him go bald and he hates us for it. HalfShadow 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, speaking as someone who is bald. So I guess now I can never refer to myself as the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia; I'll have to settle for being the George Costanza of Wikipedia now. -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• this is a personal dreisappointment to me. manhatan samurai was a good friend and while he idd have some issues that he oftne caused him to tangle with adminsitrators and other wikipedians he contributed to some very effectual articles such as Alan Cabal, gareth penn, ralph bakshi, and is Google making us stupid. however, i concede that eventualy the conmmunity has to have put up with enough bullcrud from this user and while it pains me to see a good editor go down for something so childish and quizotic, i agree that tis probably for the best. hopefuly User:Manhatan Samurai will take this opportnunity to withdraw, rex-amine his proiroties, and if he really wants to continue his contributions reutrn secretivly under a new name and edit constructively without lapsing back into hsi old behaviors and amake a good faith effor tto follow community policies and bylaws. as someone who considers him a friend, i hope that he will abandon his curent strategorizing and behave with more dignity in the future when he returns. Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• i just noticed tha t some other users are comparing me to Manhattan Samurai as if i am sockpuppet of him. Let it be known thus far declared; i worked with Manhattan Samurai colaboritvely to save an article Alan Cabal which it hought was being deleted unfairly. we followed all the rules' when we lost the initial WP:AFD, we took it to deletion review, then got the assistance of an adminstrator to userficate the page, then improved it through extesnive resarch to the point where it was valid to reintroduce it to the mainpage. as a srueslt of this collaboration, the spirit of Wikipedia i might add, i decided to contineu working with Manhattan samurai and develop working relationships with him to improve aritlces for which he had a shared interest.
• That is the extent of our involvement; i am neither his meatpuppet nor his sockpupet and if any good faith suspicions remain in existence among my fellow wikipedian i Welcome a CheckUser or any other sockpuppet investigative tools since i believe in operating on a high standard and I invite any good faith users to scrutinize my behavior and correct any mistakes which i have made itn the past. Smith Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Our involvement"? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at all of this, I was expecting someone to have stolen 40 cakes. And that's terrible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, what's terrible is that the cakes look like pies. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the cake is a lie Joshua. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

With each passing day I grow more convinced that WPians need more outlets for lighthearted communication and humor. But they seem to find them well enough on their own. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone who was watching this thread is interested, i believe the sock farm is agrowing, and have opened up a request to look int it here [[233]]. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

per this all confirmed and blocked, including a couple not previously listed, it seems. ThuranX (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)