Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554

Protect Mark Buehrle

(Moved from WP:AN)

Can someone go over and protect Mark Buehrle? He just threw a perfect game and the article is being slammed by vandalism. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a day. I do note that this is probably the funniest vandalism I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I got a kick out of that too. Simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did yell "YES!!!" five times, which is probably a personal best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawk is lucky that the Angels' team of Hudler and Physioc are around, otherwise he would be, by far and away, the worst announcer in all of baseball. His homerism is unmatched and insufferable (thus my amusement at the vandalism). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect game could use watching for the same reason- it appears to be under control, so need for protection, but the editing rate is currently quite high. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, members of WP:MLB are already watching those two pages, along with 2009 Chicago White Sox season, Chicago White Sox, and 2009 Tampa Bay Rays season. Help is always appreciated, though. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user is back with sockpuppets

John.Edwards.1967 (talk · contribs) at article Cluj-Napoca and Babeş-Bolyai University. See history: Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Babeş-Bolyai University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:John.Edwards.1967's contributions User:Nobias101's contributions User:Lincoln1984's contrubutions

User:Nobias101 and User:Lincoln1984 accounts are the puppets of banned user User:John.Edwards.1967. These accounts are only used for vandalism. Compare John.Edwards.1967's edit (Edit summary text: "Funar is mentioned three times in this article") with Lincoln1984's edit ("Funar seems to be mentioned three times"), or check Nobias101's edits or this. Nobias101 already blocked by admin, Please check contributions and block puppet User:Lincoln1984 too. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 08:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic returns

Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), who was blocked for long-term vandalism, disruption and sockpuppetry, has returned and is disrupting Report about Case Srebrenica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page. It has been temporarily semi-protected for now, but it would be helpful if admins could watchlist this article and deal with further disruption. A newly created sockpuppet, Arthur999 (talk · contribs), also needs to be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive editing by a possible sockpuppet

Know-censorship (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has made a number of unproductive edits to satanic ritual abuse articles. See their first edit which adds a personal complaint right into the middle of an article, and this allegation of criminal complicity on the talk page. This is not the first time such issues have arisen with this article, and I suspect that this person may be a sockpuppet of the banned user ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) who has used numerous such sockpuppets in the past (see here and here). Whether they are or not, I don't see a likelihood of productive contributions coming from this account. I think that an administrator should consider blocking it. *** Crotalus *** 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me someone could apply a broad interpretation of WP:NLT and take exception to his You people shouldn't be aiding and abetting criminal activity. You won't get away with it forever.. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect we'll see an increase in this sort of activity, they are upset because we've spam blacklisted a number of domains related to SRA that were being used to spam. --Versageek 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast, moving to black already. I don't know what a sock puppet is. You have my IP, it should be traceable to the city where I live and simple to discern a difference with any banned editor, unless sharing an opinion with a banned editor makes one susceptible to banning? Spam, I thought spam had to do with selling products. So, is there a list of certain peer-reviewed journals and mainstream media outlets that are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia? Please direct me to that list so that I won't make the same mistakes as previous editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Know-censorship (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look good. I say give him a little more rope though. Either he'll use it to really get that noose just right, or he'll climb out of the hole with it. Let him bring to the article talk page a list of reliable sources, per our WP:RS, which he thinks substantiates the SRA as a real phenomenon and not a moral panic, and discuss those sources calmly there. IF he's incapable of that, then ban him. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely a sockpuppet, could be a meatpuppet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors may have already seen off wiki canvassing. See, for example, this Usenet News post -

start headers
From: childadvocate email address removed
Newsgroups: uk.legal
Subject: blacklisted by wikipedia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f5e04d69-13ad-41d7-aa6c-e52b44f56c42@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.79.202.177
end headers
start quote
[. . .]
It is recommended that people write wikipedia to complain about this blatant censorship of information exposing child abuse crimes. It is also recommended that people do not use wikipedia as a resource until these websites are taken off their blacklist and are allowed on wikipedia pages again.
[. . .]
A sample letter to send is below:
[. . .]
An encyclopedia should contain a variety of information, especially accurate information about child abuse issues. Blacklisting these pages is a censorship of information of research exposing child abuse crimes.
I will not be able to use wikipedia as a resource again until these websites are taken off your blacklist and are allowed on wikipedia pages again.
end quote
Clearly disruptive campaigning, with little understanding of various wiki policies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New user TOV

SPONGEBOBSQUAREPANTS109 (talk · contribs) made this edit [1] (deleted). The location appears to be Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Almost certainly just a crank, but is there anybody down that way who feels like making a phone call to the authorities? --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By authorities are you suggesting the police?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Smart move. But who here is from Australia?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 07:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

user:SOPHIAN - copy of Obama's birth certificate on user page and talk page (and the file itself).

SOPHIAN (talk · contribs) (who seems to be mentioned a lot recently and whose signature I note has been question as he doesn't use Sophian in his sig() has uploaded File:Obama's short birth certificate problems.jpg and placed it on his talk and user pages. He has also placed it, for some reason, on another problematic file of his, File:R1A map.jpg. He just escaped a block for edit warring at Genetic history of Europe because the page was protected just before the block was placed (the editor first warned Sophian and then reverted the warning with an edit saying "nevermind, the page is protected". We seem to be having continual problems with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it from the R1A file, as it has nothing to do with the subject. Otherwise, the user is obviously pushing a viewpoint, although why he thinks an obviously blacked out item, as well as a smudge, need to be circled is hard to figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment:He also started to spam other, not subject related articles (or sections) with his image. For example he added it to article Slovakia History/Before the fifth century section (?!), but it was removed by another user. After this he re-added it with a "possible vandalism" comment. He also added it to Hungarian prehistory (?) "Migrations" (??) section, after this.--B@xter⁹ 10:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that SOPHIAN says he created this elaborate image File:R1A map.jpg and owns the copyrights, yet the user is consistently unable to properly format urls/wikilinks as exemplified here. He has yet to provide a source for this information contained in the map. So I have listed it possibly unfree noticeboard Wapondaponda (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to block the user for edit warring on that (Genetic history of Europe), and other pages (per this), but for the former page there was what appeared to me as a genuine content dispute between him and another problematic editor so I went with protection rather than blocking both. I am completely neutral with someone blocking however and unprotecting the page if need be. I was simply trying to cause the least amount of drama as possible, but as it's already here.... Nja²⁴⁷ 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the stupid damn birther SOAPBOX violation immediately? Any jackass who can't be bothered to read up on the facts of the case really deserved to be community banned, and they certainly must not be given a soapbox to stand on. This thing has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that the only people still believing it are brain damaged. ThuranX (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed closely the ArbCom stuff on Obama related pages, but does that apply here? Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Drama is never too far from SOPHIAN. Many are aware of SOPHIAN's activities, but some aren't so I will give a short recap a brief history

• Used the move feature to change his username [2]
• Request for adminship after only 37 edits Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN and solicitation
• A few weeks ago he was eccentrically welcoming hundreds of users [3], [4]. When asked why he was being so "courteous", his response was that he wants to be famous [5].
• in the edit summary, called a fellow wikipedian an "idiot".[6]
• Inappropriate accusations of Sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pdeitiker/Archive
• Recreated the deleted article Sub-Saharan African DNA admixture in Europe, diff, after it was deleted by AFD.
• Edit warring across multiple articles per this report
• Suspicious use of the R1A image
• Uploading Obama's birth certificate.

• SOPHIAN takes sides in content disputes without demonstrating any depth of knowledge about the subject matter. In some cases this gives the impression that legitimate content disputes are taking place. For example SOPHIAN has been edit warring on E1b1b article. But on his talk page, he demonstrates that he hasn't read one of the most important publications on the article E1b1b. He requested certain information, which I volunteered to provide [7]. After doing so, SOPHIAN deleted the comments from his talk page [8] and continued edit warring pretending that the latest information I provided him didn't exist, and reinserting info from an obsolete source. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN is the gift that keeps giving. All these events have taken place within about a month of editing and there has been no sign of improvement. Within the last month, he has received three 24 hour blocks and one 48 hour block [9]. But these appear to have been ineffective, because as early as yesterday, he was causing drama by uploading Obama's birth certificate. With such a record of absurd behavior. It is very difficult to collaborate with this editor. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. Since I won't be online all that time let me say here that anyone wishing to revise this block should do so without consulting me. The multiple links to a POV-titled file are pointless disruption; the unexplained upload of it into R1A [10] is just baffling. I have formed the impression that SOPHIAN doesn't really know what he is doing and doesn't take wiki seriously enough to learn William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mgillfr

Mgillfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a long-term problem on articles about California roads. Here he admits that he doesn't know what the phrase he's putting into articles means. Is this really the kind of editor we want writing articles? Can anything be done? --NE2 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And do we want this kind of editor, NE2 (talk · contribs), who constantly ignores community consensus over the period of several years with overwhelming evidence of these: 1, 2, and 3? Mgillfr (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest one of these was two years ago, and the issues behind those were largely resolved. Please stop referring to stuff that you were not on Wikipedia for and do not understand fully - it is clear you don't understand what the issues involved here were. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop acting like you know everything, as well. Mgillfr (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NE2 - did you notice the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr filed? I wasn't sure if you did. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have produced no result. --NE2 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It does provide documentation should we decide to take this up further through WP:DR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss this without either side making it into a personal attack. Both sides chose to lead with that, but it has to stop now. NE2 and Mgillfr, both of you, further personal attacks here or elsewhere will result in short blocks. Mgillfr - Do you acknowledge that your english grammar and usage have caused some specific mistakes on article pages? It appears that you've stated english is not your native language and that you're still studying it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

English is my native language, but to be honest it's not that strong - my reading/writing skills are basically below national average. Mgillfr (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure how I've made a personal attack. We have someone here who doesn't understand what he's writing in articles. --NE2 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That was not the most politic phrasing to use in filing the report, exasperated by the situation or not... Please be aware of that moving forwards... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GraYoshi2x removing information from AFD discussions

User:GraYoshi2x has been removing information posted in the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie (elephant). He is arguing that the information from the New York Times index used to refute his arguments for deletion are still under copyright, even though they have been published in 1922 or prior and are in the public domain. I am only posting the abstracts, a line or two that appear in the index, and in Google news archive as the abstract. He has removed them 4 times. His argument is "If the [news] site still exists and it has a copyright policy with no exceptions, then it is NOT in the public domain." The argument is incorrect, all the articles are published in full by the New York Times. For example here: Hattie Dies. I want my list restored to the discussion so other editors can see the full bibliography of material available to establish notability. He was warned about 3RR and to not remove other editors comments from an AFD. He deleted the notice and again removed my comments. The deletion of the NYT information skews the AFD by denying access to the information for people commenting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't copy from an article in the public domain, but rather the search results page. The New York Times copyright policy states that it is intended for private and noncommercial use, not for carelessly spamming the AfD page with a bunch of copyvio text. What started as a simple AfD has now turned into an unnecessary ANI report, when the fault is on you for both acting completely uncivil (your talk page shows that you've been involved in a past Wikiquette alerts issue, also on an AfD) and that you consistently restored text that is copyrighted under US law. If you still feel that for some reason that information is needed, then for heaven's sake, LINK TO IT. GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please brush up on US copyright law and Wikipedia policy. You can not reclaim an expired copyright. You also should not be removing other people's comments from an AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GraYoshi2x - the NYT itself says, as one of it's FAQs

Q May I use portions of New York Times articles, such as quotes or excerpts; may I edit or adapt New York Times articles? A Under certain circumstances, it is permissible to make direct quotes from New York Times articles. The context, number, and length of the quotes will determine whether permission is or is not required.

Also, all text created before 1923 in the US is now in the public domain. This is a nice simple explanation.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, publishers frequently make claim to copyright over material they do not own. We do not go by the publisher statement--we go by US law. DGG (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Nightmareishere

User that was blocked for sockpuppetry for a week on the 16th at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nightmareishere/Archive appears to have jumped the gun and started using a new IP 98.220.27.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) a day early on the 22nd, to evade the block. Based on his resumption of wikidrama at New Order and Gene Loves Jezebel I feel fairly certain that this is the same disruptive editor. He's not socking with the new IP (as he did with his old IP and the named account) so I'm not sure how to proceed, but posting here seemed a place to start. I couldn't find a warning template for block evasion to post at the new IP. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:DUCK would do well here, wouldn't it?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up; the ARIN whois service seems ill

To those admins who use WHOIS links, the ARIN whois service seems to be a bit belly-up at the moment. Queries are returning

DataBase Error: Table 'arindb-200907242009.net_ip_index' doesn't exist

Tonywalton ^Talk 21:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by dynamic IPs

Over the past month or so, a dynamic Telstra IP has been repeatedly modifying others' comments, primarily at Talk:Defense of the Ancients and Talk:Left 4 Dead, citing them as "personal attacks". After a third party reported this at WQA, I attempted to have this resolved there, and I was advised to bring it here. Despite being told about WP:TPO (see WQA) and having their edits reverted by multiple users (see talk pages' histories), they've persisted and made their own attacks (e.g. calling me "hilariously pathetic"[11] and implying that I'm "arrogan[t]"[12]) They occasionally register an account (i.e. AgoINAgo, Moaners), but they aren't used for long. I admit that I've removed some of their comments too, but I believe that those were clearly uncivil or irrelevant, and they existed at the end of the thread (as opposed to the middle, where it would create holes in the conversation).

On a side note, at Talk:Defense of the Ancients#Reception (a long read) their "refusal to get the point" lead an admin to "draw the line" and they have since continued their conduct,[13] but I'm more concerned about their modification of others' comments. —LOL ^T/_C 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Would temporarily semi'ing those pages be a viable option? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't very optimistic about semi-protecting talk pages especially because the IP has been modifying others' comments since early June,[14] but I guess that would be a good idea if nobody thinks they can communicate well with the user. —LOL ^T/_C 21:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Long-term serial copyright infringer; indef-blocked. Review requested.

• Paknur (talk · contribs), who is also
• Misaq Rabab (talk · contribs)
• Mirza Barlas (talk · contribs) and
• Siddiqui (talk · contribs)

Investigating a couple of articles at the very backlogged WP:SCV, I have uncovered another serial copyright infringer, this one having infringed across multiple account. Under his current username, I have discovered infringement going back several years. Learning of his alternate accounts (See [15]), I found that CorenSearchBot picked up problems with another (User talk:Mirza Barlas/Archives/2008/June}, while he was given personal warnings by several users as far back as 2007 under another ([16] and [17]). I need to run a contribution history so that we can eliminate material that the user may have pasted under his various identities.

I have indefinitely blocked pending some assurance that this contributor will not continue violating copyright policies, which he's been aware of for several years, under any username. Since I do not typically start with an indef-block, I wanted to invite review. Also, please, assistance. WP:SCV is swamped, we have several multiple-article infringement issues up for cleaning at WP:COPYCLEAN, and I do not know until I run our contribution surveyor program on these username how extensive the investigation is going to be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have accidentally cross-posted this to WT:AN, where I somehow wound up while trying to post it here. ? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ack. That much, that many accounts, going on for so long... I would recommend permanent blocking and IDing the IP range to do something about that too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got the contribution surveyor program running through his various usernames, and it's looking pretty extensive. So far, I've found infringement in every contribution he has made. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of socks of User:Hatherington

Let me sum up the outcome of the thread WP:ANI#New editor Bogglevit messing up layout of lots of articles above, because I fear it has fallen off the radar, and something needs to be done. It is clear that:

• Bogglevit (talk · contribs)
• Swerqitamin (talk · contribs)
• Wickelyby (talk · contribs)
• Beteltreuse (talk · contribs)
• Julippia (talk · contribs)

are all socks of Hatherington (talk · contribs), who was indef-blocked by Rlevse for socking, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hatherington -- however I haven't been able to locate an SPI page for this case. This editor has a pattern of creating a sock and using it for a few hours to do 20-100 of what appear to be harmless copy-edits, but actually are subtly destructive. If possible, it would be good to auto-revert all the edits by all the socks. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to give direct evidence on this page to show that all of these socks are related?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The user pages all consist of two-word phrases, and the contribs all have a lot of entries saying "Wikify" as edit summary -- if you examine a diff for any randomly chosen one of these, you're likely to see a bunch of added paragraph breaks. Looie496 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are right about one thing. Something is definitley going on here. Any CheckUsers viewing this thread, can you please check for any sleepers?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bewildered

Hi there. I don't know why this section exists on the Administrator's notice board. Every edit I have made to wikipedia has been a good faith, constructive one.

There are three main building tasks I like to do:

One, to link together interconnected articles that are not yet linked - basically, to build the knowledge web. This includes putting articles into categories, and linking categories together.

Two, I like to find orphaned articles, and link them to appropriate others. This can be a lot of work.

Three, I seek to improve the readability of articles. Many articles contain wonderful information, yet are not easy to read. There is little copy editing, with large amounts of text clumped together. There are no paragraph breaks. Simply putting paragraph breaks into a mass of text allows that text to be more easily read & comprehended by a reader.

Anyway, that's what I like to do. I'm very proud of my work, because I feel it increases people's accessibility to education.

Bogglevit (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds very noble. Have you considered asking for an unblock in the usual way, and working with just a single account, or is there something that makes that impossible? Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or Content Dispute

I'll try to make this succinct. We have User:Bal537 who seems to have one purpose here and that is to introduce this idea: [18][19]. This user is arguing with 2 other users on article talk pages with this tone. I have been approached by an editor who is concerned that Bal is 'vandalizing' pages with this information. Apparently it is inflammatory. Given Bal's edits, I am inclined to think that Bal is not concerned about consensus, and is obsessed with placing this edit across various articles.

Here's the deal - I know less about Indian culture than I do about women. I don't want to take administrative action until somebody can tell me if this a content dispute, or if the information is inflammatory, or perhaps just flat out wrong. I'm resigned to the idea that Bal is not playing by the rules, but I don't know how serious this is. I thank you in advance for the help. Law _{type! snype?} 12:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this is at its core a content dispute, there are many worries. User:Bal537 is making personal attacks, the sources posted as "proofs" don't look reliable and there may be some cite spanning and moreover, half the sources cited in Ramdasia are en.Wikipedia articles, which as we know, is never allowed (I can't recall the last time I even saw an en.WP article as an inline citation). If Bal537 doesn't stop this behaviour quick, I'd say it's blockable. This said, if there are clashing PoVs to be had in the reliable sources on this topic, they can and should be brought forth together as such in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bal537 would be welcome to contribute if he wanted to engage in discussions and wait for consensus. So far, besides introducing his controversial bit of data, he has reverted comments by others on Talk pages. If he continues he should be warned of a possible block, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many worries, I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby sock?

An edit filter is tagging contributions from Smithsoni0201 (talk · contribs) as being a possible sock puppet of Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Wilson II, Matthew O'Connor and Patrick Wilson (soccer)

(Moved from WP:AN)

Hi. The page Patrick Wilson II is currently undergoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson II, but a user User:Zombie433 has moved the page to Matthew O'Connor re-written it for the new subject and removed the AfD notice. Additionally this user has created Patrick Wilson (soccer) with pretty much all the same information as the pre-move version of Patrick Wilson II, which I would also nominate as AfD under same rationale as the original nomination, but don't see the sense in running the same argument twice. What is the best way to untangle this, given the current Patrick Wilson II has no history any more, it is probably inappropriate for me to move Matthew O'Connor back as Matthew O'Connor may (or may not) be a legitimate notable person.--ClubOranje^T 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

addition: I have redirected Patrick Wilson II to Patrick Wilson (soccer) and added a note to the AfD , but if there is a better or more appropriate option, please advise or do it. Thanks--ClubOranje^T 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have reversed all of this as it is plainly inappropriate behaviour and deleted Patrick Wilson (soccer) since this was a duplicate of the Patrick Wilson II article but did not have the editing history so to comply with licensing requirements. I'll drop a note to User:Zombie433. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Religiously offensive, deceptive user name used by User:Supreme Deliciousness

Resolved

 – User changed signature over editor concerns. Law _{type! snype?} 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User Supreme Deliciousness has previously requested a user name change to "Supreme Allah". Obviously, his request has been denied due to the offensive nature of the proposed name, in spite of his begging for the change. Please see here:

• Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2009/July#Supreme Deliciousness → Supreme Allah
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EVula#Excuse_me_but

Other users have expressed disapproval of User Supreme Deliciousness's proposed name change. Please see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#supreme_Allah.3F

However, unfortunately, Supreme Deliciousness has snuck around the Admins' decisions and is now deceptively making his signature appear as "Supreme Allah" using: "User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Allah". Please the following examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Survey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Druze

This is a very offensive turn of events on this matter and is grounds for serious Admin action against this user.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Users, including myself, have already taken offense to this insult to God, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike. User SD had been pre-alerted of the hugely offensive nature of this matter. The fact that SD has snck around the Admins' decision is a violation already committed, in addition to the offense itself. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not too late, your personal pissing match with SD will have to resume at another place and time. Editors expressed concern, he responded to the satisfaction of those editors, end of story. nableezy - 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, Supreme Allah was also a character from the TV series Oz, so possibly Arab Cowboy's dudgeon is a touch too highly placed. Crafty (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally someone gets it, Supreme Allah was one of my favorite characters, after Poet and Kareem Said. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to reopen this - AC, SD changed his signature. Please discuss the religious and Oz-related aspects of the former signature on your respective talk pages. There is nothing else to be done here. Law _{type! snype?} 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Law, there's nothing else to discuss. SD only changed his signature after the AN/I had been brought up. He had ignored previous Admins' decisions on the name change request as well as other users' concerns on his Talk page. Mission now accomplished. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "Supreme Allah" a redundancy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

←I've yelled at SD on his talkpage for this incident. He's seems to be a good editor, but clearly this wasn't one of his brighter moments. Crafty (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the supposed genesis of the username, SD is wise enough to know that offense that would be taken by such a username. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee this would not have happened or have been as heated were his signature "Supreme Jesus." Sad commentary on political correctness. Pzrmd (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless his real name was actually Spanish, and was Jésus Suprémo, yes, I would report "Supreme Jesus" to WP:UAA in a flash. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, Allah is not a given name in any Arabic culture I've heard of, whilst Jesus is a given name in many Romance language-speaking cultures. The rough Anglo-Saxon match to this username would be Supreme God, which I do think would raise some hackles in sundry ways. This is not "political correctness," words have meanings and one shouldn't be too startled when folks who like editing encyclopedia text tend to get stirred up by them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to change my signature to "Supreme Muhammad" then. Muhammad is a common given name. Pzrmd (talk)

Are you unable to participate in Wikipedia without being disruptive? It seems like every time I turn around you're doing something disruptive, or threatening to. I would have thought the recent ANI discussion about you might have convinced you this isn't a wise path to follow. You'd probably enjoy your time here a lot more if you didn't engage in this type of behaviour; certainly everybody else probably would. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in a civil debate. Pzrmd (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I might do likewise and change my signature to "Supreme Redneck". Although I might become a lightning rod for complaints that I'm promoting Double Wide Supremacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just waiting for someone to say Jesus was a given name so that I could say "Supreme Muhammad." Pzrmd (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, "Allah" essentially means "The God", as in "The one and only God". It's not the "real name" of God, anymore than God is the real name of God in English. Only God knows what His own name is. But it's used as His real name, hence the meaning is the same as if it were His real name. Meanwhile, "Supreme Allah" essentially means "Supreme Supreme Being". Think about that the next time you're using your Automatic Teller Machine Machine and entering your Personal ID Number Number. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd, I can guarantee you that I would have denied the CHU request if it had been "Supreme Jesus." Thanks for the faith, buddy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the signature. Pzrmd (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides, AFG wouldn't even apply here. Pzrmd (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The excessive outrage over this reminds me of a particular Monty Python song. I forget the exact title. It might have been, "Never Be Rude to a Cowboy". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, in all seriousness - it's best to use ID's and signatures that won't likely get anybody upset. Use some common sense, ya know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Boycott Blues

Over at Talk:Left 4 Dead 2 are a couple of editors who seem to, either through refusing to read the links others keep giving them or flat-out making baseless claims of bias on the talk page, have a very big beef over the article's section detailing the boycott of the game. Although the section is as neutral as can be from what I have read, these users seem to think that "NPOV" means "My Point of View". Other highlights include:

• Interpreting WP:No original research to mean that we shouldn't comment on the boycott's existence because it's based on speculation ([20], [21])
• Interpreting WP:Reliable sources to include Steam ([22])
• Accusing others of pulling a Bogdanov ([23], [24])

Could I get some help instilling these users with some clue? I have the patience of a saint with most users, but this is just willful ignorance and lawyering, and I'm about ready to blow my top. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to get angry Jeremy, we are acting in good faith. You refuse to explain the rules you enact, and obviously have some sort of personal stake in this discussion. I, for one, am not angry. I am simply trying to get a biased section either reworded or removed entirely. Keep in mind that I am new to Wikipedia, and haven't had the time to study every rule in it's entirety. However, my understanding of the NPOV rule says that if users feel a section is biased, then the use of a NPOV dispute tag is warranted. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What, it's too much work for you to click a blue link and read a page? ...Oh, wait...

The only personal stake I have in this discussion is that I'm anti-idiotarian. If you really want me to push the talk page's size to the point a dial-up user will just give up, then you'd just be better off reading the pages I keep pointing out, rather than glossing over the bluelinked text. Hell, I linked some of them above, as well. In any case, I have been explaining the rules to you, and you two keep dismissing them ([25], [26]). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't suspect the admin to be the one throwing insults around... seems silly if you ask me. I have read the articles you linked me to, many times in fact. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, normally I don't get frustrated to the point where I act like Rambo, but this lawyering and ignorance has rightly pissed me off. Anything I could say in re the article-reading would be outside AN/I's remit as an editorial dispute, but rest assured I doubt you've done so. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, it seems you have taken my postings as a personal attack on your integrity. I never intended to offend you, or anyone for that matter, I just want the article to either be rewritten to reflect a neutral point of view, or be removed entirely. However, reguardless of how this plays out, I don't think anyone would argue at this point that there is not a dispute over this article's neutrality, which is why I feel the NPOV tag should remain. PJthePlayer (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're starting to branch into content, not conduct (what AN/I deals with). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, you need to rein in your impatience. This is a content dispute, and all you have demonstrated conclusively is that you don't like the opposing point of view. Meanwhile you use words like "anti-idiotarian" that would justify an incivility block all by themselves. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Editwarring over 'Not a ballot' notice, accusations of bad faith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy are reapeatedly removing the not a ballot template on the AFD discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience[27] [28] [29] [30].

The template was placed on the page after User:Verbal and others posted messages on the AFD page[31] and on WP:FTN implying that the AFD was invalid without addressing the policy issues at hand. Since then there have been repeated baseless accusations from User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy on both the AFD page and on WP:FTN that I am acting in bad faith and that the article be kept, despite the fact that neither of them have demonstrated that sources sufficient to meet WP:N are available (I have repeatedly stated that if such sources are added to the article I will withraw the nomination).

I ask that the template be restored, that keep arguments in the AFD that do not address polivcy be disregarded (somewhat of a given, obviously) and that User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy be asked to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Artw (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

this edit summary is of a particular worry.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• IMO the template isn't terrible important either way. If this isn't something too important to you I would just be "the bigger man" and let it go. Also, this isn't terribly incivil, though it shows a lack of understanding of POINT. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Artw (talk · contribs): we understand that you do not get along with Verbal (talk · contribs). Might we hold off on the AN/I reports for just a few days anyway? Maybe try some good old-fashioned talking it over without the overblown rhetoric and antics? Perhaps even avoid each other by contributing separately to our millions of articles?

I am honestly not sure why the template matters for that debate one way or the other. Usually I have seen it used for debates that get mentioned at 4chan or wherever or otherwise seem subject to canvassing and votestacking. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing or bad faith, etc. This is the second such report from Artw in only a few days. I agree that DGs edit summary is strong, but that is an issue Artw should take up with him using WP:DR. ANI is not a first recourse, and coming here for something so trivial is a waste of time and will only encourage drama. If Artw thinks the tag was so important, he could simply have justified it on the AfD talk page. So far the AfD looks like a merge/no-consensus, and now it's been brought to ANI like this I think the tag is appropriate - but not for the reasons outlined by Artw, who for some reason keeps bringing me here. I have not been uncivil in any way in my dealings with Artw. I did ask Artw to withdraw his nomination so the merge could go ahead, but he didn't respond. Following 2/0, if Artw were to avoid articles I am already actively editing then that would be ok with me, and likewise (although I don't think this has ever occurred). I don't know why Artw has such a problem with me, he seems to think I use FTN inappropriately, although I use it in the way it is usually used and within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. I've also tried to be conciliatory on his talk page, and when I had an issue with his posting ANI notices to multiple talk pages I took it to him and asked him to remove them rather than complain to ANI. As far as I'm aware the only talk page messages I've had from Artw are ANI notices! Sorry for the long reply, summary: I don't think this complaint is justified. DG has been short in some of his replies, but he has been baited by some users (not Artw that I'm aware) and I understand his reaction, although I feel it can counter-productive. However, DGs behaviour seems to be well within wikipedia norms! As always, improving advice and constructive criticism accepted on my talk page. Best, Verbal chat 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Side note, the title is a bit long and loaded. Could it be shortened? Just removing the names would go a long way to shortening and neutralising it. I'd do it, but as it's my "name" I'll bow out. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The matter of whether WP:FTN is being used as a getaround for WP:CANVASSing is entirely seperate.

As for my title and description of the situation of the situation I stand by them - though I will conceede that it's mainly User:DreamGuy making accusations of bad faith. Artw (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section header. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed again. Using Wikicode in a title busts the goto arrow. HalfShadow 17:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just the latest incident of "civil POV pushing": people trying to game the system by blatantly violating core policies and then claiming it's uncivil for other editors to tell them they're breaking those policies. I also find it odd that User:Artw waited to run off to ANI to complain about my removing the ballot template until after I was no longer removing it. It's like he knew the situation was going to blow over and he'd lose his chance to complain and escalate the conflict instead of letting it resolve. And, frankly, the idea that he could suddenly nominate the article about that book for deletion immediately after he lost a bitter argument to have it removed as a source on the Ian Stevenson article (first by claims it wasn't reliable, then by claims that it didn't say what it obviously said) and not expect to have people raise their eyebrows is just absurd. These kind of actions should not be encouraged, as it just teaches other editors how to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:OckhamTheFox and Bambifan101

Resolved

 – Rangeblock and other blocks in effect

OckhamTheFox is acting in concert with Bambifan101 to post articles here at Bambifan101's request through discussions they are having on the Russian Wikipedia. He started by recreating The Seventh Brother, an article created twice by Bambifan101 socks and CSDed as such. See[32][33] for the discussions. I suspected as much when the article was posted, and its basically been confirmed by the newest IP sock[34]. Thoughts, options, etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some fun quotes from their discussion: "Collectian is probably away now, so I think you can post my new draft there whilst she's away. Tell her that you are new to English wikipedia and are doing this in good faith." and his bragging about his sockpuppeting "FYI, Collectian isn't editing much, and the user Cactusjump is back after a four-day wikibreak. I had used an account called "TheRescuers" to trick Cactusjump into thinking that I was a Rescuers fan" clearly showing that OckhamTheFox (supposedly an administrator there?) knew what he was doing. I'm inclined to think its bannable, but will leave to others to decide how to respond to this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's more than high time for a formal complaint to Bell South. I am sick and tired of this individual wasting valuable volunteer time. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked and tagged the account. As for a formal complaint, you're always welcome to take a look at WP:ABUSE. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Meta finally decided to act on this to some degree and has blocked some of his global accounts, including The Seventh Brother one he was using on the Russian Wikipedia[35] and they are starting to block others as well[36] (only took a year after I first made multiple requests </bitterness>). He's being a pain on the many language ones as well, creating vandal articles and copy/pasting English articles from here (his preferred versions) to there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been informed that OckhamTheFox is an administrator at the Russian Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means that Bambifan101 and OckhamTheFox are unrelated? It's odd how an administrator could do something like that. -- Pinkgirl34 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They are unrelated, but for whatever reason, OckhamTheFox agreed to help him here despite knowing full well that he was a multi-time banned sockpuppet. Scary to think that is the kind of admins the Russian wiki has...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Russian Wikipedia too. Sorry, are there any pages other than listed on this page, which would help to find any additional information in order to get a complete picture of the situation with The Seventh Brother and his/her relations to Ockham The Fox? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We only just learned about this, so I doubt we've got anything other than what's on this AN/I thread, Drbug. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I looked through the User:Bambifan101 and didn't understand exactly what initilally there was disruptive in his behavior. Have he put false information into the articles or just inaccurate in style?

As far as I understand, the informatia lot on that Ockham the Fox carried into Wikipedia didn't contain any false information? It looks to me like all the OTF's edits were good faith ones... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has put false information, reverted to very old versions after clean up and referencing was done, randomly removed comments from talk pages to the point of blanking them, and refactored others comments. It just depends on his mood. Sometimes he does decent edits for a short time, but he almost always reverts to the status quo. He has deliberately vandalized other articles, including blanking and copyvio violations, to get the attentions of those familiar with him, repeatedly merged and unmerged articles at his own whim, attacked and harassed other users, made both death and suicide threats as a joke, threatened to have his "daddy" "buy" Wikipedia and kick everyone off, etc. And sorry, but OTF's edits were far from good faith ones. Seventh Brother AKA Bambifan had already bragged about how he was sockpuppeting here, and OTF KNEW he was banned from editing here, so he turned around and performed specific edits that Bambifan101 wanted to do, including recreated a multi-time deleted article (figuring if OTF did it, it wouldn't be CSDed again) and taken from content Bambifan101 provided. The edits to The Fox and The Hound were to restore deleted content and a version Bambifan101 prefers from one of his many bad versions he's spammed around the other language Wikipedia's. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot for the info. Ok, I see now that the movie fails WP:N and WP:NF. Hm, I probably guess how OTF could think: "no matter what is the primary source of the work, it should be included in Wikipedia if it is legal and adds a value to Wikipedia according to its rules", provided that it's him responsible for the information he brings in. In Russian Wikipedia it's not universally prohibited to bring an article of a banned user to Wikipedia. So he doublechecked the information and put it in. Ok, I won't continue this topic in this page. Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For some more detailed info, this LTA subpage should help. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If he did mean well, may want to warn him that the sock is still trying to "work" him and get him to do things for him. Ilikepiepieisawesomeright is probably him, again, and 68.220.187.70 most certainly is (one of his known IP ranges). Likely decided OTF is an easy mark and will continue trying to trick him for awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone else incredibly tempted to just rangeblock 74.230.0.0/16, with a block notice that anyone inconvenienced by it should just be pointed towards Bell South's abuse reporting email address? Black Kite 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'm too busy getting "Gremlins from the Kremlin" out of my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone block User:Ilikepiepieisawesomeright. Its the named sock he made yesterday while he had the IP active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As an update, OckhamTheFox is continuing to perform edits for Bambifan101.[37] While he may be an admin on the Russian Wikipedia, he is continuing to violate this Wikipedia's rules about making proxy edits for a sockpuppet knowing full well what he is doing. His block was released because of his admin status, but he is still not helping anything by continuing to edit for Bambifan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will talk to him in Russian. I think he does not realize the difference in policies concerning banned users. Ruwiki user Kv75 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this back from the archive as OckhamTheFox is STILL continuing to attempt to edit for Bambifan101 after telling him to contact him via email on the Russian Wikipedia (making their conversations impossible to continue to track). He is now trying to create another Disney article for the sock, despite a unanimous rejection on the The Fox and the Hound talk page. Can we get a topic ban or something? Its bad enough dealing with this mess, but now we have another user who appears to be socking joining OckhamTheFox to encourage him to do it anyway and now wikihounding me and making edits to The Fox and the Hound just to be aggrieving. Would appreciate eyes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktreut as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Should he be just blocked temporarily for disruptive editing? -- 科学高爾夫迷 19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one? OckhamTheFox was blocked for proxy editing, but the block was undone because he is a Russian Wikipedia administrator (though personally, I don't see why that mattered). Marktreut has been blocked once for disruptive editing, and is now using socks to get around 3RR on various articles and not even doing a very good job of it. At minimum, I think all the socks should be indef blocked, Marktreut get a longer block, and a strong warning to cease his inappropriate behaviors (disruptiveness, edit warring, personal attacks, vandalizing to make a point, etc). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Our own admins sometimes get blocked for good reason. Why should being a Russian admin be an automatic get-out-of-block card? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't be. Proxying for Bambifan101 warrants an indefinite block, regardless of his status on other Wikipedias.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ockham's block was quite appropriate. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is true that this user has proxied for a banned user and inserted specious edits into articles, then the indefinite block should be restored. However, I am admittedly having trouble finding a pattern of specious diffs in Ockham's contributions. I have seen the since-deleted recreated The Seventh Brother article but precious little else ([38] from July 20). Can someone please list the diffs in question here? -- Samir 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There aren't a lot more, but that's enough. This conversation shows that it was done with full knowledge that we was proxying for a banned user, and here is the log where OckhamTheFox deletes the talk page where his side of the conversation would be found. Unless and until OckhamTheFox explains that he knows that what he did was inexcusable and that he will never repeat it, the block should remain in effect.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the Seventh Brother edits, he also has done and continues to try to do proxy edits to The Fox and the Hound. Before that, he never really edited here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Ockham has engaged in conversation with Bambifan101/The Seventh Brother on ru.wp and possibly by e-mail. But the disruption has amounted to a now deleted article (The Seventh Brother); Ockham had indicated that he thought he was acting in good faith at the time. The edits to The Fox and the Hound are being discussed on the talk page of that article, and DGG has provided a cogent argument in favour of detailing the characters in the article, which is what Ockham's edits amounted to. In my mind, there is no argument for an indefinite block of OckhamTheFox based on the evidence presented. -- Samir 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He made the edits for Bambifan first, directly copy/pasting it from Bambifan's current version of the article at Simple Wikipedia. He is now claiming to be editing on his own, which Bambifan101/The Seventh Brother had encouraged him to do during their RU discussions, and simply wants to restore the same bad content. And yes, DGG made an argument too, even though it goes against the article guidelines, however all others have agreed that the section does not belong. The issue, however, is not a content dispute, it is his continuing to try to edit for Bambifan regardless of whether one or two editors thing the edits themselves are "okay" (and his additions were not).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite" or even "long". In this case, "indefinite" would mean "until OckhamTheFox promises that he will never knowingly proxy for a banned user again". If he truly understands what he did wrong, that block could be cleared in 20 minutes.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the simple fact that an admin anywhere would think doing so was a good idea suggests to me that not having him here doesn't hurt Wikipedia. HalfShadow 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-instated the indef block, ensuring that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users is noted both in the block log and on the accounts page. Perhaps they do things differently on ru-WP, but on en-WP they were in knowing violation of the policies that pertain to editing here. I also note that they spent their time post unblock in attempting to convince various parties to allow the creation/editing of the article under dispute - they were not even interested in stepping back from the matter.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm actually more concerned that this is an administrator on the Russian Wikipedia. Any damage here can be undone fairly easily. I'm not fluent in Russian, but is anything being done there? Enigma^msg 09:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, apparently this guy's a furry. 'Furry' and 'smart' are not two words that mesh well. HalfShadow 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Just for your knowledge: his admin flag has been removed by his own request after the Russian Arbitrary Committee had decided to began a confirmation procedure of his adminship. He had been accused with violating some rules in ruWP. So don't be concerned with this. Arbitrator of Rusian AC, Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock

• Support the indef block. I'd support the /16 on that range of bell south IP addresses if I could be sure that we would catch most of the IPs assigned to BF101. There is (should still be up) a set of smaller ranges to block him, but I'm not sure of the efficacy. LTE is kind of a black hole. ISPs tend not to care that someone is vandalising wikipedia and most of the '[email protected]' addresses are required for registrants but not terribly well attended. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  I've actually managed to get in touch with a Singaporean ISP concerning a user's unconstructive edits and they assured me actions were taken. Some ISPs are more responsive than others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  I should have been more careful in phrasing that. Some of the LTE threads have produced good results--in general, smaller ISPs tend to be more helpful than large one, but those are the exception to the rule. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've put into effect the rangeblock. Any admin is welcome to reverse it if the collateral damage is severe. Black Kite 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • He's on a new range on which 98.90.28.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A small portion of that range is blocked. Here. This will eventually fail, as the bellsouth range is MASSIVE (a /11) and bell south appears to assign IPs randomly within that range to users. But it might work for a bit. Protonk (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hopefully this won't be necessary for long--it looks like this block took out a good-sized chunk of Charleston, South Carolina. Blueboy96 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible to block read access to a range? If you really want this resolved, the thing to do is to make it so that anyone in that /16 cannot even read Wikipedia, with an error message complete with a mailto: note to complain to the BellSouth abuse address. Given the actual technical acumen of the average user, BellSouth will flooded with reports that Google doesn't work. Bambifan101 will be booted within eight hours. In the meanwhile, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 could use some attention: at least a block of Ableblood369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while the gears at SPI grind away.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked the account. Passes the WP:DUCK test. Also endorsed the SPI request for checkuser. Enigma^msg 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

destruciton of US history articles' pattern

Resolved

 – No issue: DR Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor split History of the United States (1991–present) to two articles 1990s in the United States and 2000s in the United States with no discussion and no justification to do so. This decade scheme puts these two articles at odds with the rest of the 'History of the United States ( - )' articles, which have cutoff points based on historically significant turns of events in US History--not decades, and differs from the naming scheme of the rest of such articles, differs from their category names, etc. Request these article and re-direct changes be properly reversed. Hmains (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue, not an admin issue. Have you talked to the editor about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So far, no answer from the offending editor. I will see if one is forthcoming. This is the about the same as what another editor did previously and was then reversed administratively. Because of the redirects and editing history involved, I believe only Administrators can fix this problem. Hmains (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments on myself and What I believe to be questionable actions by an admin.

Resolved

I was given a warning for Biting a newcomer by User:Blueboy96. The Warning doesn't give any details of who I bit. I did try to ask him to clarify as the closeest thing to biting a new comer I found was [[39]] where I warned a new authoer about a possible conflict of interest. I did however explain myself at the same time with "Now, I'm just spitballing here and I might be wrong but you may have a conflict of interest in this subject. (assuming you are Marty Kopulsky) please read all the relevant policies to write a article about a person. If you have any questions drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do what I can" if this is what he's warning about It's complete bullshit. I would ask for comment on this warning from the community and if it is found to be issued frivously that the Admin be directed to strike it.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it might have been nice to give him more than an hour to respond to your question before you brought him to ANI - perhaps it was a misunderstanding, or perhaps you've interpreted something differently. Also, remember that you're entirely free to remove any messages, including warnings, from your talk-page at any time. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to run an errand unexpectedly when this came down ... I was referring to Bebobabbity (talk · contribs), whose only offense seemed to be creating test articles. However, I come back to find out s/he's already blocked. Indef is entirely too harsh, I think--in fact, I was just about to buzz the blocking admin about it when this notice showed up. Blueboy96 20:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block would be harsh. However that editor created 3 articles on blatant hoaxes. It is disruptive and vandalism. Again how is it biting to wp:duck?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The first article was text copied from the Wikipedia blurb that comes up when you start an article, the second and third consisted of only a signature. WP:AGF would say we might consider the possibility that a new user was trying to figure out how to make a page. Frankly, without any content, even if the film/game involved don't exist, we really can't know if it was a deliberate hoax, vandalism, or simply a noob trying to write about something s/he saw on a chat board somewhere.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily fault HiaB for templating the editor, but I would have hoped that someone would have had the sense to drop the editor a more personal note before the block, saying "Hey, I see you're having some trouble here. Give me a clue what you're trying to do so I can walk you through it." We would have found out very quickly that way if it was a good faith attempt at an article or a hoaxer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW ... 3 edits and then "indef" - that does seem rather harsh. I agree with Fabrictramp (and Blueboy), that we need to ease up on the biting. We should be helping editors become acclimated to our environment; rather than skipping over level 1 and level 2 warnings. Let's talk to folks first before we kick them to the curb. Everybody was new at one time. I guess it's a moot point to notify the user of this thread at this point, but... Back to the topic at hand though - I don't see any action by Blueboy here that warrants an ANI review. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've worked with Mark (LHvU) before, and he's a pretty reasonable guy. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he reduced it to time served or 24 hr. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Using {{uw-vandal3}} as a first warning is very unusual, isn't it? Even pretty obvious serial IP vandals don't get that treatment. I thought you were supposed to start with {{uw-vandal1}} if there was the slightest chance the edit(s) were good faith, and {{uw-vandal2}} if not (e.g. offensive comments added to an article). - Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. In this case I did elevate for what could be considered bordeline edits. I do understand what the issue is now. I appreciate the time people took to comment on this situation and I will adjust my behaviors accordingly. If you'd like feel free to mark as resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone please block User:Carmegenon.

Resolved

I first became aware of Carmegenon, when he posted this on my talk page a few weeks ago. He's not really active, but a review of the few edits he makes, shows that apparently holds a grudge against me. His edit pattern leads me to believe this is User:Jimblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I got blocked last year. I didn't really feel like taking action, since he seemed inactive, but today I received this lovely message. Can someone please block the nuisance?--Atlan (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a death threat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for personal attacks.  GARDEN  21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ldsnh2 and New York Radical Feminists – ongoing pattern of disruptive editing.

Stale

 – User:Ldsnh2 ceased participation and no new edits since 7/29, hence "resolved". Situation stable, but hard to say if it rises to level of truly resolved. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute over the article New York Radical Feminists over what several editors (User:Iamcuriousblue (aka Peter Werner, that is, myself) and User:Shadowjams) feel are problems with original research and editing based on unverifiable claims of first-hand knowledge of the group in question on the part of another editor User:Ldsnh2 (see note for associated accounts). The reason I am coming here rather than seeking out request for discussion or otherwise starting the mediation process is that Ldsnh2 engages in ongoing edit warring and behavior that meets most, if not all, or the criteria for disruptive editing. The editor engages in an ongoing pattern of personal attack toward other editors by name on the editors user page (User:Ldsnh2) and on Talk:New_York_Radical_Feminists. The editor continually removes citations referring to Alice Echols Daring to be Bad, a widely-cited source about the history of NYRF, based on her assertion that the book is biased and inaccurate. However, the editor's only reference for their view that the book is inaccurate is claimed personal first-hand knowledge on the part of Ldsnh2.

Since I am trying to avoid further edit warring myself, I am refraining from further editing of the article for the time being, but am seeking outside intervention.

(Note: the editor also edits under the following IP accounts: User:75.0.193.152, User:70.235.86.209, User:75.13.228.250, User:71.139.149.187.)

(This has been previously reported as Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ldsnh2, without resolution.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Ldsnh2 is interesting. I'm pretty sure User:Shadowjams feels like he's in good company. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

this editor appears to lack critical wP:knowledge. he has repeatedly used an incorrect version of the {{cite}} which disigures the article ! User:Smith Jones 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page. Attacks against other editors are not allowed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed two sections from Talk:New York Radical Feminists for being violations of WP:TALK as inappropriate attack sections and have asked the editor for comment on another section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. You can block me or not. Wikipedia has no hope of gender equity from my experience with four individuals who took issue with a New York Radical Feminists article reviewed by many other Wikipedians between November 2007 and July 21, 2009. Any more work I do toward any attempts at gender equity here is a sinful waste of G-d's time. Ldsnh2 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not a soapbox. If you want advocacy, go somewhere else. We are focusing on neutrality, and that is based on verifiable sources. If you cannot accept that, then I'm sorry for you. You clearly can be very helpful here, but if you refuse to work in a civil manner with others, I am not going to allow you to continue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've restored Ldsnh2's removal of all their comments at Talk:New York Radical Feminists here (including using an IP address). Even if they aren't always useful, removing them all isn't productive. -- Ricky81682

(talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Report me to whoever, block me, ban me,, edit out things I write, edit back in things I delete, write assumptions about how you may think I may think or feel, question my integrity, expertise knowledge, research work, life experiences, whatever you want to do, whoever or whatever you are, just do it. I do not care. I am powerless over this being ganged up on by this group of men and in the bigger picture based on opinions of Wikipedia by a New York City librarian and her colleagues, whatever anyone does here on Wikipedia because of such things is not important. My or perhaps anyone's work here on gender equity issues--also because of what I've seen of unreferenced statements about living feminists that put them in a negative light and the lack of criteria for page numbers and quotation from sources in references for writings about secondary sources opinions or analysis or commentary (that is, not just simple facts like "who, what, where when" events, dates or places or the like)as required in other research work--is a sinful waste of G-d's time.Ldsnh2 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps your efforts should be directed toward helping fix such problems rather than engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory edits, which does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of any article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What be a subservient grunt work "secretary" schlepping to the library to find references for the materials you and your men friends deem fit for the current NYRF article? No way! LOL! Ldsnh2 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of being a good Wikipedia editor is willingness to do "grunt work" and sweat the details, as I'm doing right now, fact-checking the NYRF article. But in any event, my point stands – you criticize other articles for having unreferenced, problematic statements (which is essentially an Other Stuff Exists argument) and rather than making a positive effort to make improvements, you use that as an excuse for retaliatory tit-for-tat game playing. Might I suggest you either make some positive effort to improve what you see as problems with Wikipedia or at least try and reach consensus with editors who you are warring with, or, barring that, make good on your oft-repeated statement that you're going to take your efforts elsewhere. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't get the idea that people, male or female, with knowledge, experience, and research skills and resources about a subject go through considerable public domain resources to share information with the Internet public--in my case every New York Radical Feminist newsletter and conference document as well as ancillary groups documents, as well as news articles and three books written by NYRFers and long distance phone calls to two NYRFers to verify dats--on Wikipedia. They then have their work OK'd from the start by Wikipedians and make edits to follow Wikipedian criteria. They then have their work on Wikipedia reviewed and OK'd for a year and half.

After this, they then do not care an iota about Wikipedia and have no interest in it or its further success when their work researching scores of resources is picked on and undone and replaced by a few quotes chiefly from one book. They move on and find other places to post their articles. They cannot delete their Wikipedia accounts but could if they were able to. To them, Wikipedia is at best a disappointment if not something to downgrade in discussions with their friends and colleagues. Period, end of story. My November 2007-July 21, 2009 article based only on listings of activities, dates and places, not personal recollections of any biased NYRF participant including myself, has been greatly revised also with more references and will be posted on archive.org under "radical feminism" by July 31.Ldsnh2 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

...and sadly, your actions have likely done more harm than good for your cause. Wikipedia is not the place to carry signs and claim sexism, because that's a load of crap around here. Best of luck to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And I think, unfortunately, what you don't get is the concept of No Original Research and the fact that much of what you continue to insist on constitutes original research. For godsakes, your version of the article claimed personal emails as a source. If you have even the most cursory idea about Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, you'd know that personal emails as a reference, and any statement supported solely by this, is not remotely acceptable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, you keep insisting that your earlier version of the article was "OK'd by Wikipedians". Quite simply, it wasn't, because there is no formal "OKing" of an article, other than perhaps the kind of evaluation of an article as a Good Article or Feature Article (and I know the NYRF article has not been a candidate for either of these). Just because an article has been around for a certain amount of time without anybody raising objections does not mean its "OK'd" in any sense. Many problematic edits stay around for years before anybody a) notices them, and b) takes action. This is especially true of articles on fairly obscure topics, like this one. The kind of thorough going-over and fact-checking this article is undergoing right now is probably the first detailed review this article has ever had. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I reread the main source of the New York Radical Feminists article "Daring to Be Bad" as part of research for my archive.org article and focused on the pages that deal with the split of the Stanton-Anthony Brigade from NYRF that are referred to in this article. There are recollections from the members of other brigades who took issue with leaders, Firestone and Koedt--Brownmiller--and other members of Stanton-Anthony--Crothers and Bikman (with whom I was personally acquainted and very much liked) who also provided their recollections of how Firestone and Koedt felt. However, no where on those pages are there any quotatons or other information provided directly by Firestone and Koedt. In those days women who left feminist groups often wrote a long piece about why If Echols had found and quoted such a document from either Firestone or Koedt in her pages about this change in NYRF, her book and its reference here would have credibility and validity.

Without such direct statements or writings from Firestone or Koedt whom I never did meet but respect and want respected, any writings about them in this or any other book and why they did this or that are just hearsay, gossip etc. and not valid information to be included anywhere including in Wikipedia. The constant use of this one book as a main resource with its based upon such sloppy research this being just one example but a glaring one in and of itself invalidates the current New York Radical Feminists article. The article should be deleted until a wider range of resources are used for a quality Wikipedia article.Ldsnh2 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable, published sources at all about the supposed inaccuracies of Echols book? Or another verifiable published source that provides an account of the history of NYRF that substantially differs from that of Echols? Or is this entirely based on your first-hand knowledge, which we're supposed to take as gospel, without any way of verifying this. Once again, what part of No Original Research don't you understand? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention : Sfan00_IMG / ShakespeareFan00

Thread unarchived, per "...if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and readd it to this page, preferably with a comment."

Block evasion by Celebration1981

This edit and other similar edits by 94.44.4.253 are obviously being made by User: Celebration1981 in defiance of an indefinite block. This is evident by the contentious edits to the same article, Transformer, and the same sort of personal attacks within the edit summaries.

I request whatever measures needed to suppress the evasion, such as a long block of 94.44.4.253 and semi-protection of Transformer for around two weeks. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the IP blocking to someone else. I've semi-protected the article for 3 days, which I see you think won't be enough, but if there are problems after that I'll extend the protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP - clearly Celebration editing in defiance of his block. However there is only one edit made by that IP - any others?--VS ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually three edits to Talk:History of television by IP 94.44.4.235 on 24 July — two constituting a single edit. Not bad — eschewing the "Preview" button he often uploads six or more edits of the same content before he's finished. What a Wiki-world, eh? :) Rico402 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pleasetalktome and article Coraline II: The Door Reopens

Coraline II: The Door Reopens seems to be a nonexistent movie. Given the user name, which seems to be a plea for attention, and the vast and clearly nonsensical dollar sums in some of the revisions of the page (eg [40]) is this the Disney Vandal again? -- The Anome (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a $110 trillion movie... maybe that's where all the money ended up from the banking crisis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If they are the Disney Vandal, or a DUCK-alike, can someone please block them, and any alternates they may currently have active, and revert their edits? -- The Anome (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this one is Bambifan, but it may be our third Disney vandal who has run around creating fake articles under some other socks before. CU might be needed to find the parent (can't remember its name, but was messing around with the Disney album articles as well) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article. Can I have some help in reverting the rest of their edits, please? -- The Anome (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed same user as Evncollin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Evencollins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); please review the contribs here. Thatcher 02:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  Blocked and tagged. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Two quick FFD closure requests

Hi—I just emptied out the FFD backlog except for two discussions which I've commented in and so would have a COI closing. I was wondering if another admin could close the discussions listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion#Old discussions to finish clearing the backlog? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've closed one of them, but would recommend leaving the other open, since there seems to still be discussion that may lead to eventual consensus occurring, even eleven days after it was listed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempted outing

Please see [41]. And this is not the first time User:Martintg has done this: [42]. After I tried to quietly point out WP:OUTING to this user, he only continued: [43]. Contrary to what Martintg says, my ethnicity or nationality are not public info; I have never commented on the subject. I want these outing attempts to stop. Offliner (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING prohibits "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". Such personal information does not, in my opinion, include nationality. Nationality is shared by millions; it is not private in nature and does not place anybody at risk. However, bickering of this sort may lead to WP:DIGWUREN sanctions for all involved.  Sandstein  18:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't care about your wikilawyering. Whether or not this is covered by WP:OUTING is irrelevant. I want this to stop, and my privacy respected. How long will this be allowed to go on? And I can assure you that I have good reasons for asking this. If necessary, I can explain to an admin per email. Offliner (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Martintg for WP:OUTING, since the unwanted disclosure of any personal information is not allowed here. Moreover, the edits as to nationality are disruptive: Only sources have sway, not assertions as to the background of an editor. Offliner, see WP:Oversight if you think there is a need for the edits to be deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no technical 'OUTing' attempt in the provided diffs but 'personal attacks' resorting to nationality/ethnicity.----Caspian blue 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an indefinate block is completely OTT in this case.Theresa Knott | token threats 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll unblock and let the editor carry on outside policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, under WP:DIGWUREN you can impose practically any sanction you deem appropriate - but do it for the nationalistic battleground behavior, please, not for this non-outing. Both Martintg and Offliner have repeatedly been reported (by each other and allies) to WP:AE for this kind of stuff.  Sandstein  19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's of any assistance, "nationality or race" is usually considered personal information in situations where a European country has legislation relating to same, because it may form part of a set of data that allows a third party to identify an individual. This may not be the same in the US. However, a person may wish to keep their nationality/ethnicity a private matter if for example they have sought asylum and fear persecution.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Block was good as per battling along nationalistic lines, but I concur it was not outing, as per policy. After all, the editor merely needs to accidentally not login and post under an IP to divulge their country (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by having made the block, the edits were made to drive away and undermine the editor and had nothing to do with sourcing. Call it outing, personal attacks, disruption, whatever. My action had aught to do with anything Offliner may have done that is likewise untowards. However, without consensus, there is no pith to taking an admin action and I was happy to undo it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As soon as someone (anyone) re-instates any length of block for the WP:NPA/WP:DIGWUREN actions, they can re-mark this one resolved, as Gwen Gale has somehow been convinced to remove it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I convinced her, and stand by my arguments. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section in the AC ruling "2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Emphasis mine.Theresa Knott | token threats 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I consider this to be a gentle warning from the user. Sure, it's not on the user's talkpage, but it's a responded-to warning nonetheless, so it's acknowledged. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, I think you're wikilawyering and with this one-second block, being disruptive. Outing and personal attacks aren't allowed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would i wikilawyer? I have stated all along that it wasn't that I approved of his behavior only that I disapproved of a block without warning, and an indefinite block at that so that he has to plead to get it lifted. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Posting another persons personal information is, in my opinion, far more than enough justification for an immediate community ban. We don't need to post warnings for every offense made by an editor. This behavior should be an offense that will lead to an immediate ban, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disagree that that a link to a policy that nobody here agrees is even applicable can constitute a warning, gentle or not. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for input from the editor and would have swiftly unblocked had the editor acknowledged the behaviour and said it wouldn't happen again. Instead of asking me to explain what I had done, you mocked the block straight off and asked me to lift it, which I think was unhelpful. Now, we have someone asking for a community ban on Martintg. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And I totally disagree with this approach. You don't block first, you warn first. Mythdon is responsible for his own sillyness not me. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BLOCK: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking. Yes, warnings are more often than not called for but outing is a very harmful kind of personal attack. As I said, you should have asked me what I had in mind first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can people go to jail for this kind of stuff? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Theresa and Gwen, cut out the bickering - it's taking up Wiki resources. Mythdon, yer on thin ice around here anyway; calling for heads (and jail?! wtf) is NOT a good idea for you. The rest of you, just let this go. Tan | 39 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Two comments. 1. Why anyone believes that Offliner is a Russian national? Actually, he first edited as User:80.247.246.99 who came from Finland (see here). 2. Unfortunately, that was Offliner who demanded other users to disclose personal information [44]. Biophys (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The original issue was the insertion of Russian nationalist POV into the lead of Kuril Islands dispute to the exclusion of all other POVs, unbalancing the lead. For me the issue here is related to Wikipedia:PLAGUE. Offliner's nationality is common knowledge within EE, even his compatriot User:HistoricWarrior007 mentioned his nationality on Talk:2008 South Ossetia war: "There is very little Russian perspective here. Certainly FeelSunny, Ingy and Offliner try, but three people, all of whom are much more liberal then most Russians, cannot bring in the Russian perspective. I started editing this article because I wanted to help out. I recall Offliner admitting his nationality a year or so ago, so I don't see where this is an issue of WP:OUTING It appears to be more of an attempt by a nationalist editor coming here to this board and game WP:OUTING in a novel way in order to eliminate his perceived content opponent. --Martintg (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to administrators: Martintg was placed on formal WP:DIGWUREN warning here: [45] - on June 22, when several of us (including myself) were placed on formal notice regarding the WP:DIGWUREN remedy's essential principles, and while the 1RR restrictions given out together with the warning were then vacated for everyone involved on July 6, the formal request/warning to abide by WP:DIGWUREN was not. I believe Martintg has clearly violated it in this instance. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning for Martintg. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With Gwen Gale's warning, I'm confident that Martintg will stop doing this. There were some comments in this thread were about me, but they seemed mostly to miss the point completely, so I think I can safely ignore them. To others reading this as well, such as Biophys, etc.: please don't post personal information about me that I have not made public myself. (And whether or not the information is correct is irrelevant.) Offliner (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept the manner in which I attempted to air the issue of Offliner's nationalistic editing of Kuril Islands dispute on the article talkpage after Offliner proceeded to strip all non-Russian viewpoints from the article lead was somewhat brusque and could be construed as a borderline personal attack. However the view that mentioning an editor's national alliegence cannot be construed as "outing" appears to be unanimously held by all other admins who commented on this case here and on the various talk pages.

According to policy, making unsubstantiated allegations of egregious misconduct, and outing is particularly grevious, is also a form of personal attack designed to undermine the other editor's reputation. Offliner has a track record of filing vexations complaints on various boards and admin userpages, and has been warned about this in the past. Offliner is a veteran of WP:AE yet oddly enough he did not report User:HistoricWarrior007 when he mentioned Oflliner's national alliegence some three weeks earlier on the talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war where he is heavily involved in. To me this is indicative of the combative nature of the complainant.

Offliner needs to be formally warned that making unsubstantiated claims of grievous misconduct is also a form of personal attack and harassment if there is to be some balance here. When this ANI report is closed I request that it be explicitly noted for the record that no "outing" had taken place. --Martintg (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The 2008 South Ossetia war talk page is mess, and I do not read every comment by HistoricWarrior007 there. In addition, he did not claim that I was Russian - he listed me as one of three editors "who are liberal than most Russians."
2. I'm not a wikilawyer, so I don't know for sure if nationality/ethnicity is covered by WP:OUTING (I'm not even 100% sure what the word "outing" means). But it certainly is covered by WP:Respect privacy: "The above list is inclusive, not exclusive. If there is any doubt, don't reveal it. If their details would be useful, ask the person themselves to add it." Maybe I should have mentioned that policy instead of WP:OUTING (or maybe I shouldn't have mentioned a policy at all, and instead let the admins decide what is most approriate), but does it really matter? Why are you wikilawyering here?
3. Instead of attacking me (again) here, couldn't you just promise not to do this again (because you have been asked not to) and move on? Offliner (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Martintg

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.

---

Not fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing a community ban on Martintg.

Martintg attempted to out Offliner, and, Offliner did not want the information to be posted in public. Sure, it's not actually stated in WP:OUTING as personal information, but regardless, it is, indeed personal information. "So-and-so is (nationality)" is a statement of personal information. These kind of things disrupt the privacy of those who want privacy, and, even if your personal information is public, it's still disruptive to post personal information that hasn't already been voluntarily disclosed. There is no excuse for posting someones personal information WITHOUT that persons consent, and say that again: There is no excuse for posting someones personal information WITHOUT that persons consent.

I think a ban is more than warranted. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If offliner didn't want the info made public why hasn't he removed it? Theresa Knott | token threats 21:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but this behavior is no less disruptive regardless. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What should we do in case of a suspected COI problem then? In such a case, the editor may want to keep his/her COI secret. But we usually ignore such demands. Count Iblis (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. The outing policy does not specify nationality; there is no sign whatsoever in Marting's edits that he attempted to out Offliner's real identity. Block for not breaking any Wikipedia policy is not productive in any way. Considering that the report came from Martintg's longtime content opponent, I must say the whole thing looks like a clearcut attempt to game the system. ---- Sander Säde 21:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationality is a COI? Then almost everyone has that COI (not). Nationalism may be a meaningful COI, but edits speak louder than and only sources have sway. Comment on content and sources and content, not on other editors and don't post undisclosed information about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be a COI if it means an editor puts some agenda ahead of editing Wikipedia in a neutral fashion. The complaining editor, Offliner (talk · contribs), makes the vast majority of his edits to controversial topics related to Russia, including 614 edits to 2008 South Ossetia war. In a quick glance, I see that he appears to be promoting a pro-Russian POV. For example: rv - this is georgian and american opinion, not the truth, and we have agreed not to include this kind of blame game stuff in the lead. I think we should make sure that we're not blaming the messenger, Martintg, even though his manner of pressing the point was on the verge of harassing. As far as the content of the encyclopedia, I'm more worried about the participation of Offliner than Martintg.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A community ban is excessively draconian for what is going on here, and is not an appropriate level of response to the situation. Shereth 22:19, 25 July 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.

User:Bad article creation bot

Resolved

• Bad article creation bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created two article so far that are pure vandalism. Mary Jammies and Radio Kazam are just mass vandalism articles (and tagged as such) and the first is just plain offensive to some. With the user's name "Bad article creation bot", it is obvious they aren't here for good (yeah, I know AGF). Also, their username has been reported to UAA. In the meantime, should something be done? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Harej (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed after checking on the contribs. That was fast :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Too fast if you ask me. Maybe Harej is a bot.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 07:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kikimaya123456789

On Tuesday, July 21, a very persistent and contentious IP was blocked for 1 week for persistent vandalism. IP 24.229.244.235 was blocked after a series of edits bordering on vandalism and then posting contentious responses to attempts by editors and administrators to intervene. User talk:24.229.244.235 is a chronicle of how this played out. One of the articles edited by the IP was Masiela Lusha. Those edits included various similar additions, including a specific paragraph about her early acting career, added here, and removed as being unsourced and a WP:BLP violation. The content was returned here, here, here, here, and here before being blocked. Along with the block, a note was also posted on the IP talk page [46], denoting an extended block could result with further abuse. Tonight, a newly registered username, User:Kikimaya987654321, popped up to once again return similar WP:BLP content concerns, including the specific and rather uniquely worded "Acting career" paragraph, here, effectively registering an account in order to continue editing despite the IP block. This IP needs to be blocked longer and the new username blocked as well for acting in defiance of the block. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the account for two weeks and reset the IP's block to match. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by Protonk

Joebrock (talk · contribs) has been editing here since February, inserting copyright violations and uploading book covers with the claim that they are the owner of copyright. Despite several warnings, they continue to upload and insert copyrighted material. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• As I noted on his talk page, it's 'indef', not infinite. If he responds and makes it clear that he understands our policies, we can shorten the block. I deleted a bunch of the images (some were orphaned, some were at PUI) and I'll look at some of the text copyvios in a bit. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Postcard Cathy again.

Following on from my last AN thread regarding this user, she continues to tag in a disruptive way, her latest move is tagging a redirect as an orphan. I notice her talk page has been filling up with other users who have a problem with her disruptive tagging now. Any attempts to talk to her are met with page blanking (while its allowed, its not constructive in trying to work out what is going on!). Someone with authority needs to have a word in her ear to ask her to think before tagging. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Request for clarification left on user's talk page. Tan | 39 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Why would somebody even tag a redirect as an orphan? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To make you lay in bed awake nights pondering just that question! ThuranX (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because that somebody is simply mindlessly working off a list produced by a bot, trying to reduce the workload of another bot. [47] And this list contains the page because it is (incorrectly) in mainspace, has no incoming links, and is currently under RfD, causing the template to break the redirect. [48] Hans Adler 08:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• The response was productive as always. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point it seems clear that Postcard Cathy is operating a bot. Of course theoretically she could just be a human acting like one, but per WP:DUCK we needn't check this. Since it's causing problems, especially through lack of transparency exacerbated by her communication style, she should be made to run it through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and blocked if she continues to use it without that formality. (If she really isn't a bot, I suppose she can just get some pseudo-code approved and follow that.) She also needs to announce the fact on her user page or create an alternate account for the bot runs. Hans Adler 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I find it odd that Postcard Cathy mentioned two lists as the ones she might be working from, rather than specifically saying which one she is using. Neither of these lists currently contains the page in question. [49][50] However, that might be because the first of these lists has not been updated yet since the silly tag was removed. Hans Adler 09:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ricky81682 says that the response wasn't productive. The question wasn't particularly productive, either. Why repeatedly ask something that you know the answer to? You've seen Postcard Cathy's explanation. It was discussed the last time that this came up. We've been over this ground. We all know what the explanation for these edits is. Postcard Cathy said that xe is tired of repeating it again and again, and is clearly now just ignoring repeated requests for the same answer. The problem here is in part that people are asking for the same information again and again, and it's even the same people doing the asking. That's not Postcard Cathy's fault. If anything, it's a comprehension or memory problem with the people doing the asking.

  Hans Adler, you weren't involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#User:Postcard Cathy. I strongly suggesting reading it in order to catch up, here. Yes, you're not the only one to have thought that Postcard Cathy is a 'bot. What xe really is is a person obviously very tired of being asked why xe thought that an article was an orphan over and over, across a span of years.

  At this point, I'm halfway tempted to step on Postcard Cathy's toes by putting a FAQ or an editnotice at User talk:Postcard Cathy giving the answer to this oft-asked question. The upset that it might cause xem will be offset by the reduction in the number of new people coming along asking the same question that's been asked for years (and that's even answered at Wikipedia:Orphan#Step 1: Finding an orphaned article) and then getting huffy, sometimes with threats of administrator tools, when Postcard Cathy mutely declines to tread the same old ground yet again. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually the question was totally productive, not sure why you are suggesting this. We don't know the answer why she is tagging a redirect as an orphan, unless you can read minds? At least if a bot tags a page I think it can work out if a page is a redirect or not. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes you do know. It's not hard to figure out even from the raw diff and first principles, and Hans Adler even explained that the page was not actually a redirect at the time of tagging above. I repeat my point: You already know the answers to these questions, so it isn't productive to keep asking them. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, we don't know the answer to the question, and you are just making presumptions. This is not the same question over and over, this was blatantly tagging a "non article" as an orphan, totally inappropriate, and shows signs of the editor not actually paying any attention to what she is doing. As we know, this isn't the first instance of said editor paying no attention, which ultimately ended up in a block on that occasion. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, we do know. We are smart enough to figure it out for ourselves, for starters. Stop pretending that we are too thick to work this out. We are not. We all here know how MediaWiki works. We all here have been here a while. We all know from simple experience of seeing them what a redirect actually looks like and what is not a redirect. You know perfectly well that Postcard Cathy did not "tag a redirect as an orphan", because as an experienced editor you can recognize when a page is not actually a redirect. It is unproductive to keep asking why a page that quite obviously would satisfy JaGa's tool's criteria for being an orphan article was tagged as an orphan by an editor whom you already know is one of the WikiProject Orphanage volunteers who tag pages listed by that tool as orphans.

          I repeat for the third time: You already know the answers to these questions, so it isn't productive to keep asking them. It's also not productive to act as if we are incapable of some basic thinking and working out what someone else is doing, and even to reject that thinking when Hans Adler does it. Putting onesself in the other editor's shoes and thinking is very much what should be going on here. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I read the last thread when it happened, but decided I don't have to take part each time this user comes up at ANI. (I believe there was one earlier ANI report, and at the time I was one of those leaving a message on her talk page.) I have no idea what, in your opinion, is the answer that Postcard Cathy has once given and she is too tired to repeat. I am not even sure that I know what the question is. In my opinion this is about a request: A request to stop acting like a bot. A non-bot who acts like a bot is a problem, in part because a non-bot is forgiven a certain amount of edit-warring, while AFAIK bots don't rerevert even in cases of blatant vandalism. And IIRC Postcard Cathy has in the past reverted back to her version in situations where she could give no reason other than that it was on the list she was using and everything else wasn't her business and would people please ask someone else who is more knowledgeable.

    In the area she is working in she gets into contact with a large number of inexperienced users. The face of Wikipedia that she is presenting to them is that of a huge kafkaesque bureaucracy in which little minions are just following orders, with no interest in the big picture, no interest in exercising discretion, and no interest in being helpful to fellow editors. I am not sure that tagging pages as orphans is sufficiently important to do it quickly for such a price. Why not let someone else do it, more slowly, and with a minimum amount of care?

    And to come back to your Treat xem like a 'bot in this case from the earlier ANI thread: That's exactly what I am saying. Formal bot approval. And I am sure the BAG will make sure there is a shutdown function for cases of malfunctioning and that the bot makes sure not to get into an edit war with a user or another bot. Independently of that, bot operators don't get an unlimited licence to be grumpy just because their bot does so much work and they get so many low-quality complaints. Hans Adler 15:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

    • After blanking my request for an explanation, I have left one more. If this one does not work, I am going to block for unexplained disruptive editing. Communication, especially in the face of concern or request, is essential to Wikipedia's collaborative nature. I agree with some of what Uncle G says above - that a permanent "FAQ" explanation on her talk page would work. The current "DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT:" header on her page is rude, at best - and you can't expect editors to know about archived ANI threads. The problem isn't so much the tagging - the problem is the uncommunicative and dismissive manner in which it is done. Tan | 39 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Communication […] is essential to Wikipedia's collaborative nature. — So, too, however, is putting onesself in the other editor's shoes. Try putting yourself in Postcard Cathy's shoes. You're one of the volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage. Everything that you do is explained at the project's page and at Wikipedia:Orphan (the page that is even linked-to by the tag that you are applying). Yet people keep asking you, month after month, year after year, how you determined that an article was an orphan and why you tag articles as orphans. It's even the same people time after time in some cases. Occasionally those people come to an administrator's noticeboard, and occasionally another administrator who hasn't seen that the question has been asked and answered (and is even documented by the Wikiproject) weighs in with threats of administrator tools.

        But revoking editing privileges isn't really "communication", either. We shouldn't be hitting editors with sticks for doing what we normally recommend as the right thing to do: disengaging from unproductive discussions that would otherwise get highly confrontational. There is no logic underpinning the idea that if someone avoids getting into heated disputes with other editors, by refusing to engage after the Nth repetition of a request, that is somehow a bad thing.

        We're not policemen, and we're not slave drivers. And ordinary editors are human beings. Our best course of action is very often to help, to assist. Blocking doesn't help anything here. But trying to promote some understanding of what is explained at Wikipedia:Orphan and of what Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage volunteers do, on the parts of the people who keep pestering one of those volunteers over and over, might. Sometimes the right administrator tool to use isn't an administrator tool. As I said, an edit notice or a FAQ at User talk:Postcard Cathy is quite tempting. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

    • I have no idea what, in your opinion, is the answer that Postcard Cathy has once given and she is too tired to repeat. — Actually, you have. You did, after all link to one of the edits saying it, and saying even that xe had repeated it again and again. You've also paraphrased it yourself: "it was on the list she was using and everything else wasn't her business and would people please ask someone else who is more knowledgeable".

      And I know that you're saying "treat xem like a 'bot", and I'm not disagreeing, merely pointing out that xe isn't in fact a 'bot. Equally, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Postcard Cathy isn't a "'bot operator being grumpy". Xe is taking an (almost) entirely mute and non-confrontational approach to being asked the same questions repeatedly. Actual grumpiness would be akin to some of the talk page responses of the more infamous erstwhile 'bot operators, which Postcard Cathy's behaviour isn't really in the same class as.

      In the area she is working in she gets into contact with a large number of inexperienced users. The face of Wikipedia that she is presenting to them is that of a huge kafkaesque bureaucracy — which is why, as I've said, the most appealing option is to step in on Postcard Cathy's behalf with a FAQ or an editnotice, given that xe isn't very good (as can be seen from xyr talk page) at providing them xyrself. Rather than threaten with sticks, we could help.

      I see (after an edit conflict) that this idea has some traction. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits where my arguments are: User talk:Postcard Cathy/Editnotice now exists. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Editnotices, but I don't see how this is going to help - there's nothing on the talk page to alert anyone to the existence of this subpage (except UncleG's note, which doesn't link to it), so how will anyone come to read it? PamD (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Editnotice. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks. I had actually looked at that before, but not noticed the key fact that the edit notice only appears when you actually try to edit the article. Makes perfect sense now. Sorry about that. PamD (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And the last paragraph seems to say it's quite OK to put stub templates anywhere in an article that Cathy chooses, whereas WP:Layout specifies them as last but for interlanguage links ... that's been an earlier battlefield, with my requests getting un-collegial response after being blanked a couple of times. PamD (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's Postcard Cathy's edit notice, and as such it is not intended to reflect your view on the matter. The last paragraph summarizes what Postcard Cathy wrote here, here, and indeed here. The "OCPD editor" that xe is talking about is Mister.Manticore, whose interactions with Postcard Cathy can be found here for starters, and which you should read. Other editors that Postcard Cathy has had to deal with coming to xyr talk page include editors like this one (more more). Put yourself in Postcard Cathy's shoes. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a relief: I had thought I might be the "OCPD" editor she was talking about. And OK, I take your point that you've put (her own) words into her mouth here... I'm still just very unhappy about her attitude on placement of stub tags (still putting them at the top), as well as her failure to respond collegially to civil comments. PamD (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Given some of xyr early interactions with other editors on xyr talk page, are you surprised? It's coloured xyr whole view of the community. You know that we aren't all like that. I know. And we don't treat others that way. But we have had (a) more talk page interactions, and (b) better talk page interactions. Unfortunately, Postcard Cathy is now at the stage where xe regards these various matters as asked and answered long since, and any new attempts at discussion as just more of the same that xe has encountered before. Also note, in case it is causing confusion, that Postcard Cathy appears to be of the school who archives user talk pages to history. I hope that we can back out of this corner that Postcard Cathy and others have driven in to, and I hope that the edit notice helps to ameliorate one of the problems that got us into this corner in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Her habit of removing all previous comments has of course meant that editors interacting with her for the first time have no knowledge of all the previous stuff, so have been raising points in the belief that they've not been raised with Cathy before. On most editors' talk pages one can get a flavour of previous discussions, without having to go to "History". The edit notice may help... but I still find it difficult to understand, or sympathise with, her approach to some issues. PamD (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: While helpful, I don't think that will satisfy those complaining that she is adding orphan tags inappropriately or without thinking about it. Surely the reason for having a live human do the tagging, rather than the bot (as with say Sine bot) is so the human can make a judgement about the situation. Tagging a category page where the reason there is only one item in the category is because only one item exists is a futile exercise [51]. I would expect a bot to do that - they do have the good excuse that they are mindless. For a human, I would have thought that intellectual processes might suggest spending 45 seconds to verify that there is only one Black Lace album that has ever warranted an article (thank the goddess), and that the category is therefore redundant rather than orphan. If all you do is work through the list without ever exercising any sort of intellectual involvement would, I admit, bore me to death, and I'd be pestering for the creation of a bot to do the tagging.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheez! that last sentence was positively illiterate. What I was trying to say that I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to chug through a list and just tag, without looking at what they were tagging, because I would find it boring as hell. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I share your bafflement that anybody would want to spend their time this way, especially because my understanding is that a bot does exist for this task, and Postcard Cathy chooses to do it before the bot gets around to it. But a lot of us have our weird cleanup/maintenance niches (for me, it's mostly disambiguation pages) that we find rewarding even though others don't understand the appeal, so if this is what Postcard Cathy wants to spend time on, I'm not going to question it. However, I strongly agree with the sentiment others have expressed that if Postcard Cathy is choosing to work like a bot instead of a conscious editor, then he/she should be subject to the same standards that bots must meet in order to receive and maintain permission to operate. Propaniac (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at Big Brother 2009 (UK)

Resolved

 – Page protected for 24 hours by RxS (talk · contribs); talk page discussion underway to hopefully settle the issue. ~ mazca ^talk 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Two participants are continually removing large contents of text ([52][53][54][55]) despite their being concensus to keep it (Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/archive3#Houemates_section). They have also left rude messages at the article's talk page and, by working in a pair, have ensured that I can't edit the changes due to WP:3RR. Help would be appreciated. DJ 18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, it is a content dispute stemming from the AfD two sections above. I would suggest an uninvolved admin full-protect this article briefly as there is some serious edit warring occurring right now that needs to be resolved via discussion from both sides. ~ mazca ^talk 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You seriously need to check the definition of vandalism. This is not vandalism, this is bringing article content in line with established consensus. You are trying to force new changes with no consensus, while trying to claim there is. Your disruptive editing is not welcome here. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2:Content layout and formatting dispute. After DJ attempt at canvassing support for his deletion nomination above, I took a look and came to the opposite conclusion - ie that there is no consensus to adopt the new and more difficult format to support the deletion of the second article. We are discussing this on the talkpage (when DJ takes a breather from templating me for vandalism to his beloved article). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I protected this page for 24 hours while this gets worked out. Content dispute, yes. Vandalism, no. RxS (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I edited it once. I have not, and have no intention of, reverting DJ's reversion of my edit. However, I do believe that other editors also disagree with his stance, and would encourage further discussion in a collegiate atmosphere.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the user in question has decided to start a vote to get his own way. Anyone care to fill him in on what consensus is? Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that Beeblebrox has closed the vote down. While I understand his reasoning, I'm not sure that it's wise.... We shall have to see where things go next.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, I did that because it was WP:FORUMSHOPping, and an apparent attempt to stifle conversation as opposed to encouraging it. Discussion should of course continue, but a poll in the middle of an AfD seems kind of ridiculous from a user who was just complaining about the AfD being to much of a vote... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I entirely support your reasoning - I did think a poll was a little pointless - the solution will depend to a greater or lesser extent on the outcome of the AfD, so discussion needs to cover a number of options. I'm just not sure how it will appear to DJ. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Darrenhusted has removed your close note on the poll at Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK). He is also attempting to argue that the fact that the section didn't change for about 3 weeks was "consensus by silence". I guess this is our answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani category blanking again

Badagnani (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of [Bazian language] origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? [56] At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson's complaint

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Wikipedia to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reopening CFD

User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you get to ignore an admin. Ask them. Besides, his response just keeps on adding fuel to the fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further problems with User:Badagnani

Following a WQA post, Badagnani was blocked by WMC for continually reverting warnings and notices on his userpage as threats. (and yes, the block summary was apparently poor, but that's been dealt with, so perhaps we can not go there again).

Despite several requests (here's three: [57][58][59]) to stop referring to notices and warnings as threats, he is continuing to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop, as by this point it really is outright disruption. In no way is it acceptable to continually refer to warnings from other editors as threats; it is dishonest, assumes bad faith, and is generally chilling to any attempt to have a discussion with the user. I believe at this point a longer block is in order to get the point through to him, and/or a strict ban on using such language in his edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear attempts to talk to the user are not effective. He seems to allow us to talk past him rather than to him. If he continues to refuse to drop this (which I suggest he do, even if for no other reason than that continuing to bring it up is not changing anything and likely will not change anything), I agree with Roux that a block might be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has explained himself: "Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. " and "If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos."

Makes sense to me. As Lifebaka is seeking to resolve an editing dispute with a block, I understand why Badagnani feels threatened. I suggest a collegial and collaborative approach with a longer term good faith editor. If that doesn't work there's a dispute resolution process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All discussions tend to fall into "I am doing what's right for the encyclopedia and nobody else's opinion matters because they aren't." Period. It's completely unproductive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an attack. I've seen Badagnani respect consensus even when he disagrees with it, but he's certainly passionate about doing what's best of the encyclopedia's readers. He's explained why he finds certain messages threatening. If editors choose to pursue those type of communication, they will be received per that understanding. We generally respect editor's managing their own user pages as they see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, however, respect users continually accusing others of threats, particularly when they are being told that no threats are being made. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find edits like reverting an admin's close inappropriate (and "my opinion of what's appropriate supersedes everyone else's" isn't an appropriate response). If it's now an "attack" to question the judgment of users doing so and to request they stop, then nothing around here will get done. Everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells because one editor has now decided they don't want people questioning their activities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(@ ChildofMidnight, above) Two things. Firstly, I didn't make myself clear in what exactly I was referring to. I was referring to his continued assertions that Good Olfactory's close of the surnames CfD was inappropriate and that Good Olfactory should burden himself with all of the work necessary in implementing a new categorization system for surnames, an opinion he appears to be shopping around for someone to listen to, and which he appears to be unable to drop. Second, I'd very much prefer not to resolve this with a block (hence why I "fear" it), but talking to the user doesn't seem to be effective, as I already said. If you'd like to try you hand at talking, feel free, I hope you'll have more success than I had. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The messages like "I (uninvolved or involved admin) will block you if you do the same thing one more time", "You're vandalising, so you would be blocked after your 48 hours-block", "I will report you to AN/I/WQA/AN3" indeed sound threatening. Because those who have have reported him to AN/ANI/AN3, he feels threatened. He did not say they gave him threats, but threatening messages. He does not play well in dealing with such messages though. If Badagnani wants to record that repeated unwelcome visits from unwelcome people in edit summary, then I would suggest him to change "threatening message" with "unhelpful messages from people whom I pleaded not to visit here" or "disruptive message".--Caspian blue 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both alternative messages sound equally offensive and the latter more so. My suggestion would be for him to just drop the edit summary altogether and stop removing every message that he finds remotely unpleasant. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. He objects to behavior he finds threatening and contrary to collaboration and respect for a long term good faith contributor. And you object to him objecting to these behaviors. A fundamental part of civility and collaboration is respect for various editors who represent a variety of cultures and approaches. If you're going to aggressively enforce policies in a way that he finds threatening he's going to react accordingly. There's room for improvement and increased sensitivity on both sides of the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely these edits show good faith. After all it's fully appropriate to refer to people as "Korean nationalists", is it not? GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To GraYoshi2x, well the reference of "nationalists" in March was about me and another editor that opposed to Badagnani's inclusion of an "unauthorized YouTube link". However after that, I've seen/undergone many rude hypocrites' and verbal abusers harassment who have admin buddies, so even thought they said "fuck off", "you idiot", "spammer", or "8 years old", they are free from any charge for their extreme incivility but they are very critical of others' behaviors. So I let the accusation by Badagnani go some time ago. Contrast to them, Badagnani's comments sound to me less threatening and he has tried to improve himself like refraining from adding unreliable links or picture links or saying WP:STALK, so I rather choose to work with him than fight with his dreadful buddy or face other unpleasant people around him. As far as I know, you also did some mistakes to Badagnani, so well...why don't you try to peacefully work with him rather than accuse him in not so much civil manners? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would slightly question your assertion that Badagnani is a "long term good faith editor". This is the user who, on several occasions suggested that I be banned for nominating article for deletion (many of which were subsequently deleted by consensus). See here. But I agree with the comments about the need for sensitivity on both sides. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The user has not been adopting reasonable or proportional reactions to comments from others. He automatically removes any comment I make on his talk page as "threatening", regardless of what I have stated—even if there is zero discussion of possible blocks or other sanctions. If I try to discuss a content issue with him, it is removed as "threatening" and "unwelcome". I was recently accused by the user of making a "death threat" against him: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], and he continued to maintain it was a death threat after I had apologized for any misunderstanding and it had been explained to him by multiple other admins that it was not a death threat. He has essentially accused me of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular: [65]. Any attempt by me to discuss these issues with him on his talk page are removed as "threats". He treats some other users and admins similarly, and apparently because of background content disputes. Something must be done. I'd be very happy if the user would simply change his attitude and approach. But barring that, I also fear a longer block may well be appropriate. The user has a history of blocks and it concerns me that the most recent block only seemed to embolden his misbehavior. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that people who have done far less than Badagnani have been blocked indefinitely. He certainly has made a number of excellent contributions to Wikipedia, but if this behavior continues I believe the only course of action would be just to give him a longer block like you said. He's shown that he's unwilling to change his ways, and he's been reported to AN/I for what, at least 10 times now? Every single time I edit an article edited by him in the past year, I'm nervous about how he'll react to it, and 90% of the time he just reverts with some nonsensical statement. Needless to say it gets me a bit irritated, especially when he ignores or deletes all my requests to discuss. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just the classic "he's problematic, but he does good work" excuse. Never mind Jimbo Wales's recommendation to show jerky people the door, regardless of the work they've done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have known him for much longer than any of people here who complain about him, and have really many ups and downs with him. However, I feel that he is at least not a worst one among harasser/verbal abuser nor rude hypocrite that deserves indef.block, so I could have more leeway toward his behavior and his contributions are indeed "valuable" than Wiki-cops's who do not contribute anything but tag or delete someone's contributions with O article creation. // @Good Ol’factory, since you're deeply involved and want to "resolve this issue", why don't you do something by yourself? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because I'm deeply involved. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to block the user in this instance, though I certainly am willing to give my opinion in this instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been deeply involved in working with him for years and have tried, so should you.--Caspian blue 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, over the past few weeks I have tried to make efforts to talk to him, but any effort I make on his talk page is immediately removed as "threatening". I would like to see him at least acknowledge that some of his behaviour may be viewed as problematic and at least make a good faith agreement to try a bit harder to show civility to others and respect administrative actions performed by administrators (i.e., don't try to unilaterally revert them). But if a user refuses to budge after dozens of complaints—sorry, but there's the door. And it's not like this is a first instance or that he's still learning the ropes—he's been legitimately blocked at least 7 times in the past! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jerky people" are only jerky in the eye of the beholder. User:Good Olfactory has a penchant for getting involved in disputes, presenting himself as a neutral mediator, appearing to take one side and then expressing befuddlement when his actions of indeterminate faith are questioned. The threat of blocks is sure to follow the inevitably unsuccessful mediation efforts with further expressions of frustration that blocks questionably imposed have angered the editor and only caused more damage then they could ever have solved, which can in turn only be addressed by threats and demands for more blocks. The "shoot the horse" remedy of blocking anyone and everyone in all cases, legitimate or otherwise, needs to be replaced with a far-more refined process that keeps valuable editors like Badagnani from areas of conflict while allowing them to continue to work they work well. Punitive blocks such as are being advocated never work. Any advocacy by Good Olfactory for blocks where he has a clear conflict of interest should be accepted only with a lump of salt the size of a small planet. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't put myself out as a "neutral mediator" here. I think that's probably clear from the recitation of my recent encounters with the user in question. I've also clearly stated that a so-called "punitive block" is not a preferred solution. (Incidentally, If accusing someone of uttering a death threat and refusing to apologise or retract the accusation when having it pointed out multiple times by multiple editors that there as no death threat (not to mention a repetition of the accusation after this has been pointed out) is not "jerky behaviour" under Alansohn's loose "eye of the beholder" standard, then he certainly has enough salt on his planet to pass around and share with us all. Anyway, an assessment of jerky behaviour coming from a user who has been blocked x number of times for such behaviour should be, well ... you get the idea. As for my alleged "history" of claiming to be neutral when I'm not—this probably refers to one or more ANIs Alansohn has recently filed against me, which are probably best regarded as vexatious sour grapes trolling from a user who is apparently still upset that I blocked him some time ago. (Links/diffs available upon request.) Looks like more of the same.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1RR proposal

Propose to put Badagnani on 1RR against established editors (not anons). Disclosure that I have clashed with him a lot when he reverts, he always shouts "WP:POINT" but he is always the first to complain when anybody questions him and says that people aren't allowed to question him. I ain't the only Vietnamese editor he disagrees with all the time eg Amore Mio (talk · contribs) and he always adds unsourced stuff or any old thing and insists on keeping it even with no sources because it's "useful" and he adds whatever he wants irrespective of undue weight. He does this in all Asian spheres of editing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an editor who has had problems with him in the past, I would be inclined to support this proposal; however, I think a major aspect of the problems discussed above relate not just to edit warring on articles, but deleting other users' comments from his talk page and labelling various comments as "threats" or "threatening" (or "death threats", in extreme cases), as well as unilaterally attempting to reverse administrative actions—so I'm not sure if a simple 1RR would solve the problem, unless it also applied to his own talk page (which would be unusual). Personally, I'd like to hear from the editor on these matters. I've left him a quick note inviting him to do so, but it would be consistent with his past practice if my message is deleted and ignored. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe that any action should also limit Badagnani's removal of material from the talk page. By doing this, an editor can make it difficult for others to ascertain if they are currently the source of problems. This delays timely administrative action. That is to no one's benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having had minimal interaction with Badagnani, but reading this as a cold record, what is proposed (with Vegaswikian's add) seems reasonable. I do vaguely recall Badagnani demanding 1 month blocks against admins at DRV, so that editor would probably conclude that a suitable remedy for a violation of probation after all these warnings and blocks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that Vegaswikian's suggestion would be helpful. Badagnani has most recently taken to archiving comments on his page rather than removing them, which is kind of a step in the right direction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose The first comment in this thread is a complaint about the way an editor removes notices fromt heir talk page. Now those trying to get him blocked are trying to put him on 1RR restriction? This looks like an end run around dispute resolution to get an easy fix to winning disputes with this long term good faith editor. If there is edit warring take it to the appropriate boards. This recommendation and its support from those in editing disputes with this editor is not a good look at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling everybody else to change their ways because one editor is different from the majority? He reverted an official admin closure of a discussion and you support his undoing it based on his own opinion? Where's the logic in that? The 1RR restriction should be well deserved, seeing as he's been given way too many chances, blocked many times, and still has yet to change his behavior. And the "strongest possible oppose" thing... I'm getting a bit suspicious here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And speaking only for myself, I've had no real "content disputes" with the editor. My sole concerns have been with misplaced allegations of threats, unilateral reversions of administrative actions, repeated solicitation of me to reverse an administrative action, edit warring with other editors, etc. For me at least, this would not be a matter for DR; here seems far more appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He reverts all the time, and basically always accuses everyone else of violating point or stuffing up the article by removing unsourced stuff. I don't care about his removing warnings. He knows what other people think of his actions bcause a few reverts are sign of a dispute. But if he can't revert then he can't go and do all this stuff against the consensus all the time and there would be no need to say anything to him. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, it is quite surprising that you propose the sanction since he depends on you a lot (checkuser request or asking your opinion on Vietnamese topics). Anyway, I oppose your proposal because the one-way-sanction could be used for his disputers to game the system. (that is quite obvious expectation) I think enforceable community mentorship upon him could be better or there is no other way than RFRA. However, there is a possibility that he could leave the project for good given the fact that he left Commons after his misunderstanding of admins' roles there and OTRS made him feel to leave. So do I want him to be banned? Certainly, not.--Caspian blue 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of mentorship came up in one of the last AN/ANI threads. That would probably be an acceptable (potential)solution for many editors, but, 1) noone has volunteered their time to doing so, and 2) Badagnani has made no indication that he recognizes the problems some of his habits are causing, which would obviously be needed before he would accept anyone's mentorship.

I've been trying to assist in helping him to communicate what I think is his perspective, since April. I believe he is a good content contributor, and I'd be very dismayed to see him leave. But, his tendencies towards hyperbole, and his frequent refusals to admit the validity of alternative perspectives, or to even communicate at all, are creating continuous problems. We're not a monoculture, and Badagnani doesn't have to "conform"; but he does have to "adapt", in order for him to function as part of our "community". He has to adapt, simply because we cannot continue on like this indefinitely. I've left a final attempt at communication on his talkpage, to which I'm desperately hoping to receive a conciliatory ["willing to make concessions"] response. If he won't admit any fault at all, then I'm bereft of hope.

That said, I do believe that many of the editors who have interacted with him have been at as great a fault as he has, in regards to poor communication/mediation/civility skills, and I've been trying to point that out to some of them at the same time as trying to "translate" the perspectives from one to the other. I don't claim to be a good mediator, but some of the people who do, are terrible at it! And some of the people don't even try.

More generally, GTBacchus's draft of User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem is one of the clearest perspectives on these types of conflict that I have seen. Nobody has come up with a workable solution yet though, asfarasIknow. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If nothing is done in this case, after a relatively high degree and volume of disruption, I guess I'll definitely be taking the issue to DR/ArbCom after the next major incident with the user. I do find it hard to believe that a neutral editor with no past encounters with the user would find this behavior acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

I don't see how a 1RR restriction would accomplish anything other than hastening this editor to the door. If that's what we're going to do, then it's better to just do it, call it a "community patience" ban, and move on. If that seems to be preferred by a consensus, then... ok.

If, on the other hand, we'd like to keep him on board, then. . . the current strategy is not working. He won't adapt unless he recognizes that he must do so. Individual editors or groups telling him hasn't worked. His block log shows 8-12 blocks, none longer than 48 hours. Hmm.

Here's an idea: Indef block him, and make it abundantly clear that it's not for any particular incident, but for a well-defined and clearly articulated list of chronic problem behaviors, which have exhausted the community's patience. Make it clear that he's welcome to return to editing upon recognition of the problem, and the opening of a dialogue on what to do about it. Heck, he could still edit content through a proxy, if he wanted. It's just the interactions with other editors that have to change.

It might not work, of course. It might just lead to an indef block and that's that. The current strategy, where would-be mentor after would-be mentor is worn out on someone who's convinced that the problem is always everyone else... it's not the best, I think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Won't do much good anyways as he never really responds to anything, just removing the notices under a claim of being attacked and recreates things and the like if he wants, all because he knows better than the admins, the consensus, and everyone who disagrees with him. If you truly believe in MPOV (especially "it is necessary" to do things), nothing short of a full block is going to stop you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean meta:MPOV, right? You just posted a dead link :P GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Yes—the block need not be irrevocable. Don't block him from editing his own talk page, and when he says there he's ready to have a dialogue, then we can go from there. But please, whatever is decided, someone do something. With so much history, it seems ridiculous not to do something here that will move us forward and get us out the vicious circle we've been in with the user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think a complete break from editing the areas he normally edits would be most useful - a couple of weeks to a month should do the trick, whether it's imposed here or at some other chain of DR. Either way, I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• I support an indef block, but it's because I think his behavior crossed the line of warranting it a very long time ago, not because I think there's any chance he'll actually suddenly become communicative and cooperative. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and he's only persisted in acting this way because the worst that happens is that he occasionally gets blocked for a few days, and most of the time he just gets away with it completely without even having to defend himself, or acknowledge the discussion, at ANI or RFC or anywhere else. If an indef block prompted him to improve his attitudes, that'd be great, although I'm sure he's capable of pretending to have changed long enough to get the block lifted and then immediately returning to his old ways if there's nobody ready to watch him and call him on it. Propaniac (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Then before he is unblocked, he should be issued a statement along the lines of: if he goes back to his original problematic behavior, he may be reblocked without warning or have the case taken to ArbCom. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. At this point I doubt just another 24 hour block or 'discussion' is going to help change his behavior. Maybe not indef, but definitely make it a long duration, so that his patience will wear out and he will (hopefully) leave a well-thought out message explaining how his past behavior is inappropriate and such. I have the feeling that since he's only been blocked for very short periods of time occasionally, he takes advantage of that fact to (for lack of other words) disrupt Wikipedia. I don't want another editor clashing with him again. It's like deja vu, honestly. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Propaniac above has quite a similar idea... GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take the issue to ArbCom. Here has no uninvolved people in contacting with Badagnani except Ricky81682 (or he may dispute with Badagnani in the past that I don't know). So that everyone should be evaluated on the equal ground. Indef.block and then what? Do you guys really think that he would suddenly say "I'm sorry for what I've done and said to you even though, I suffer long term and persistent following by some of people who endorse to block me" after indefinitely blocked? Except the mere blocking, there is no solution presented so far to regulate Badagnani's problematic behaviors. I think PHG and Mattisse's ArbCom case could be good models for him, so take the issue to ArbCom instead.--Caspian blue 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Except what will ArbCom do? Give him a block like we proposed? Heck at ArbCom he may be even banned, not to mention the big hassle there is dealing with all the conflicts, involved editors, etc. It's just going to lead him to a worse fate on Wikipedia. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• ArbCom is a good place for resolving this kind of conduct issues. The ArbCom may not or may ban him, or assign enforceable mentorship or civility patrol to him, and other disputers could be judged in the same enforcement as well. The indef.block suggestion at this time is not fair because he did not commit dreadful things that he deserve "indefinitely block" (though different from infinite block) which completely disregards his whole contribution to Wikipedia. You know I've been disputing with him a lot for his original research and many many other things, but I think he should have at least an opportunity to speak out for himself. He rarely comes to defend himself whenever ANI calls him because in his viewpoint, all are to drive him away. Besides, what idea can you have give us after he would be indefinitely blocked?--Caspian blue 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just because he made many contributions to Wikipedia doesn't mean he somehow has some higher status. And frankly it's now more than just his behavior; he's reverted an admin closing of a discussion. That alone is not acceptable. If he wants to stay then that's up to him; we're not saying he can never come back, he has a choice in whether or not he would change his behavior to come back. Besides, we wouldn't know what his current stance is anyway; any discussion that contains something related to a block or restriction is either removed on his talk page as "threatening" or he simply never participates. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• That's why I suggest you or other complainers to take the issue to ArbCom. If you believe you have behaved to him by abiding the rule, then you do not need to be afraid of ArbCom. Regardless of what you and we think of him, he has a right to defend himself at least once.You also do not answer my question; so what is your idea after indefinitely blocking him? Block and then wait for him to say sorry? If not, we move on? I suggested you to look into Mattisse and PHG's ArbCom cases, they are pretty strictly mentored by the Committe.--Caspian blue 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "so what is your idea after indefinitely blocking him? Block and then wait for him to say sorry? If not, we move on?" I can't speak for anyone else, but that's certainly my interpretation of the notion. At some point we say the value of his contributions isn't worth letting him do whatever he wants. (And my question to you would be: What's your idea if the issue goes to ArbCom and he refuses to participate there?) Propaniac (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• If he would not come to ArbCom, then he would be indeed doomed.--Caspian blue 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to say is that there is no need for ArbCom (as of yet). ArbCom is an absolute, last-resort situation where nothing else can fix the problem. Looking at all the cases so far it's much more hassle than it's worth, and it's not an idea you can freely throw around. I've already answered your question from the start. Badagnani is welcome to return anytime. If he wishes to come back to Wikipedia and change his ways, fine. If he wishes to leave, fine. If he pretends to change his ways and then go back to the same old disruptive editing, it's then that we should start an ArbCom case. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think you and I could not reach any agreement on this. So do you think making him have an indef.block log is a best way to fix his problem at this time? What if the block log only serves him to have much humiliation, so he would not change his attitude? The idea of filing RfAf has been suggested by many before, so it is hardly my "free-trowing" thing that you're accused. Mentorship and civility parole for him have been also suggested so far, but none of uninvolved admins or editors were willing to do so, but I think ArbCom could enforce it without the disgraceful indef.blocking him.--Caspian blue 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what you're on about. But in any case I doubt the theoretical ArbCom case would go anywhere seeing as he just lets every complaint slide by him and let his supporters do all the work. As for what you're saying about the block log, eh, it's unlikely, and again I'm not sure what you're saying there. Also I'm sorry if the "freely throw" thing insulted you, that was never my intention. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• The people who endorse the proposal are all "involved party", so this so-called "Let's the community (the involved people) decide his fate" is not only ignoring the premise but also not a fair play. That is what I'm saying.--Caspian blue 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support as an uninvolved editor, I've made a fair play judgement of the situation and reading what's going on here, I think an indef block would be for the best until he agrees not to continue with this behavior.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, well. It appears once again the ANI report and discussion are going to be archived and dismissed without any actual resolution, or any consequences for Badagnani's actions or his complete lack of interest in participation. You can't deny that the strategy tends to work out very well for him. Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block as an uninvolved editor. Bagdanani has created a chilling effect for those editors who which to discuss differences of opinion with him. His behaviour has to change, and the first step is to acknowledge that this is a problem that he has to deal with. Until he can do so, I don't see how he can edit collaboratively here. Auntie E. 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani blocked for one month by Tanthalas39

• Blocked for one month for chronic communication issues. This took forever to research, and I still couldn't see an indef block. That should be the next step. There needed to be a long "we are serious" block first. Awaiting fallout. Tan | 39 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've hardly agreed with Tanthalas39, but I can agree with his assessment at this time that Badagnani does not reach an indef.block hit yet. So Tanthalas39's blocking of Badagnani for one month looks a reasonable course to awake him to look upon himself rather than stigmatizing of him with indef.block. Badagnani can use {{Unblock}} if he feels to appeal an unblock but he has to pledge to communicate with people in better manners.--Caspian blue 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• This seems to follow what I suggested above; a month's break from where he edits usually. Kudos for not letting this discussion drag on again, for longer, here or elsewhere. It'll be a long "wait". ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Tan; one month block is good enough. AdjustShift (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs)

Dana Ullman (wikipedia article: Dana Ullman) makes a living promoting homeopathy, and was banned for one year, by the arbitration committee, for the extreme disruption he caused by promoting it here. He has recently returned, and, immediately upon returning, continued his behaviours of attacking any studies that found against homeopathy.

The man makes a living promoting homeopathy. The obnly way he's going to ever come under Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give up his living. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while I remember the issues a year asgo from reading up on them here, the two posts he's made to that page aren't of the evil nature you suggest. One is him providing first hand knowledge on the talk page about the faults in a study, and from his explanation, they may in fact have some serious issues, and another explaining the idea. I will concede that the second is phrased in the style of an advocate for 'the other side'. but not like a lunatic. These two comments on the talk page alone aren't enough to convince me he hasn't learned.ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - if there hadn't been a huge thread, in which it was shown that the objections to the protocol only emerged afer it failed, and were approved before. Frankly, after months of everyone having to spend all their time dealing with Dana Ullman, tracking down studies and information which it almost inevitably turned out he vastly over-hyped,a nd which often did not say what he claimed - have a look at the Homeopathy case evidence page - having him back is enough to make one scream. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Dana, while he was indeed revisiting an old battle, he didn't bring the subject up himself - he was replying to a thread started by another editor the day before. His particular COI with respect to this specific issue has been pointed out on the talk page. On the other hand, he does have an obvious COI WRT the whole subject of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the user page, there's a topic ban mentioned. I only took a quick look, but it sounds like it's still in effect. If this is the case, someone needs to remind him of this and tell him to stay away from the associated articles and talk pages. The right venue for him to contest studies is in the academic world, not here. Friday (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban needs looking at, and also WP:COI. He is an actor in the section being discussed, so probably should only provide information on that subject (the ABC/BBC programs). Verbal chat 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the topic ban? There was a total one year ban which expired this week, I can't see a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He was given a three-month topic ban by Vassayana before the Arbcom total ban -- obviously this expired long ago. Note that the Arbcom decision allows any uninvolved admin to impose new sanctions if such are deemed necessary, after appropriate warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It sure seems like the kind of thing that should be re-instituted, permanently. Knowing nothing other than who he is, I think we can safely conclude that he's not interested in neutrality with respect to his pet topic. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking Vassyana to clarify the topic ban - seems like it was initially 3 months, then a full indef ban was instituted, then lifted (but with the topic ban still in effect), followed by an arbcom-imposed year in the clink. I also notified Mr. Ullman of this discussion, out of courtesy. My personal opinion is to let him contribute on talk pages, but re-institute a topic or full ban if he starts showing us the full monty again. I will note, though, he is jumping back into one of his old favorite crusades - namely, the 20/20 incident, which is a viper's nest of reliable source, conflict of interest, and BLP issues. I wish I could point editors to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence to get a feel for Mr. Ullman's conduct, but despite multiple assurances from arbitrators that it will be undeleted it has not been. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I make a living from homeopathy, I also have a long academic record, including writing a chapter in an Oxford University Press textbook (2009) on "Integrative Oncology," writing a chapter on homeopathy and pain management in "Weiner's Pain Management" (one of the leading authoritative textbooks on pain management), and many other peer-review articles and chapters. I may have made some mistakes of advocacy in the past, but I have been punished and have learned. If wikipedia will choose to topic-ban me, it must also consider topic-banning many many other experts who also make some type of living from their expertise, including many medical doctors and medical researchers (and on and on). And I wonder then can and should be done with all of the anonymous people who edit here and who might theoretically deserve a topic ban (needless to say, I am not recommending this). Instead, I believe that it makes more sense to topic ban those people based on their behavior and actions rather than on theoretical grounds. I sincerely hope that wikipedia be careful in hearing the "testimony" of those editors who I happen to show are not providing accurate information on homeopathy, as is what happened with this initial complaint. DanaUllman^Talk 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other crap exists, even in some textbooks. Just because some publisher was foolish enough to allow homeopathic nonsense some mention doesn't mean we have to allow its very active promotion here. Promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience is not welcome here, while defending proven and documented reality is status quo and expected. Why? Because Wikipedia aspires to become a serious encyclopedia, and not a Conservapedia or Altienonsenseapedia. Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was all set to support his access to talk pages, but he went right into his SOAPBOXing here, which shows that he's unable to discuss this rationally. He asks that people be banned for their actions, not their office, but even on this matter, he fails. He seems more concerned with his ego than with either actual science, or improving the article. He frames his comment in the manner of 'I was there, therefore I am qualified to both correct this, and MORE qualified than others to write an article on this topic.' Even in the last two days' comments, he goes on with the whole 'Homeopathic science is done in a secret and different way which cannot be reproduced by non-believers' jive. It's demonstrative of his inability to hold rational discourse on a topic which for him is a faith and religion; like religion for many, discussion must be an 'us and them' not an objective examination, which is what's required for good Wikipedia editing. Therefore, I am convinced that he should be the subject of an indefinite topic ban, one which will, in practice, likely be a permanent ban. His view is simply at loggerheads with our intentions here to provide solid, cited information. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with dana Ullman in the past. while i do feel like his homeopathy advaocacy can have led to problems in the past, I do feel that he makes an important point here. essentially, he is being censured by past conduct and his profession rather than his current behavior. according to our blocking policy, blocking is preventative not punitive so I feel that he shouldnt be blocked from editing Wikipedia completely just because he MIGHT offend in the future. Rather, i propose that the mentioned topic ban be commuted to probation, in which case if he does behave unethically then an unvinovolved Administrator may impose sanctions such as a topic ban. I am worried that we are using a WP:ANI to win a content dispute in Homeopathy, which was a problem that myself and other homeopathy editors dealt with extensively to our detriment two years ago and I think that we can prevent by being less aggressive and more preventative now. User:Smith Jones 02:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman caused about 6 months of disruption last year, over dozens of articles. If the evidence page of the Homeopathy case was undeleted, you'd see that he lied or mislead about the content of sources, claimed that an article for a very, very obscure journal without its articles online was the leading journal in the field, and that that his summary of it MUST be included (While not providing the article, nor mentioing the journal had a section specificaly devoted to - I forget the exact term, but it was something like speculative research on unproven concepts. He caused a couple weeks of disruption claiming that Linde's retraction of results in a later paper wasn't a retraction becuase that exact word didn't appear, and so the original study - whose results he liked - should be used in the article without updates, etc, etc. He and a few others had made the situaton at homeopathy such a horrible mess that admins weren't even willing to go there and deal with clearly-documented problems with pro-homeopathic users, because if they did, a large group would swoop down to attack. Back in that time, it ws widely said that the only thing enforced there was WP:CIVIL, and only if you weren't a homeopath (certain homeopaths were allowed to engage in extreme incivility, regularly). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, if it matters, he also showed up off-wiki on my blog after I posted about homeopathy on Citizendium, back in February, which was kind of creepy. I'll provide a link in e-mail upon request to enough administrators that they can confirm, I'd rather not link publicly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that. He regularly turns up in the comments of blog posts with any kind of critical view of homoeopathy. A couple of recent examples: [66] [67]. Brunton (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, DanaUllman is being put up for a ban because he's a religious zealot, and his religion is more important to him than anything else. This leads to a total inability to deal with things rationally. For example, he came to my talk page to attack me for paraphrasing his attitude as being an unattributed and unreal quote. Had he bothered to use those vaunted writing skills he brags of, he'd know the difference between ' and ", but he doesn't. this same irrational reaction is brought to anyone who brings scientific debunking to the Homeopathy article. Because it 'hurts' his religion (whether Homeopathy or profit is the underlying religion is up to you). This means that like all the other religious zealot issues we deal with, like the images of Muhammad, one side can spend the rest of eternity explaining scholarship, dispassionate writing, citation, applications to a wide audience and so on, and the other side will shout "MY RELIGION! NO BLASPHEMY" over and over, which is exactly what we have going on here. DanaUllman just shouts it with more and bigger words than most. Same principle underlying the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In due respect, I do not think of homeopathy as a "religion," and actually, I have a good academic record. The fact that UC Berkeley's alumni magazine chose to feature me and my work amongst the millions of its alumni is an honor. I feel that I have something to contribute here, and I have sought to better understand and learn the rules of wikipedia. To be honest, it seems that it is ThuranX who has an axe to grind here. I expressed concern to him privately that he put quotes in a statement above that I have never said NOR implied, and I simply did not think that this assertion was accurate or fair. Whereas double quotes would suggest a direct quote, the use of single quotes suggests a paraphrase, and yet, he never referenced any such paraphrased statement. Instead of apologizing or seeking to correct the situation, he simply went on the attack again. I told him in my post at his user-page that I wanted to assume good faith, and yet, he doesn't seem to AGF back. I do not plan to be a very active editor here, but when appropriate, I may do some editing. I will probably work more on Talk pages. That said, I hope that admins here watch some of the people here who seem so lividly anti-homeopathy. Livid is no place for an encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm anti-bad biased writing, not anti-homeopathy. You refuse to listen to others, abide by good writing styles, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, adn continually go on the offensive against anyone who doesn't acquiesce to your POV. You are an inherently biased editor on this topic, and you spend the vast majority of your time here agitating for a Pro-Homeopathy article. All critics are flat out wrong in your view, all outsiders are wrong because they don't understand the 'science' like you claim do, and anyone else is just getting in the way of you and the 'truth'. I'm sick of seeing such zealotry on Wikipedia, because contrary to your claims that a Pro-Homeopathic bias tot he article would help more people by saving their lives, such an article does NOT help the uninitiated reader to become more educated and learn both sides of an issue. You continually work to obstruct good writing, NPOV articles, and to antagonize those who don't agree with you. You had a one year ban for it, and your immediate actions on return are to run right back to the front lines and start it up again. Wikipedia is better off without you. ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

believe me, Thuran is udnerstand your point. the fanatcisim of one side of the alternative medicine debate that I participated in last year was practicaly obscene. People were banned and blocked and others wer accused of murder because they promoted Homeopathy. I remember an ex-user, Randall Blackamoor, who was banned after lashing out at both sides and accusing Wikipedia of being a murder because it even had an article on Homeopathy in the first place! I can see why Dana Ullmans presence is unwelcome. However, comparing him to a religious blitz then what the Thing is to do is to always follow Wikipedias policy scrupulously instead of using it to create revenge on Dana Ullman for his past and not his present sins. I believe that an uninvolved administrator can review his episodes and and if he is found to be disruptive BASED ON HIS CURRENT ESSAYS then he should be topic-banned (from Homeopathy only -- he has contributed extensively and constructively outside of Homeopathy so he should be allowed to remained). I am anti- a hardline on any user. Just follow the rules and the right thing User:Smith Jones 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence for these extensive and constructive contributions outside homoeopathy. While he has edited other articles, they have pretty much invariably been either articles connected with homeopathy, or articles with references to homoeopathy, or articles or into which references to homoeopathy have been inserted. Brunton (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. As with all COI editors, it would be great if Dana could consider editing in areas completely unrelated to homeopathy. He must have some hobbies or something. It would open a new perspective for him, it would be a chance for him to prove that he can cooperate with others in a constructive atmosphere. I think it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned. Hans Adler 09:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban of Dana Ullman from all homeopathy pages, broadly construed, so as to avoid a repeat of past behaviour which is already evident. Verbal chat 08:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, before the 1-year ban Dana Ullman got on people's nerves at homeopathy talk pages, including mine. I haven't seen anything problematic from him since then. Since when is an actor in an event reported by Wikipedia, who is open about the COI, not allowed to point out politely and in few paragraphs that he doesn't agree with the article, giving reasons? As a general principle that's the best thing that can happen, in order to ensure that we interpret our sources correctly and fairly.

Is it now acceptable to run to ANI with nothing? I will keep this in mind and come here to ask for BullRangifer to be topic banned the next time he says something outrageously stupid on the homeopathy talk page, or makes an unfounded personal attack which he is not prepared to take back. (See User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 10#Personal attacks for some of the details, with pointers to others. Or just look at his 22 July post above to get an impression of his influence on the talk page climate.) Hans Adler 09:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i agreeee that the people who see the WP:ANI as an excuse to punish people they dont like. User:Smith Jones 23:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Very true. Hans Adler should take his personal aggravation against me somewhere else, and not misuse this thread to attack me. I have made only one comment here and see no reason for his attack. He should remove it and stay on topic. Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a general principle that if you comment on an ANI thread your own behaviour may also be examined. You have no reason to complain after your inflammatory nonsensical remarks in this section. Hans Adler 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban based on COI makes makes no sense. Mds and pharmaceutical companies employees should not edit medical articles? Most editors do not use their real name - how do we know that there is no COI? This is a content dispute. Dana believes that the editors dont interpret the sources correctly and fairly and thats why they want him out. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit too quick off the mark. Dana sometimes provides useful input, though one has to look past his self-aggrandizement and be careful to check that the sources he cites actually say what he claims. Let's wait to see how things work out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Boris that we should wait for now. Let's see if Dana can change his behaviour and not go into the same behaviours as before the ban. For now, he has been adviced by other editors to edit articles in other topics, and I gave him one warning for AGF. Let's see if this time he actually heeds to the warnings and advices.

For reference, the recently restored Evidence page of the Homeopathy case. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hindutashravi needs a block

Resolved

 – Hindutashravi blocked for 1 month for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

SPA who only edits a few topics. Is completely against consensus but reverts all the time anyway. I haven't been reverting against him but he's made a long diatribe against me for blocking him and reblocking him for socking, so it would be easier for a new person to block him just to save the unblock reviewer a need to reply to more conspiracy diatribes YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in two days, so a block seems kinda' punitive at this point, and a poor method to communicate. I've left him a message about how there isn't a WP:CABAL et cetera, and I'll keep an eye on it in case he doesn't take the hint. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He edits infrequently but is consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia. I don't generally like the idea of an indefinite block but honestly don't see mediation going anywhere. It doesn't help that his comments are rambling and lengthy. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've to agree with BL Nguyen and RegentsPark on this issue. After analyzing Hindutashravi's edits, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption. I'll block Hindutashravi for 1 month; if he continues to disrupt en.wikipedia after the block expires, he should be indefinitely blocked from editing en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Haroldcoxly/HaroldCoxly994

The above user User:Haroldcoxly994‎ created the article Hans Beckert. This article was twice tagged for SD, but the user just removed the tag very quickly. A merge with the main film article was suggested, again this tag was removed by HaroldCoxly. I put a PROD on the page - he removed it. I then placed an AfD tag on the page (and notified the user), they removed that tag.

I have replaced the tag, and commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Beckert‎.

The other id used by this user is User:Haroldcoxly - presumably in case of a block?

I can't deal with this user, and I don't want to end up breaking the 3RR rule by keep having to put the AfD tag back - could a sysop please intervene? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the user was wrong to remove the speedy tag, your tag was also wrongly placed. A7 doesn't apply to fictional characters. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify - I didn't place the SD request - I did the PROD and the AfD -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SRE.K.A.L.24 placed the A7 tag. Tan | 39 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for addressing that to the wrong party. Somehow I had the impression that it was SRE.K.A.L.24 that had placed the complaint here. Anyway, Haroldcoxly994‎ was blocked, and I've now blocked Haroldcoxly for block evasion as a likely sockpuppet of Haroldcoxly994‎. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: it is Haroldcoxley994 (talk · contribs) that was blocked, indef, a month ago. So it sounds like there are at least two socks. Maybe we need to checkuser for more? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RfD backlog

Resolved

I've just been clearing some of the rather hefty six-day backlog at redirects for discussion. I've currently closed everything up to and including July 18th; but there's one discussion remaining from the 15th that I've commented on and hence shouldn't close - if someone uninvolved could do the honours? ~ mazca ^talk 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! ~ mazca ^talk 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Christ's Hospital material

User:The Twelfth Doctor, as well as a few IPs, including IP User:92.12.79.69, have recently been engaged in trying to add a segment of unsourced material regarding the above subject to the articles Kyrie, Libera Me, and Jubilate Deo regarding their school. I was first made aware of it with this message to WikiProject Christianity. The material is unsourced, and seems to give undue weight to the school's use of the songs. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced? See WP:BURDEN. WP:UNDUE is for relaibly sourced issues only, once V has been met, NPOV may then become a valid issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies, and my thanks for Dougweller's quick actions. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP is also The Twelfth Doctor (talk · contribs), I shall have a chat with our doctor. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ImBeowolf

Resolved

 – User:ImBeowolf warned.

Since mid June, There's been in a dispute with the following user over a certain detail of official storyline for the Tekken video game series. Initially, I believed that a citation from a primary source(i.e. documentation from the game's own creators) would be enough to end this.(diff: [68] This IP user was me, not realizing that I wasn't logged in.)

However, adding the citation was met with hostility and accusations of bad faith from User:ImBeowolf (see diffs: [69], [70]). I opted to address this directly to the user.(diff: [71]) I explained that the citation is from the NTSC:U/C version's booklet. I would later amend the citation to specify this([72]). I even noted that he didn't have to take my word for it and that the official Tekken website collaborated my edit. This again lead to stubbornness and insults from the user (diff:[73]). I request that this user be at least temporarily blocked. I've tried to discuss this issue, but I will not repeat myself and go back and forth with this user on this issue. Nor will I entertain his ridiculous accusations of being a "fanboy." Thank you. --GD 6041 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he doesn't understand that these types of games have multiple endings, with only one turning out to be canon. Let's wait and see what happens when and if he edits again.--Atlan (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can understand where you're getting that vibe; However looking at his certain edits and the exact details he alters, I think the user understands that. The problem is that the user is misinterpreting the events of the official storyline based on his own assumptions, since the plot point in question is never made clear outside of documentation from the game's developers(i.e. character bios found on official sites, guide books, or manuals). "Waiting to see what happens" is what I did earlier this month. All this user has done and will continue to do is replace the same cited content with original research and misinformation while throwing insults and ad honinem attacks. While this user is not frequent, he has shown IMO more than enough times that his behavior isn't going to change.--GD 6041 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've left him a warning on his talk page. There's not much else that can be done at this time other than to just wait and see.--Atlan (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Just asking, for future reference, if his behavior persists, should report again it here, directly to you, AIV, or somewhere else?--GD 6041 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not really vandalism, so that's a no to AIV. I've watchlisted Kazuya Mishima, Heihachi Mishima and Tekken 4, so I'll keep an eye on it. Maybe he responds better to an uninvolved party.--Atlan (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ldt88 07 and addition of WP:BADCHARTS

• Ldt88 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After several warnings of being told not to add charts that are listed under WP:BADCHARTS (charts that are prohibited in music articles), the user stopped editing for over a month only to return to add the charts back. If warnings won't stop the user, a block should. — Σxplicit 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking over their edits, they appear to have some decent contributions. Unfortunately they are also making problematic edits and seem to have taken WP:IDHT as an editing philosophy - perhaps exacerbated by the number of 'final' warnings they've had that didn't amount to anything. Since their problematic editing seems set to continue and they really don't appear to making any effort to communicate (either on talk-pages or in edit-summaries), I've blocked for one month. This may be harsh, but with their on/off editing it needs to be something they'll notice. EyeSerene^talk 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem at AfD

Resolved

 – everyone is playing nicely at AfD

Hello. I've recently nominated the article List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) for deletion and, at its deletion page there appears to be alot of WP:ILIKEIT occuring, with fans of the programme wanting to keep the article for the sake of it. I was wondering if some editors could voice their views on this AfD, whether debating to keep or delete, just so we could clear establish a fair concensous without bias? Thanks, DJ 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

I see you already mentioned at that page that it is a debate, not a vote. The closer should take into account when opinions are rendered without policy-based rationale. That page sure is in a bit of a state, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I have known in the past for AfD closers to purely do a quick count and make an irrational decision without reading the argument fully. That's why I raised the issue here to bring it to the attention of contributors who aren't fans of the programme, and can therefore approach the AfD with a level head. DJ 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be getting perilously close to WP:CANVASS here. The main reason for keeping the article is nothing to do with the fans. I have voted keep (and cleaned up Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) I hate the programme, never watch it, and have no idea who the housemates are, but two articles make a better format for handling the information.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is purely your opinion, and I reverted your edit. DJ 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and templated me for vandalism. Really, that is NOT the way to win friends and influence people - or look good in this venue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest a block on User:Dalejenkins for disruptive editing? Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Dalejenkins is taking this AfD rather too seriously; and that templating you for vandalism was rather petty. However, I'm pretty sure we've not reached the point where blocks are necessary, and I'd encourage all parties to focus on the article rather than on each other. The AfD can and will resolve itself, and most participation does seem to be in good faith. ~ mazca ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He does seem a bit hot under the collar, but I can put up with being templated. Listing me at WP:AN/I for what is clearly an editing dispute is getting a little OTT though. Perhaps a nice cup of tea will help.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nagging people to change their vote on their talk pages as you did with me is also inappropriate. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So, to review, the concern is that (a) people are voting incorrectly; (b) the closing admin may close it improperly and (c) I'm guessing but DRV won't be productive either? For (a), state it once and move on. For (b), wait until it's at least closed before debating whether a hypothetical admin could screw it up. And I suspect no matter the close, the admin will have "screwed it up." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You got it, with the added bonus that anyone from here who doesn't like the programme but doesn't agree with the AfD is clearly a vandal. You have to commend him on his consistency at least.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Darrenhusted is still harrassing every user who votes Keep at the AfD. I feel the need to say something to him, but don't want to turn the discussion over there into a slanging match. Is he actually overstepping the mark - unlike User:DJ he's not actually trailing people back to their talk pages and arguing with them there as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Xe isn't "harrassing". Xe is talking to people about the arguments that they present, and asking (for example) for clarifications of three-word rationales. This is very much allowed at AFD. It isn't a vote, and discussion is a good thing. Try discussing back. (And don't resort to poor tactics such as calling the discussion contributions of those whose positions you disagree with harrassment.) You never know, you might change xyr mind, or xe might change yours. This is one of the reasons that we have discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Uncle G - I'm all for discussion. However, a couple of editors now have commented at the AfD on the tone and manner of Darrenhusted's responses to their !votes, so it's not just me. I note your opinion that he is not overstepping the mark though, and will refrain from commenting further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I just scrolled through the AfD and don't see anything like "ILIKEIT". Lots of "per X" or "notable, sourced", but that's not ILIKEIT, and assuming that editors are lying about their keep rationales is not very nice. I see nothing to discuss here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Otty Sanchez

This article has been created (and deleted as an unreferenced negative BLP) a couple of times. It relates to a breaking news story (example [74] - warning not for the faint hearted) and an article that does not meet the speedy delete criteria may be possible. It strikes me that given the nature of the topic a few people keeping their eyes on it wouldn't be a bad idea. Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about that. You're definitely right that the story is, um, unpleasant. There may also be an effort to have the content added to Infanticide, Early infanticidal childrearing, postpartum psychosis, or a similar article. At this point, it would probably fail BLP to be included there as well, pending a decision or statement from the lady herself. I've got the page itself watched, and may occasionally check to see if it links anywhere. More eyes would be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Resolved

 – Moved to WP:RFPP. Remove this tag and comment below if this doesn't resolve the issue. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place for this, and I don't know the strict procedure on protection of articles, but the article for Physical Education has been being (for years) consistently defaced by IPs (some of the edits are good faith, but completely and flagrantly against Wikipolicy). Many bad edits are made my people who obviously aren't knowledgeable in Wikipedia standards. I looked back through a good chunk of the last 1000 edits, and there are multiple occasions where it has been damaged by a series of IPs in a row, then had a reversion back to one of the vandal-state edits, to a severely blanked version (eg, several sections taken out). On multiple occasions it has had to redevelop from there (as I guess there are no consistent contributors to notice the "faulty" reversion to a damaged version). This has been going on for years, if you check the last 500 [[75]] and the 500 before that it is blatantly apparent that the article has been in trouble for years. I think that if this article is semi-protected so that only users with accounts can edit it, it would give it the chance to develop in a much "healthier" way, making it a much better article. Peace and Passion (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PS Its talk page is even a frequent victim. Peace and Passion (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFPP and ask for permanent semi-protection, which should keep the IP's and redlinks away. If you still have trouble, from regular editors, you need to talk with them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible Hacked Account

Resolved

 – User blocked by Nakon as a vandalism only account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After almost a year away, User:Greenblobo9 has returned and vandalized three pages (1, 2, 3). I am a little concerned that this may be an account that has been hacked and not in the control of its owner. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked editor using multiple open proxies

User:Chidel was blocked a while ago as the account was editing from an open proxy. Since then, the editor has used (at least) three further open proxies, namely 85.249.33.2 (talk · contribs), 190.146.244.52 (talk · contribs), and currently 207.61.241.100 (talk · contribs). Each set of IP edits would pass the WP:DUCK test with respect to them clearly being Chidel, indeed in one case admitted to being Chidel. I'm no expert on open proxies and have listed those that I believe I've found at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, for each of them to be blocked. My question here is if the edits pass WP:DUCK and if a search (e.g. on Google?) reveals each of these IPs to be open proxies, should we just block them on sight? The turnaround at the Wikiproject is pretty slow (I think only one user is active there - User:OverlordQ). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All three IPs have been confirmed and blocked as open proxies. Sockpuppets can be blocked on sight. When formulating the block, as always you must make a judgment about how long the user/computer will remain on its current IP address. Google searches, DNSBLs, portscans, etc, can be used to provide clues about open proxies, but should not be relied on for confirmation. There is practically no reliable way to confirm an open proxy other than attempting to use it, and there is no way to determine its longevity other than guessing through experience. These three IPs have been blocked for a combination of six months, one year, and two years. If in doubt about whether future IPs are open proxies then just block them for a short time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, very informative answer. I note the user has already switched to 98.222.42.233 (talk · contribs) - any chance you could once more use your experience to judge this one? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate a view on how to deal with the edits of this particular editor. He has now used five or six open proxies today, all of whom have been blocked, but should his edits be allowed to stand, or is it a case of judging it on a case-by-case basis? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The open proxy policy says, "Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." There is nothing in the policy about reverting edits based purely on open proxy usage and, in fact, reverting would be inconsistent with the "may freely use proxies until ... blocked" language. 212.191.67.2 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, though evading an indefinite block causes the user and their proxies to become block-evading sockpuppets of a sockpuppet on open proxies, until such a time as the original block is resolved. This means the user's "legitimate user" status is somewhat diminished. Technically you could argue that since no one has lifted the original block, these are now ban-evading sockpuppets and so should be reverted. I won't go that far, but whether the original block was justified or not, the unblock request should come before the edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Technically, you could argue" combined with "I won't go that far" is Wikilawyering and isn't useful. Aside from that, YellowMonkey's block on Chidel was solely because of open proxy usage, and there was no evidence whatsoever of illegitimate alternate account usage, i.e., "socking" per policy. As he has admitted, the block was initiated privately by The Rambling Man by email in an end-run around WP:SPI and Wikipedia's privacy policy. Note YellowMonkey's shocking response of "could be this, could be that, I'm blocking regardless" and then his deletion of the thread (omitting it from his archive). A cover-up? After that, The Rambling Man made blocking Chidel somewhat of a crusade, partly because of their involvement in a pending featured article nomination that the former favored/nurtured/schemed to get approved and that the latter opposed. Where is a block on a registered account authorized in the absence of any kind of disruption? Chidel's edits were entirely constructive. 195.7.100.44 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I simply asked for YellowMonkey's advice, nothing more. I didn't request a checkuser either. It was determined that Chidel was using an open proxy, which was subsequently blocked. Mostly what I've done since is report open proxies at the appropriate Wikiproject. I did make a reversion of one the proxy's edits this afternoon which was swiftly reverted by another proxy - I've left it since then. I have also encouraged the nominator of the featured list to verify the factual concerns of the various Chidel proxies. It seems strange that we have so many different editors all suddenly editing from open proxies. I wonder why they can't simply register an account and edit that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted three edits by that user. But who's counting? And note your subsequent contacts of YellowMonkey, presumably to prompt him to perform more blocks of Chidel. None of this would have happened had the IP been blocked per policy (instead of the constructive registered user) and had you, as an administrator, actually studied the open proxy policy when your error was brought to your attention. 69.114.251.90 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to "presume" whatever you like. I didn't block you. YellowMonkey was the blocking admin. Please take it up with him. In the meantime, you really should stop using open proxies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A mere technicality and pure Wikilawyering. "Hey, YellowMonkey, you blocked Chidel previously after I contacted you. Would you do it again?" "Yeah, sure." "Thanks!" That's the essence of your discussions with him: (1), (2). The only difference between you and him is that he pressed the block button. You've since broadened the "let's block Chidel crusade" to include Don Lope and Fyunck(click). Who will you add next to the list? 68.105.41.151 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should stop editing from open proxies. You could always request an unblock for your Chidel account. And all open proxies should be listed at the appropriate place, awaiting further investigation from other admins. Thanks. Finally, I am disengaging from this discussion. I don't understand why you wouldn't register an account and stop using open proxies, but I guess that's your choice. For what it's worth, I have also disengaged from the tennis FLC you and the other accounts have been contributing to, I've informed both directors as such, and have left a note at the FLC encouraging reviewers to consider factual concerns. Also for what it's worth, I wasn't the first to suggest the FLC be restarted. And thirdly, for what it's worth, I personally encouraged Don to pay heed to any factual concerns raised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note YellowMonkey's sad and shocking contempt for the checkuser process. He said on 21 July to The Rambling Man, "Each time I ask a CU they just tell that google will answer me.... all rather perplexing, I know one CU likes to proclaim their tech expertise and tells the rest of us that he is willing to help them but he never responds (or says he is adding the data into his smart data analysis program and never responds afterwards) and never does any CUs except in some famous cases when he can get famous and tell everyone about his incisive sharpeye nonsense...." This is a rogue administrator attitude that resulted in his taking the checkuser process and Wikipedia privacy policy into his own hands, in secret, without oversight, and in contravention of the open proxy policy. But what did The Rambling Man, an administrator that some have suggested should once again become a bureaucrat, do about it? Nothing. 69.13.197.160 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:98.248.32.178 conducts excessive section blanking

Resolved

The user User:98.248.32.178 is relentless in removing an Economy section from the Silver Spring, Maryland page with a description and list of companies. He/She will not discuss any disagreements and reason on the Silver Spring talk page and has escalated to an editing war. Only one response on their own personal page notes "Poor placement, lack of context, redlinks galore, etc... " I even went as far as to address these issues, by removing dead links and adding more description but like I have said it is a work in progress and that certainly defines the core of Wikipedia as a whole... a work in progress.

I am not aware of any rules defining the placement of sections after the intro on an article page. Please let me know, but if so, rather than do this the User: 98.248.32.178 is section blanking and this I believe is a form of vandalism.

It should be noted that his/her page has numerous complaints in particular, the excessive section blanking and the user has not resorted to a real user name to easily be identifiable. Waveshi (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Both Waveshi and 98.248.32.178 blocked for 3RR violation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at Barney Frank

Resolved

 – The page was protected Harlem675 08:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it needs protection, or maybe someone can just keep an eye on it. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Looks like frequent IP vandalism, I think an admin should semi-protect it for a short period of time. Harlem675 08:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave it 3-days semi. DMacks (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Loyzaga Article

I would like to report, this Anonymous IP user User:122.104.194.58 keeps editing and removing the proper terms of an Individual Award in the article Carlos Loyzaga. My argument is that the individual award he received in the 1954 FIBA World Championship was called "1954 FIBA World Championship Mythical Team", means the five best players of the tournament. But the said user, keep re-editing the article and change to "1954 FIBA World Championship All-Star" and its gives people the wrong idea that the World Championship has an "All-Star" game. I even provided a source but he deleted that source as well. The guy also uses this IP address User:122.104.185.193.. So I'm guessing he is using an Internet Cafe--peads (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ethelh, outing concerns, and WP:BLP violations at Sam Fuld

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Sam Fuld

The above user is repeatedly inserting a definitive religion into the article in violation of our policies on such things. Additionally, she has been warned that what she is doing is wrong, and could lead to her being blocked. I also pointed her toward the discussion at the BLP noticeboard, where we worked out the BLP issues, when she approached me at my talkpage. Something needs to be done, as she is now hinting at outing me. Unitanode 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article in question, Sam Fuld, was formerly stable. User:Unitanode has in the last 24 hours deleted three times (among other appropriate language) the statement that Fuld is Jewish. See [76]

I detailed the basis for that statement not only in my edit summaries, but also discussed it at some length on the article's talk page [77] and the talk page of the complaining editor (Unitanode) [78]. In my last edit summary, I had entreated Unitanode to "Please stop edit warring; please leave as is (and has it has been, in stable form, for a long time) and discuss on talk page where I have discussed."[79]) His response was ingnore my entreaty, and to revert yet again.

As to the substance of the dispute, the deleted language was as follows: "Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill." In place of that, Unitanode insists on "Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic."

The support for the deleted three words consists of three citations (emphasis added below; below, the number rises to nine), as follows:

Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill.

The complaining editor here would delete the words "who is Jewish" (see [80]), and instead indicate the religions of Fuld's parents, as follows:

Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic.

One article of the above three citations, written by Jonathan Mayo, a senior staff writer for MLB.com (the official publication of major league baseball), who has been writing for MLB.com on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post), and who has been writing about Fuld since 2007, states: "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg .... ". ("Members of the Tribe", also known as "MOT" is slang for Jewish (Israelite or Member of the Tribe of Judah), as is reflected at [81] and [82]).

A second article says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13".

And a third citation clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.)."

I would note that Jews are a nation and ethnicity, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates that a Jew is a member "of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group .... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated". Jews therefore differ from many other religions, which are not ethnicities or nations.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, but inclusion must be justifiable by external references. Such is the case here. The article does not state what he believes in, just that he is a member of this ethnoreligious group, where ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly related. With three supporting citations, including one who is a senior writer for the official publication of the sport, and who has written on Fuld in both 2007 and 2009, I believe that the citations amply warrant the sentence as is.

WP:BLPCAT, which my colleague refers to, is limited to statements as to the subject's "religious beliefs and sexual orientation." Here, that is not the focus (we do not say "Fuld believes in Judaism ... for example, he could be a Jew for Jesus). We only say that he is part of the ethnoreligious nationality known as the Jewish people; what two of the authors above refer to as a "member of the tribe". I note, as well, that curiously while railing against the deletion of the heavily sourced reference to Fuld's religion, he insists on inserting references to Fuld's parents' religions -- which clearly don't meet the standard that my colleague (innappropriately, I would suggest) says apply. See [83], in which he again reverted my deletions of those references. I also note that the criteria for religion per se brings to mind the rhetorical question: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Apparently, by the criteria, not unless we can find a statement made by him to that effect; and, judging by my research, it is possible that none exists.

In addition, it should be noted that my colleague bases his deletions on a guidance as to category tags on wikipedia. But he was not deleting category tags at all -- he was deleting text within the article. Category tags, of course, raise different issues -- as the guidance says, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". While for the aforementioned reasons the category should also remain, it should be noted that the entire premise for his removal of this information was based on an innapplicable guideline.

I also think it a shame that my fellow editor would not agree to leave the article in the form that it has been in stable fashion for an extended period of time, and instead insisted on edit warring despite my entreaties to leave it as is and discuss on the talk pages.

As to my question as to User:Betty Logan, she has been wikistalking me and warned as recently as [84] ("Don't worry about Betty Logan, I have given her a warning. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:08, 21 July 2009"). I noted that the complaining editor did not have any history on this article or other baseball articles, but since Betty has been warned for wikistalking me just this week and "piling on", out of curiosity I asked if they were one and the same.--Ethelh (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – This is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. User:Unitanode boldly removed various sourced facts on 25 July 09 (the dispute being about whether the sources support the facts, which in my estimate they do), has been reverted, and there should now be the discussion phase per WP:BRD. And User:Unitanode is edit-warring and ANIing, rather than discussing. Occuli (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unitadone is not edit warring, but trying to enforce BLP. Before Unitadone arrived on the scene I raised the BLP/synthesis issue on the Fuld talk page, and was rebuffed. There was contradictory information about his religion, and in view of that, and no direct statement from Fuld one way or the other, BLP prevents us from saying that he was of one faith or the other. I posted on the BLP noticeboard and Unitadone responded by changing the article to reflect the sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The outing attempt is definitely an ANI matter, and some action is needed. As regards Fuld, unless he converted, he's not Jewish, since his mother is Catholic, and in Jewish tradition the religion of the mother is what matters. Right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That's really up to Fuld. Unless he says so, I don't think we can. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • On the Jewish tradition thing: it depends on what part of Judaism I understand. That's why we need a statement from Fuld. Wikipedia should not be an arbiter of "who is a Jew" controversies. If Fuld doesn't identify his religion, given the state of facts, we should simply not say so.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I brought the issue here because it felt like an "incident." I was attempting to clean up some BLP issues, when Ethelh began bald reverting me. Fixing BLP problems is an exception to WP:EDITWAR. Then she made the creepy outing-style post, which finally convinced me to bring it here, instead of WP:BLP/N. Perhaps this was a mistake, but it's what I thought was best. Unitanode 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

People, if you want to make this an administrator matter, here's what the administrator response will be: An administrator such as myself will come along, remove the disputed content from the article (in accordance with the BLP policy's strictures), and protect the article so that none of you can edit it. I suggest that you don't make this an administrator matter, and that you all instead voluntarily restrict yourselves to discussing this on the article talk page without the contested information in the article, rather than waiting for an administrator to force you to do so. Because that will be the outcome here if you make this an administrator matter. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh I'll make this my last post here, as I'm clearly not making myself understood. I came across this article only because of the BLP issues, which I fixed. Ethelh reverted to a BLP non-compliant version without comment. I don't have any particular interest in the subject of this article, except as it pertains to it being a BLP. My issues that need administrator attention are twofold: 1) Ethelh is reinserting BLP violations into the article; and 2) Her weird outing post was against policy as well. If these aren't big enough "incidents" to require administrator action to prevent her disruption (both on the BLP side, and the outing side), I guess that's fine. Unitanode 14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's right. I raised the issue on the BLP/N originally, a week or more ago, for the purpose of getting administrator (or BLP-sensitive) intervention. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I know how you came here (I put the {{see also}} at the head of this section.), and I've seen your patrolling of BLP/N long since. But there is more than just you involved here, and the administrator action that will be taken will nonetheless be the above. It's how such issues are addressed.

    As to the "wierd post": That was explained above. It wasn't outing. It was a badly-phrased "are you a sockpuppet?" request. (Even a simple internal link would have clarified it.) The name was the name of an English Wikipedia account. Of course, sockpuppetry was a bad assumption to leap to straight off the bat. But it wasn't, at least according to the explanation above, an attempt to seek or to demonstrate an external identity. So far it's one badly phrased question based upon poor assumptions, and a follow-up explanation of that question. It isn't disruption. Don't make an issue of it that will turn it into disruption. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Ethelh accuses every editor who contradicts her/him of being Betty Logan. It's just a ploy to make a good editor look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.161 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::::I agree with Johnny B256. This attempting to name people's religion almost always seems to be about Jews, odd that. And Ethelh's version has, as the first few words in the section on this person's personal life, "Fuld, who is Jewish" -- is this typical I wonder? If I look at other articles on athletes will is see '"Joe Bloggs, who is Christian" as the typical intro to a Christian athlete's biography? Why in the world is this so important? The current version starts with a sentence saying his father is Catholic and mother Jewish, which I hope is also not typical of our biographies. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• The "father who is/mother who is" thing was simply an attempt to keep a version of the info that Ethelh liked in the article, while also keeping it BLP-compliant. I have no problem if it's removed, as it does feel a bit awkward, even though it's adequately sourced. The larger issues regard her outing and repeated BLP violations, though. Unitanode 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just EthelH. If you go back through the edit history you can see that I was instantly reverted by another editor the two times I removed the religion and the categories, even before it was sourced at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm extraordinarily confused by all this. While I will accept the explanation of her post asking me if I was "Betty Logan", Ethelh is repeatedly inserting BLP violations into the article, yet the only thing actionable is page protection? I guess I don't understand. It would seem that blocking the BLP violator is a better solution, but if you feel that only page protection is acceptable, I can live with that, I guess. As long as there aren't any BLP violations in the protected article, it shouldn't be a problem. Unitanode 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Removing the editing privileges doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that some editors that think that there are sources to support the content and some editors think that the content is controversial and wholly unsupported (and possibly outright contradicted) by the actual sources cited. That's solved by talk page discussion. As I said, the administrator action taken will thus be the usual one: remove the content from the article, protect the article, and force the discussion to take place on the talk page, when it hasn't gone there voluntarily. Clearly, given the length of xyr posts on this noticeboard alone, at least one of the editors is willing to participate in such a discussion, and is holding xyr position in good faith. So stopping xem from editing, and thus from participating in such a discussion, is counterproductive. Uncle G (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the BLP issue is, but here's an interview with Sam Fuld from a couple of years ago, on the Cubs MLB page, in which he talks about celebrating both Hannukah and Christmas, while not saying which of the two (if either) he adheres to: [85] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One interesting comment mentions "a couple of Jewish friends". Would someone who is fully Jewish refer to "Jewish friends"? I think only someone who is not Jewish (or not fully Jewish) would use an expression like that. As of 2 years ago, at least, it seems like he considers himself "a bit of both". The citations that Ethel lists seem to belong to the category of "claiming as their own", but they might be jumping to conclusions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just so you know, the particular policy issue can be found here. It's a relatively cut-and-dried violation, as his religion (whatever it is) has no bearing on his notability, nor has he made any claim regarding it. Unitanode 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for admin intervention here, except in the matter of a possible outing. The BLP issue is better handled on the relevant noticeboard. If it's still unresolved then the thread there should be continued.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• We had resolved the issue at WP:BLP/N, when Ethelh came back and started reinserting the problematic BLP stuff, as well as asking me if I was Betty Logan. Those seemed like an "incidents" to me, so I brought it here, and linked this discussion at the BLP/N board. Anyways, if I was wrong to do so, I apologize. Unitanode 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Will, there have been no recent edits at Sam Fuld, but the issue does not appear to be resolved if I am interpreting correcting this post[86] on your talk page. I will note that at BLP/N. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) The test -- Unitanode reverted textual language (not a category reference) that I had inserted. He has in the past, and continues to above, assert incorrectly that the category tag criteria (which states that if we say "Fuld says he believes in the Jewish religion," we need a source that has him stating as much). That's simply not the test for deletions of textual information, which is what Unitanode engaged in. It is sufficient to reflect that Fuld is Jewish in the text of the article if one has reliable sources, which we have here.

Unitanode is certainly edit warring (he refused to leave the article as it was, and instead reverted, despite entreaties). And he is not trying to enforce BLP, as he is applying the patently BLP category tag standard to what is clearly a non-category-tag edit.

To make Unitanode's application of the wrong test even more peculiar, as another feature of his reverting he continued to insert the religions of Fuld's parents (which, per Unitanode's -- innapropriate -- test would not have warranted inclusion). Even though I kept deleting the references. And clearly the religion of Fuld's parents is less notable than Fuld's religion for Fuld's bio. This makes no sense, and is wholly inconsistent with Unitanode's explanations. [On July 28, well into this discussion, my colleague deleted those references at [87], but with jaw-dropping inconsistency wrote in his edit summary "it's really either no mention, or a brief, sourced mention of both parents' religions, by way of context", thereby continuing to insist that it is OK for him to reflect the religions of Fuld's parents -- despite the fact that we have absolutely no "self-identification" by the parents, who are living people. He doesn't even apply his own (incorrect) rule in a consistent fashion.]

I've even added six new sources below. In one of them, in painstaking detailed fashion the author describes the process engaged in before Fuld was identified as Jewish. In short, Fuld's inclusion on the list of Jews in baseball required that Fuld either state that he was Jewish in an interview, or that he or his representative or very close family member indicate that Fuld had one or more Jewish parents, and that Fuld was not raised in a faith other than Judaism, and that Fuld does not adhere to a faith other than Judaism, and that Fuld does not have any objection to being identified as Jewish in the pages of the publication.

2) Sources -- I agree with Occuli (above) that the sources support the facts. I discuss below why, and in addition add six more sources.

a) One source was an article written by a 10-year-veteran and Senior Editor of the official publication of major league baseball (MLB.com), who had been writing on Fuld for at least two years. That source in and of itself more than adequately supports the statement, and is all that is needed.

b) The second source listed above is a blog; that is not reason, in and of itself, to disregard it. Per Wikipedia:Blogs as sources, blogs may be used as sources in Wikipedia articles, depending on the blog in question (specifically, the nature of its author and/or publication), and this author and the publication are just the sort countenanced by the guidance.

The author of that entry, Ron Kaplan, is a journalist. He is the sports and features editor for the newspaper in question, and he has been writing for that newspaper for five years. He is also the editor of the Bibliography Committee Newsletter for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). SABR, as its name suggests, is a serious baseball research organization, established in 1971 to foster the research and dissemination of the history and record of baseball. The author's work has also appeared in such publications as Baseball America, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Forward, January Magazine, and American Book Review among others.[88]

The newspaper in which his column appears has been publishing since 1946, is among the largest Jewish newspapers in America, and the largest-circulation weekly newspaper in New Jersey.[89] The column itself is entitled "On Jews and Sports" -- squarely the focus of the entry in question.

c) There are additional sources that indicate that Fuld is Jewish. For example, the book Day by Day in Jewish Sports History includes reference to Fuld (Day by day in Jewish sports history, Wechsler, Bob, p. 175, Ktav Publishing House (2007), ISBN 0881259691, 9780881259698)

d) In addition is the article in which Nate Bloom states: “Completing the roster of major league Hebrews … [is] outfielder Sam Fuld.”Bloom, Nate, “Interfaith Celebrities Play Ball and Dance the Merengue”, InterFaithFamily.com. Bloom writes a weekly column on Jewish celebrities that appears in the Atlanta Jewish Times, the Cleveland Jewish News, the American Israelite of Cincinnati, the Detroit Jewish News, the New Jersey Jewish Standard, and the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California.

e) A long explanation of the criteria that Fuld had to meet before he was identified as Jewish is set forth at Bloom, Nate, “Interfaith Celebrities: Play Ball! Specifically, it states:

“this season about half the active major leaguers identified as Jewish by Jewish Sports Review, a bimonthly newsletter, have interfaith backgrounds. Jewish Sports Review is the premiere source on "who is Jewish" in baseball ... on the ... pro level…virtually every good source on "who is Jewish" in baseball is built on the Review's hard work.... I thought readers might like to know the "inside scoop" on ... what their definition of "Jewish" entails. Every once in a while, the Review adds a player because he is clearly identified as Jewish in a very good news source like an interview. More often, they decide to contact a player (or a player's representative or very close family member... If they are told (by the player or his rep) that the player has one or more Jewish parents--they then inquire if the player was raised in and/or currently adheres to a faith other than Judaism. If the player answers "yes" to either of those questions--that ends the Review's inquiries and they don't cover the player. On the other hand, if they are told the player was raised Jewish or "nothing"--the Review then asks if the player has any objection to being identified as Jewish in the pages of the Review. If not, then they add him.”

f) See also Bloom, Nate, “Celebrities,” The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, 4/4/08, accessed 7/27/09, “Completing the roster of 2008 major league Jews: ... Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld” (emphasis added)

g) In addition, Jewish Major Leaguers Inc., which produces cards of Jewish baseball players in association with the American Jewish Historical Society, and licensed by Major League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, lists Fuld as a Jewish baseball player.[90] Jewish Major Leaguers, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization with a mission to "document American Jews in America's Game." Its work builds on the research of the Jewish Sports Review, Total Baseball, the American Jewish Historical Society, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame."Documenting America's Jews in America's Game"

h) Furthermore, the September 11, 2008, article entitled "September yields small fall crop of Jewish Major Leaguers," by Ron Kaplan, Features Editor for New Jersey Jewish News, states: "there has been a steady minyan of Jews up in the Show throughout the 2008 season.... Here’s a brief look at some players who spent at least part of 2008 with their teams’ AAA affiliates.... A few — such as ... Sam Fuld — have already enjoyed the proverbial “cup of coffee”" (emphasis added).[91]

3) Notability. As to the issue of notability of the Jew/baseball intersection, which I see is now being raised, this has long been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the notability of the intersection is demonstrated by the fact that there are nine articles devoted to it (in Fuld's case) and countless articles, books, a baseball card set of Jewish major leaguers endorsed by Cooperstown, Major League Baseball "Jewish ballplayers" day at Cooperstown, etc.. It's not a subjective test ("Do I think it notable"), but an objective one ("Do others write about it?"; "Is it treated as notable by major league baseball?"). And just as major league baseball treats the intersection as notable (see "Jewish players celebrated at Hall", MLB.com, and "Jewish baseball players have their day(s) at Cooperstown", USA Today), and the American Jewish Historical Society licensed by Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, and with the support of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum joined in the production of a set of baseball cards of Jewish ballplayers"Tribute is in the cards for Jewish ballplayers: Set documents their contribution", The Boston Globe, and books have been written about the Jewish ballplayers "The big book of Jewish baseball" By Joachim Horvitz, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948,” By Burton Alan Boxerman, Benita W. Boxerman, Martin Abramowitz and Ellis Island to Ebbets Field By Peter Levine, all manner of recognition by major league baseball, the hall of fame, article writers, and book authors point to the notability of the intersection.

4) My wikistalker -- As I've explained, I have my own wikistalker, and as the above url shows I've had problems with her as recently as this week. Not having ever seen my new friend Unitanode, and because neither he nor my other new friend Johnny had mentioned that there had been a notice on this matter which Johnny had made (and Unitanode was prompted by) that brought Unitanode to my doorstep, the thought crossed my mind that it could be my wikistalker once again. I thought that asking Unitanode the question was the Wiki way -- discussion -- and now that I've been apprised as to how he came to join this cheery discussion I totally understand and accept that he is not she, and I apologize if the question raised any hackles on his part. In any event, had his answer been yes, that of course would not in and of itself even have been sockpuppetry, since my wikistalker I understand is allowed more than one identity here, and of course further facts must be present for it to be a sock violation, so I had not thought my simple question would so upset Unitanode. But, seeing that it has, I apologize.--Ethelh (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral revision of the Wiki guidance at issue by Unitanode. I'm more that a little surpised: Unitanode has just now unilaterally revised the Wiki guidance at issue, with a heavy-handed, self-important, no-discussion-needed approach, so that the language would support his postion (as the guidance clearly did not support it). I've reverted, with an explanation in the edit summary. See [92] Excuse me, but it strikes me his actions may not be at all "kosher".

Who unilaterally changes the rule being interpreted at an ANI, in the middle of a discussion of the application of the rule itself, so that it says something it did not say before, supporting their position where it did not support it previously?

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states clearly that "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits." Can someone please address this?

There are very good reasons for the fact that there are different Wiki standards for text and category tags in this regard. A simple perusing of the language of the two different standards, and the discussions between the draftspeople, makes that clear. The fact that with category tags there are no citations indicating why a person is in the category led the draftpeople to create a higher standard for the category tags (even that standard began only as an effort to avoid upsetting people who were said to be gay while they were not ... and the rule was then extended to religion ... though the line was drawn when it was considered that perhaps it should be extended to ethnicity and race (e.g., do Tiger Woods, Obama, or Ali have to self-identify as being African American to be categorized as such). Text, in contrast, has citations (when people do their job), which indicate the basis of the support for the statement, and the reader can read and put a value on those citations -- hence the clearly stated different standard for text entries (reliable source). Different standards exist for category tags and for text, and in this case there was a thought-through reason for establishing different standards for the two. For the seasoned editor on the other side of the issue to seek to wriggle out of the fact that the guideline only applies to category tags (not text, which has a different standard) by unilaterally changing the guideline is not the best behaviour that I've seen on Wikipedia.--Ethelh (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where, in any of the cited sources, does Fuld himself assert that he is Jewish? Someone else claiming him as "one of their own" is not sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

None of them do so. FYI, pretty much this identical discussion, with similarly lengthy and irrelevant citations and references, is droning on and on and on and on at BLP/N. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Baseball Bugs -- I apologize, but I gather from your question that I have not been sufficiently clear.

a) The test for textual references. There simply is no requirement that Fuld himself assert that he is Jewish, for there to be a textual reference in the article to that effect. That's simply not the test for textual references. And what is at issue here, at the moment, is Unitanode's deletions of textual references (not category tags).

The test for references other than category tags is that the information be supported by reliable third-party sources. That test is met here by one source who is a senior editor for the official publication of Major League Baseball. It is met as well by an organization licensed by Major League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (Cooperstown) to identify and recognize Jewish major league baseball players. Finally, a third source described the process used by it to identify Fuld as Jewish; the process required that Fuld himself not have any objection to being identified as Jewish.

b) The test for category tags. Category tags fall under a different rule, specifically "WP:BLPCAT". As its very name suggests, that rule applies specifically to category tags.

I discuss above the rationale that supports category tags coming under a different rule (they cannot carry the citations to the supporting third-party article, unlike the text of the article, which itself can/should have appended to it the footnote citation to the third party source that supports the statement).

c) History of the category tag rule. In addition to the manifest words of the guideline, which clearly indicate that it refers to Wikipedia Categories (and in no place references application to article text), the history of the discussion of the rule reflects the recognition that the rule applies only to Wikipedia Category Tags (and not to text).

Interestingly, when this guideline was first proposed in September 2007 it was originally meant to cover only sexual preference (where someone might be embarassed by Wikipedia getting it wrong). Other category tags, including birthplace, ethnicity, political stands, and medical issues were discussed but not included. But at Will's suggestion a second segment of category tag-- religious beliefs -- was included. Will clarified his suggestion by saying: "We aren't forbidding inclusion of any discussion of ... religious beliefs, just the flat declaration that a subject has a certain ... religion unless there's been a statement by the subject on the topic." (So, presumably, one could say the clunkier "x, a senior reporter for major league baseball, reports that Fuld is Jewish.")

In January 2008 an editor in fact suggested that the guideline be expanded, so that it would not cover category tags only, but also any claims in the bio text regarding the person's sexual preference or religion. After considerable discussion, the proposal to expand the guideline beyond "category tags" was not accepted. See [93]

So, not only does the guideline not apply to anything other than category tags, a proposal that it be expanded beyond category tags was not accepted.--Ethelh (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, the change I made was simply a change to state the obvious. 99.9% of people reading that policy will probably consider it redundant, but for the 0.1% that don't, it's helpful. And to Uncle G: posting walls of text does not mean she's actually participating in a discussion. The BLP issue is pretty straightforward; she just doesn't want to abide by the policy in question, and seems to be convinced that if she can just browbeat us with post after post denying it, we'll quit enforcing that policy. Unitanode 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is beyond cavil that a main focus of this entire discussion here has been interpretation of the Wiki guideline WP:BLPCAT. That is the very guideline, and indeed the very aspect of the guideline, that Unitanode quietly and unilaterally changed, in the middle of this active discussion. His action falls squarely within -- indeed, could be a poster child for, a violation of the above Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mandate against: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion."--Ethelh (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but we don't have to go back and reinvent the wheel on every conceivable issue that may arise in a discussion. There was no need to post a lengthy essay on why the religion of ballplayers is sometimes notable. In this particular instance the religion of the ballplayer is in doubt. The issue here is the adequacy of sourcing of Fuld's religion, a straightforward BLP issue involving a total of three contradictory sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of 'wikistalking'

I think we need to clear up this accusation of wikihounding, I'll notify the person accused (user:Betty Logan and the editor who Ethelh says warned her of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked through BL's contribution list, and it appears to be more issues with Ethelh, not BL. From what I can tell, the two main issues were with Ethelh edit-warring at a different baseball player article, and attempting to insert unreferenced or poorly referenced names onto a list. Unitanode 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion, but I have nothing to add. I am not involved in this dispute, I just happened to be dealing with an AN3 report with which Ethelh was involved when BettyLogan appeared out of nowhere to harrass him with an unnecessary 3rr warning (after the edit warring had already stopped and the report been dealt with). I have a poor impression of BettyLogan, but that is all; I made no accusations of behavior problems that need intervention or whatever, and I'm not really part of this argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say on my behalf that I felt Rjanag handled the situation poorly. This "harrassment" amounted to me posting a single warning on Ethel's page for edit-warring after I felt the other party in the dispute was unfairly treated by Rjanag. Ethel was repeatedly trying to add challenged information to an article from what I recall and reverted the article a few times. The other party was reported by Ethelh for "edit warring" and received a warning from Rjanag in due course despite the fact he hadn't violated 3RR, and Ethel hadn't followed any of the procedures for adding challenged information to teh article. I felt this was unsatisfactory given Ethel's forceful nature and the fact she hadn't taken it to the talk page nor requested a 3rd opinion as should have been par for course in such a situation. Rjanag has a poor opinion of me simply because I expressed my dissastisfaction with how he handled the situation. If he had handled it properly maybe this current situation probably wouldn't have blown up. This is documented on my talk page for anyone who wishes to look into it further. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't "express your dissatisfaction", you went and unnecessarily harrassed another user. Expressing your dissatisfaction would have been going to the edit warring noticeboard and commenting on the discussion (to say "I disagree with Rjanag's handling of this"), not leaving a redundant and unexplained {{subst:uw-3rr}} on one user's page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness you "harrassed" an innocent editor by threatening to temporarily ban him simply because another editor was throwing a strop, rather than resolving the issue with the editor who was clearly ignoring Wikipedia protocol. Pretty much like the situation above. If leaving a single warning for edit warring on an editor's page who has been edit warring is "harrassment" then in fact half of Wikipedean editors have waged harrassment at one stage. Harrassment in my view is a sustained campaign of unwanted attention, which is actually what I have been receiving from Ethel with numerous messages on my talk page, and numerous accusations of being other editors. I did respond to your comments on my page but you had obviously made up your mind and weren't interested in why I felt you had wrongly taken action against another editor, since you didn't afford me the courtesy of a response. The above dispute is a prime example of you failing to nip something in the bud. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't respond on your talk page because your message was picking a fight and didn't need a response—for the exact reason I pointed out above, it was not the right forum for bringing up a complaint about the AN3 report. If you really wanted to issue a complaint, there are ways to do it. Anyway, for the same reasons, I will not be responding to you anymore here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason you didn't respond was because I legitimately challenged your course of action. Yes I was annoyed with you because I thought the other editor was treated unfairly and the dispute from above indicates my concerns weren't exactly unfounded. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rjanag. I should also mention that Betty's comments above are a mischaracterization, as I did seek to contact the editor in question on their talk page. Specifically, I wrote on the editor's talk page "... The inline references are appropriate, support the text, and comport with Wikipedia guidelines.--Ethelh (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) --Ethelh (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)" The last time that Betty made the same misstatement, I brought it to her attention at [94], but perhaps she has forgotten.--Ethelh (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the first step here would be to require Ethel to provide evidence of my wiki-stalking her and a list of all the sockpuppets I supposedly use. First of all we have only crossed swords on one article, and that was an article I was already working on before she joined in. I have never edited an article she was already working on, at least to my knowledge. I have left three or four messages on her talk page, most of them in relation to our original dispute. The only message since then was the aformentioned edit-warring warning. She has left considerably more messages on my talk page which I just ignore these days. This is just a lot of silliness and I think the more pertinant problem is the dispute above. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of any assistance, as to why I think may well be followed by a Wikistalker from Connecticut (I have no knowledge as to whether it is Betty or not). In short, the approach of the stalker has been to parachute into discussions between me and a user or admin, taking the other side or "piling on". Often, it was a "single purpose" user. Such was the case in the first instance, on May 27: [95], where a user that was created and its only edit ever was to parachute into my initial discussion with Betty. That seemed odd. When I could geolocate the third party parachuter, it was often a Connecticut user (e.g., from Cromwell, Waterbury, or Milford). On July 21, an IP from Connecticut that made only a handful of revisions seemed to focus (critically) especially on articles I was editing ... see [96] ... and again the IP was from Connecticut. That same day, just a few days ago, Betty parachuted into a discussion that I was having that did not concern her, and was warned by the third party as mentioned above. See [97] Most recently, on this very talkpage, the same thing happened 00 see [98] -- again, an IP that traces to Connecticut, and again a single-purpose user. I of course don't know for sure if one or more of these IPs and accounts are related, but this is some of the circumstantial evidence that I have to report (I didn't keep a record of all such incidents).--Ethelh (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can assure doug I only edit from this account, and if Ethel is being wikistalked it doesn't seem there is a shortage of suspects. I imagine it is easy enough to check whether I post from Winnipeg or not. While we are on the subject though, during mine and Ethel's original dispute it was not me who worked through another editor's entire contribution history contacting everyone that person had an altercation with to drum up a lynch mob! Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If Betty (and I have no reason to believe she is not telling the truth) was not behind the Connecticut wikistalking incidents (which do appear to me, subjectively, to likely be the same party), then as she says I may have a separate party stalking me. That only leaves (as to her) the questions of: a) the recent incident discussed above (where she parachuted in, as an uninvolved party, and was warned by Rjanag that her behavior was innappropriate); and b) as I do not know the geolocation of "Smiley 589" whose only entry ever was one made on May 27 in the middle of my conversation with Betty -- a question as to where Smiley 589 is from.--Ethelh (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Ethel is being stalked or not - if she is I do hope you get to the bottom of it, especially if her work is being damaged. I think she's given you enough information now for you to verify it's not me. I haven't edited any of the articles she works on simply because I don't want her returning the favour! If she wants to leave messages on my talk page I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I don't feel harrassed by it and I don't wish for any action to be taken against her on my account. If you look at her contributions many of them are valid, and when she gets into these disputes it's because she thinks her contributions are valid. Unfortunately these disputes are an ongoing problem, but I think it is resolvable and the only reason it hasn't been resolved is because admins simply refuse to step up to the problem. I mean if you read the dispute above they simply don't want to know. Ethel needs someone to take her by the hand and walk her through the 'consensus' process for when her contributions are challenged i.e. taking it to the talk page/directing the other parties there/3o/rfc etc. If she sees the process arrive at a conclusion she can live with then it will reduce these blow-ups which seem to be a weekly occurrence for her. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion, copyright violations, and threats of vandalism

Admin Dougweller suggested I request a rangeblock to deal with persistent block evasion and copyright violations by Rock5410. Dougweller has already blocked the sockpuppet Jeet698 and multiple related IP addresses, but this user changes IP addresses several times a day and blocking is getting to be an exercise in futility. (Mymac007 is another likely sock.) Most of the edits include content copyrighted elsewhere, and attempts at discussion about the persistent copyright violations have been ignored. This user has threatened to vandalize twice, once on July 16 and again today. A rangeblock for 122.161.xx.xxx to 122.163.xx.xxx would be much more effective than the current piecemeal blocking. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

196,608 IP addresses - not going to happen, especially when in order to be effective, it would have to be for a week or longer. Best to protect the individual pages; perhaps request at WP:RFPP? Tan | 39 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible anyway; sysops can only block a /16 range or smaller (for example 122.161.xx.xx). Stifle (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Three different /16 blocks? Tan | 39 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be an unusually large block... We can do that, but it's probably not a great solution.

WeisheitSuchen - can you please provide us with a detailed list of the specific IP addresses in use? I see a bunch of smaller subnets we can deal with, on first inspection, and i'm going to do one small rangeblock. We can also try a edit filter. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Following myself up - 122.163.79.0/24 is now blocked for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I mentioned above it was "not going to happen". I was musing about three different blocks as a theoretical solution. I still think page protection is by far the best solution. Tan | 39 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Small blocks are good, but a large block is unreasonable for all the users living in that region. By doing so is like closing down a shop just because there's one shoplifter. -- 科学高爾夫迷 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

NIIT was semi-protected on July 10; it did provide a few days of respite from the cleanup, but it didn't really have any long-term effect. Here's a list of all the IP addresses that have made changes in the last 10 days or so on NIIT, Kuvempu University, and National Institute of Open Schooling, the three major places where copyright violations have occurred. Maybe this will give you some more reasonable ranges to block. Sorry about my original request being so big; I hadn't really thought through how many that was. Hopefully this will give you some better patterns to look for. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

122.161.164.138
122.161.164.221
122.161.165.211
122.161.165.218
122.161.165.238
122.161.165.71
122.161.62.100
122.161.62.71
122.161.63.109
122.161.63.162
122.161.63.174
122.161.63.9
122.161.63.92
122.162.42.41
122.163.3.212
122.163.3.235
122.163.3.246
122.163.3.41
122.163.77.31
122.163.79.111
122.163.79.152
122.163.79.238
122.163.79.36
122.163.79.95

I have rangeblocked 122.161.164.0/23 in addition to the earlier block. I am reviewing 122.161.62.0/23 and 122.163.3.0/24. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these rangeblocks are ineffective and probably have too much collatoral damage for little to no effect. It's clear that the user is able to hop around the entire 122.16x.xxx.xxx range at will; just because there are several repeated ones does not mean rangeblocks are called for. Shutting down 62.0/23, for example, will just make him skip to another one. If the larger range is too big to be blocked, smaller ones are ineffective - this is akin to locking one of the four doors of your car to prevent theft. If you can't lock them all, it just doesn't matter - and in this case, you are possibly preventing productive editors from contributing. Tan | 39 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the better part of a /15 isn't a good solution unless it is our last resort against an especially pernicious user. I do agree in some sense w/ Tan: rangeblocks are ineffective if they aren't likely to prevent substantively more than single IP blocks. If an ISP will renew an IP lease across a broad range than blocking a narrow range offers no solace. However if the ISP renews within a relatively narrow range, then I think the collateral damage is worth it (generally speaking). Protonk (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If we're at the point of cherry-picking smaller ranges to block, then I think semi-protting might be a better way to go. MuZemike 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't appear to have complete freedom of IPs; they've landed in a limited set of netblocks so far, which tends to indicate it's somewhat contained.

That said - anyone who wants to impose a week's semiprotection on all the articles is welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked 122.163.3.0/24 for 48 hrs as there was another one of these edits from that range after the first block. Let's see what happens overnight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

+ 122.161.62.0/23 for 48 hrs as they picked up from there. I have a working theory that they have a lot less IP choices in the /15 than you all think - and that we're close to nailing them. If this is not the case (3-4 more IP ranges pop up after this) then we should semiprotect the articles for a month or some such (may be a good idea anyways, but I'm not going to do it tonight and then walk away). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the three pages for three days apiece. I agree with Tanthalas about the rangeblocks. Worth a shot, I guess, but unlikely to stop the user. Enigma^msg 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to convince them to go away, and either one or both of these methods could work. We may need to extend either or both. But we have plenty of options. I don't see much collateral damage in a few /23 /24 sized blocks in there - but the articles won't be hurt by even semi-permanent semi-protect, if it comes to that.

Splat. Please flag here if there are more incidents, if they sign up for more named accounts, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help--your work is greatly appreciated, both with the semi-protection and the rangeblocks. Hopefully this will squash the problems! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback needed

Brutaldeluxe (talk · contribs) has probably made an experiment with TW, and removed quite a bunch of valid wikilinks to Nicholas I of Montenegro, all with summary "Removing backlinks to Nicholas I of Montenegro because "Test edit, rv if necessary"; using TW". He's apparently offline now, so can someone please rollback those ~100 edits? Thanks in advance. No such user (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. (correctly I hope)--ClubOranje^T 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of administrative actions

I've recently become involved as an admin in a couple of disputes on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain. These have involved most of the regular editors there, but the flies in the ointment appear to be Hiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom have been conducting campaigns for edits that do not appear to be supported by consensus. These content issues have been discussed, some at great length (see Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and associated archive), to the point where in my judgement further contention is becoming disruptive.

As a result, when a complaint was made on my talkpage that Kurfürst was unilaterally changing content on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain while it was under discussion I blocked him for two weeks (following warnings from myself and other admins that further disruption would lead to sanctions). The relevant talk-page thread is here. Because I previously intervened to unblock another editor that had become frustrated with Kurfürst to the point of edit-warring, Kurfürst is now convinced that I'm supporting one version of content over another and giving a free ride to certain editors. The dispute revolves around the extent to which the RAF used a type of aircraft fuel; the only possible explanation for my actions is that, being British, I feel so strongly about 100 octane that I'm prepared to abuse the admin tools.

Hiens I have only warned to date about flogging dead horses, because he resurrected an apparently settled content dispute on Talk:Battle of Britain. However, he too seems to have reached the conclusion that I'm abusing the admin tools and preferring one set of editors (and one version of content) over another. On a procedural note, I have not edited either article or commented on the content itself.

In my view the regular editors on those articles have been dealing for some time now with some extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar. I believe our established article-writers are our most valuable resource and must be protected, but dealing with these type of situations is never straightforward... so finally I come to the point of this long post :) I'm requesting an independent review of my actions, and if possible another set or two of eyes on the above articles and editors. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stop it EyeSerene , it won't do you any good Stop falsely accusing others of things you guilty of yourself All sorts of historians give all sorts of figures. Murray uses secondary sources You are a liar and you know it ; I have no issue no case I am done with you EyeSerene The community should deal with you now ; your defense is completely distorted and piece of crap up ala I can understand you're upset about losing the argument, but you are just going to have to be grown up about it and accept it "

Hey sorry Gentlemen I got carried away ! this is a true example and the exact phrases of User Dapi89 and his colleague EnigmaMcmxc , and he always find some other one colleagues to praise him – like User Jacurek - and say thank you Dapi89 I understand your frustration ! Simply it is amazing and pitifully this time the Wiki Admin justify this level of discussion by saying
" There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar " really …..
You are making a political maneuverability to free them ; people can disagree and moderator can interfere to ask them to get back to the subject or place his knowledge on a source or analysis .. But not this way Mr. EyeSerene where u deleted part of the discussion which have absolutely no bad words no insult , no attacking on other , no personnel attack ….

But you said  - the majority against it     probably ratio of  5:3.

And it is “ extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. “ really ..

If another administrator frees you from the charges of concealing your identity and protecting, the cursing and personnel insult, then I am sure you will not be quited from one charge!
Simply the lack of knowledge skill and been incompetent to mastering a hot discussion Didn't ever came to your knowledge that - The results of Battle of Britain - Dowding quoted about one phrase from the Official documentation as a myth and it would be dangerous for the futre ... The outcome of the battle is a long controversial subject and the debate still going on till these days .. It is not a problem for users to trade POV and sources and also not a problem for Administrator to interfere and ask users to calm down, press them to provide sources or criticize the validity of some sources or analysis .... etc Something you didn't do it!!!! you simply remained in silence and only interfered to attack or punish !

There were long discussions with Dapi98 before on discussion page for Battle of Britain
it was simply deleted and some good Administrator answered Dapi89 - when he said all historian agreed this understanding and the Administrator in nice way tried to stop him ( by saying have you cited R.Overy or "I forgot his name"....) ; I wish you can restore this deleted discussion which demonstrate Dapi89 calling R. Ovary contradicted while now he is using his book as a source!
Please restore this discussion and see the Administrator ... he was totally different from you and I wish you will follow his style where as he said about the BoB  ; it is a national Myth and I wouldn’t touch that hot subject, he was fair and straight in his comments. I wonder why this discussion was maliciously deleted

--Hiens (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at Talk:Battle of Britain, and I can only conclude that EyeSerene did what every admin should have done, and that Hiens is coming very close to being blocked as well. Discussions are good, but endless "I can"t hear you" arguments where consensus and WP:NPOV is attacked by stamina, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE should be stopped, and in some cases blocks and/or topic bans are the only method left to achieve this. Fram (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad Language and Personal Attacks

Resolved

 – No admin action warranted. --Smashville^talk 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I write in regard to Maelin, and his comment on this page. I wrote a frindly and polite reply to a thread but then some users appreared out of the blue and began to insult me. I tried to explain to them, but they didn't seem interested. Then, in reply to my defence/explanations, Maelin left this message: "Declan, I don't know if you are just oblivious to it, but you really are coming across as an insufferable, pompous wanker. I'm not saying you are, but that is really how your posts are being interpreted. Please try to allay the apparent self-righteousness and maybe we will be able to have some more mathematical discussion and less of this tiresome bickering. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)" Whether or not I am "an insufferable, pompous wanker" - which I don't think I am, is there any reason to resort to personal attacks and vulgar language?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• This would go better at Wikiquette Alerts as telling someone they are coming across as 'an insufferable, pompous wanker' on a talk page rates no more than mildly uncivil in my view - particularly in that discussion where you aren't really coming off that well (counterproof was a poor place to start MHO). And anyway, no-one is supposed to be giving maths lectures on the talk pages of maths articles (didn't we just have this argument already?), and you deliberately restarted it after a wiser editor tried to say "We're done here." I'd just give the page - and the argument - a rest if I was you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing the same as some of the other users: you are judging me by posts a year ago. Can't a guy try again? My conduct in that thread was most civil. I was then subjected to insults and abuse by user carrying a grudge. The theme of the thread is, given the chronology, this:

• I make a comment about counter-proof, and how people should reply in good faith.
• COVIZAPIBETEFOKY insults me.
• I show COVIZAPIBETEFOKY that his behaviour is indicative of my previous comment. I try to reason with user.
• COVIZAPIBETEFOKY mocks me.
• I ask COVIZAPIBETEFOKY how abuse help the page.
• COVIZAPIBETEFOKY carries on to abuse me.
• I further try to explain how unreasonable COVIZAPIBETEFOKY is being.
• Page is archive by Tango.
• I remove archive and ask that we all move on.
• I make comment about counter-proof.
• Maelin replies to my mathematical writings with vulgar insults.

You say that "wanker" is at most uncivil; I'm amazed that you could draw that conclussion. In the UK the word "wanker" is most vulgar, and in fact if you were to use it towards a police officer you would find yourself under arrest. If you think that that's not worth of reprimand then I'm amazed. So the basic message is this: insult people as much as you like, and don't bother trying to defend yourself.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, he didn't say you were a pompous wanker...he said you were coming off that way. There's a huge difference. --Smashville^talk 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it's clear he's being rude and offensive. The formula to insult people is: "You are coming off as a INSERT GIVEN INSULT"?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that was a bit more than "mildly" uncivil (memo: decline any invitations to drinks at Elen's house!) at least to a Brit, though in Australia it might be intended as frank advice rather than a deliberate insult. I'd let it go anyway, though, even if it was slightly over the top. Life's too short to worry about that sort of thing for long. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

but...but...! I make a killer Old Fashioned.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh alright then, if you're going to twist my arm. Shall I bring some nibbles? - Pointillist (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A byte or two would be good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

aaaarrghhh! 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What exact admin action are you looking for here? I don't see that you've tried to discuss this with him or, for that matter, notified him of this thread. --Smashville^talk 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, the rough-and-tumble of academic debate :) I realise that page survived a previous XfD, but it sits uneasily with WP:NOTFORUM. I suppose one of the consequences of allowing such exceptions is that we encourage (or at least appear to condone) forum-like behaviour. In short, Declan, if you are going to engage with other editors on a page that's clearly outside Wikipedia norms, you may need to be prepared for a certain amount of laxity (and it's really not that bad - I've been called worse by my wife!). If it upsets you, it might be best to avoid the page in the future. EyeSerene^talk 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Smashville, I wasn't looking for an action, I was hoping that someone might be able to ask him to calm down, and to tell him that his conduct is not acceptable. I didn't realise that I had to inform him of this thread. Pointillist, you're right: I won't accept any such invitations. EyeSerene, you make a good point. I didn't realise that it was such a lawless backwater. I'll stay clear next time.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you asked him to "give it a rest" and he made no further comments. So...seeing as you have not discussed this with him, have not notified him of this thread and that the pattern has not continued after your request for him to stop, I am marking this as resolved. --Smashville^talk 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What if he's just not been at his computer for the last few hours, and the abuse continues when he does get back to a computer?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What if he was struck by lightning while editing and has been moved into a cryogenic chamber? We don't take admin action based on hypothetical future situations. --Smashville^talk 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be sarcastic; it's not very helpful. I was enquiring as to which course of action I should take. I guess speak to a different admin would be a good start.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, as noted ... your first forum for incivility is WP:WQA. If you can establish a pattern of actual abuse, then here or WP:RFC/U is where you go next. Having family in the UK (and having been there a lot), "wanker" has many levels ... friends call each other a wanker when they're being an idiot, and sisters call their brother a wanker when they've been caught in the bathroom - it's not necessarily vulgar. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's like talking to brick wall; I give up! Let Wikipedia slide into the gutter if you wish.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no sarcasm. We don't take admin action based on hypothetical future actions. --Smashville^talk 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to re-open this, but why do Mathematicians seem to get a free ride on the NOR stuff? Why is a talk page, for a non-existent article, where (on a quick look) not one single person has referenced a reliable source and some editors are bickering, allowed to stay? How's it helping build the encyclopedia? before they say it: yes, I know maths is true and provably so and thus you only need confirm the obvious, but that talk page is an elegant example of the flaw of that argument. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The page is the arguments sub-directory of Talk:0.999..., made specifically so that people who have no understanding of mathematics and refuse to believe the article (despite the fact that it is well-referenced) can splatter their misunderstandings all over it. It is not standard practice, even among mathematics articles, to have a page like this one, but this page has survived several attempts at deletion, so I think it's there to stay. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. 1) Subpages of talk pages of an article are standard. Their most common use is for talk page archives, and sometimes they are used for FAQs. In this case the subpage seems to be a pragmatic solution in order to canalise the endless discussions with crackpots and people misled by them in such a way that improvements to the article can still be discussed in the proper place. 2) Original research is about what gets into the article, not about talk page discussions. E.g. sometimes we have two formally reliable sources and need to decide whether to believe one or the other, or report a disagreement. Then with some OR we may find that one is by a crackpot who for some reason got a post at a university but is not taken seriously by any of his colleagues. So we simply ignore what he writes. This is proper, even though it's probably improper OR to say in an article that that person is wrong, because mathematicians are usually too polite to publish personal comments of this nature. Hans Adler 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When I said that it's not standard practice, I was referring to the fact that it is a page made for OR arguments by "crackpots and people misled by them", not to the fact that it's a subpage of a talk page. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. We were both writing at the same time, and chose to respond to different aspects of "talk page of a non-existent article". There is no contradiction. Hans Adler 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry! I thought you were responding to me when you said "Subpages of talk pages of an article are standard". Never mind, then. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet contributions struck out from discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (3rd nomination) appears to be being trolled by the very group that the article is about. Notice the multiple single-purpose accounts. (I have my doubts about Bannable (talk · contribs).) Even the nomination appears to be trolling. Note the word-for-word duplication in Da Killa Wabbit's edit here of JzG's edit here. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• The nominator and many of the participants of that AfD are sockpuppets, possibly of banned user. The newest account might also be the same banned user, but I'm not certain. Certainly looks like a troll account. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editor adding unencyclopedic content about stray dogs in Sofia

An anonymous editor keeps adding unencyclopedic (non-notable, unsourced, POV) content about dog population management in Sofia to Boyko Borisov (recently) and Sofia (earlier), violating WP:ADVOCACY (explained here). Still earlier, the editor was adding links about the subject to these articles, which violate WP:ELNO, no. 13, explained here. The editor is using IP addresses 194.141.6.93, 93.152.170.207, 78.90.8.81, 195.214.255.253, a.o., all located in Sofia, Bulgaria. Preslav (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hounding by group of editors

Comments since filing ANI

(The following comments have been made since the ANI was filed. The desire for the initial comment to appear at the top is understandable, however since it's becoming unclear what the main filing was vs. the later additions, I have added section headers to make it clear. I've also removed most of the bulleting and changed it to normal indentation, to reduce the inordinate amount of vertical space taken up by the bullets.) --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The editors User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:Sam Weller retaliate for this ANI and make RfC about me [99]. Rob does 100 edits on it in two days more then he usually does in months, Ward20 does 31 edits more then usually in a week. Most important thing on Wikipedia for them is hunting me and banning me. Why?? RetroS1mone talk 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: As can be seen from the edit summaries of both the initial ANI submission and the initial gathering of data for the RfC, the edits are a mere 7 minutes apart. The RfC was already underway when RetroS1mone submitted her ANI, and since the Sandbox now contained concerns specific to her editing, she was appropriately notified. The evidence will or will not speak for itself once the submission is made, but as stated in the Sandbox, it's my hope that this can be resolved by means well short of banning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: As can be seen from the edit history for RobinHood70 and Ward20, it is not surprise for me, Rob pastes RfC "data" onto a sandbox 7 minutes after I put up the ANI, some times i think he is watching me 24 hours a day. Where is the "data" from, I do not know but i do not doubt a certain banned user, is helping with the RfC and sending "data", this banned user sent me a threatening email last month and said they were talking with allies still at Wiki. It is not hard, to paste data in 7 minutes when you are monitoring a persons' edits real-time. RetroS1mone talk 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: Correction. So far, there are three users making the RfC, apparently because an earlier attempt to negotiate with Retro failed [100]:RobinHood70, Ward20 and Tekaphor (even though Retro has now deleted Tekaphor from the ANI). I'm listed merely as 'endorsing the cause for concern' in the RfC, because I have not been part of any previous dispute resolution process. However, Retro has alleged that I have hounded her, without a shred of evidence, so I fully endorse the RfC. I doubt the RfC is retaliation for the ANI, just the result of months of cumulative frustration and disbelief at the non-stop scattergun name-calling deployed by this editor. Sam Weller (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I thank RetroS1mone for striking me off this ANI which deals only with a current issue, and I also acknowledge that RetroS1mone does occasionally apologize for these incidences. However, such accusations and disputes have been a long-term issue and it's still unclear to me whether apologies have usually been followed by an overall cessation of accusations or accompanying edits. Therefore I still endorse RobinHood70's "RfC" and would like to see how it pans out. - Tekaphor (TALK) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update Rob and Ward20 made the RfC a noticeboard for any person that ever had a problem with me to say what it is and make "unsubstantiated allegations" for example, User:Biggerpicture does not have to do with the Ward20 and Rob dispute but Rob recruited Biggerpicture who is saying in RfC I have a COI on a film-maker called Jamie Doran?? RetroS1mone talk 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The "recruiting" done was to place a {{ConductNotice}} on Biggerpicture's talk page since I knew he had recently been in a dispute with her on the Jamie Doran page and may have been interested in the RfC/U. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial ANI and replies

A group of editors, my opinion, is harassing and hounding me. Most are editing mostly one topic chronic pain and fatigue conditions, and for months mostly are following me and taking out my edits. They have strong POV on chronic conditions, that is OK with me!!, and some from them use Wikipedia for social networking for patient activism, for example [101]. Group includes User:Ward20, User:RobinHood70, User:Sam Weller, and specially a IP editor User:71.212.10.108/User:66.244.69.1 that calls me "hey sexy lady" and talks about my weight "big sexy girl" [102] and puts things on my talk page [103] [104] and the IP talk page [105] and follows me around to articles I edit and they do not edit before [106]. The IP was blocked twice for these things and is not new on Wikipedia, i do not know all names this person is using, or when it is one from the named editors that is following me.

I do not care they call me names and fight about edits on their articles but now every edit i make, i need suspect, these people will follow me and delete me and argue with me also when it is not an article they edit before, it is like Wikipedia editing for them is hunting me, like the first thing they do on log in is, see what i am editing today to go there and confront me. I am also suspect, they try to provoke me BC some said before they want to ban me. It is making contribution very difficult. I do not say I am a perfect editor, i am learning alot but I am not all ways perfect and i can be very strong some times, but i do not think this treating of me is right.

Examples from hounding just in last weeks,

• I give a Wikilink in article i never did edit before, chest pain bc I learned from reliable sources that medically unexplained symptoms can be chest pain, same day Ward20, editor who in June calls me "it" and "this" [107] is there reverting [108], and calls my link "WP:EGG" all though "no definite cause" and "medically unexplained symptoms" are synonym with each other. Ward20 did never edit chest pain before and obvious, is just following me to delete my edits.

• I add a medical review on Malingering at Malingering, next editor who is there is Ward20 [109] and W20 does not suggest new words or change things, W20 deletes everything also the reference that is MEDRS and accuses me of POV when it is right from reference. Ward20 did never edit this article before [110]. Ward20 also tells other editors what pages i edit at the CFS talk page so they can follow me to [111].

• I add information to Culture-bound syndrome, next editor is Ward20 who never did edit that article before and Ward20 reverts [112], says it is unsourced and "inaccurate" but does not take any thing out from rest of section where every thing does not have source, is only deleting my stuff. On talk page, Ward20 uses words like "for pity sake" [113] and User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page. Tekaphor and Ward20 did never edit this article or talk before me.

• I link to article Medically unexplained symptoms from Chronic fatigue syndrome, that is a Medically unexplained syndrome. User:Sam Weller, User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:71.212.10.108 who was blocked for 48 hours on disruptive editing and harassment of me, and User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before.

• I did not edit Jamie Doran for near one year, on July 22 i edit. User:RobinHood70 is there same day [114] and did never edit the article before. This article is not a relation to chronic pain conditions, there is no godly reason to follow me there but RobinHood is monitoring me and following every thing I do. Then RobinHood says "I have no particular interest in this page—I just made some quick improvements to the article while I was here—so I'll leave it to you and the other editors of the page to figure out what's most appropriate." but when i edit again, RobinHood comes back and accuses me of things i did not say and says i am "biting newcomer" and warns me on my talk page.

• I ask User:Ward20 [115] pls stop following me around Wiki. Ward20 said they edited these pages before, that is not true. I ask User:RobinHood70 to explain why [116] user changes my comment title and says it is OK to follow me around, and next day they do the same thing again.

Do I over-react, please advise me how to resolve the problem, thank you very much. RetroS1mone talk 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the many users accused by this ANI, I will respond to those edits for which I am responsible, and I invite commentary from others if there are things I should have done better. In point of fact, however, I am preparing my own RfC or ANI discussion towards RetroS1mone at this very moment. RetroS1mone has previously been warned by multiple editors, both on and off her talk page for behaviour (e.g., User_talk:RetroS1mone#Suggestion).

• There has been an anonymous IP harassing RetroS1mone at her talk page and elsewhere, and I and others have in fact been reverting these comments, for which she thanked me.

• The fact that RetroS1mone added links to medically unexplained physical symptoms in several articles should probably explain why this drew attention and people started editing that article as well. The article in and of itself is dubious in my mind (though that's under discussion on the appropriate talk page), and adding it into a wide variety of other controversial articles, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity was seen by many as a POV fork to add weight to a pro-psychological POV. (At the time the additions were made, the MUPS article very much had a psychological tone to it, and still has a very lopsided view where one section is all about psychological causation and others maintain more of an even physical and/or psychological approach.)

• I explained my edits to the Jamie Doran page when RetroS1mone accused me of hounding/stalking her here. Rather than acknowledge that explanation, she has chosen to bring it up here. I was content to ignore the page up until she bit a newcomer, accusing him of a conflict of interest and implying that this brand-new account might be a single-purpose account [117], at which time I warned her on her talk page, which she reverted with the accusation of "i remove harassing by stalker" [118].

• The accusation of hounding was addressed by the above, but just to save people some reading: Due to recent communication, RetroS1mone's talk page was in my Watchlist. I read all diffs in my Watchlist, as I've indicated to RetroS1mone previously. When I saw a discussion about that article on her talk page, I was curious to see what was up. While there, I made non-controversial format changes, and verified one very minor fact readily apparent in the source available (the second source was dead and a {{dead link}} tag was added). [119] In no way did I make any changes or contribute to any discussion in a controversial or negative manner apart from the above-mentioned bite warning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In summary, I think what RetroS1mone perceives as harassment/hounding by a group of editors is in fact several individual editors who have concerns over an apparently unilateral editing style in which consensus is rarely ever sought or respected, and those editors are taking appropriate actions per Wikipedia policies and guidelines to address these issues. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also mentioned, although it doesn't look like I'm one of the main editors in question (probably because most of my disputes with RetroS1mone have been limited to the talkpages). Some of the accusations made by RetroS1mone (R1 for short), now and in the past, appear somewhat distorted or jumping to conclusions:

• R1's first given example ([120]) is of a short conversation on RobinHood70's userpage about webhosting, but R1 labels it as "social networking for patient activism" despite that no actual activism was going on or that Ward20 never specified what the webhosting is for. Perhaps Ward20 should have emailed RobinHood70 instead, but so what? At first it might appear odd why R1 decided to begin with that example, until one considers that; (a) R1 believes Wikipedia is under attack from some anti-psych "cabal" of POV/COI patient activists, (b) R1 has occasionally reverted other peoples edits due to such mere speculation about motives, with a tendency to focus disproportionately on the editor rather than the edit.

• The next major point seems to involve two themes: (1) a "group of editors", (2) "hounding". I'm not mentioned specifically, but I will say that these accusations of "they" have been an ongoing problem. The first few following points about "hounding" seem to be about other editors (not me), so I'll let those editors speak for themselves, but perhaps what I say about my involvement will provide some perspective?

• When discussing the Culture-bound syndrome article, R1 claims that other editors and "User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page". However, all I did was post [121] a short sentence about an epidemiological study of CFS in Nigeria, there was no "arguing" by me or even any suggestion of how to interpret the cited study.

• When discussing the Medically unexplained symptoms article, R1 notes that other editors and "User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before". I did indeed make one relatively minor edit [122] some time after posting ([123] 3 edits but for the same single comment) on the talkpage. However, it needs to be understood, as RobinHood70 already covered, that the issue of R1 embedding "medically unexplained symptoms" into a range of Wikipedia articles was spilling over from a debate at the Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome page, so obviously people started visiting the actual main article of the topic in question?

The Jamie Doran article has nothing to do with me, so I don't need to comment. Anyway, WP:HOUND states that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." When considering R1's claims of being "followed", it needs to be kept in mind that R1 has a history of disputes where some of their edits were successfully reverted for being "original research" or not properly representing the sources. Also, as RobinHood70 explained above, it can be convenient to monitor other editors' contribution histories as a way to keep up to date. Another important note is that R1 does over-react and often makes false accusations against other editors, which is a whole topic of conversation in itself. Of course, this doesn't mean that all of R1's accusations are false, and occasionally there have also been apologies from R1.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I striked Tekaphor in my ANI bc Tekaphor has been the most fair. RetroS1mone talk 22:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not guilty, individually or collectively. I have nothing to add to my reply to R1 from earlier this year [124]. Sam Weller (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've checked my edit history, and found my first contact with R1 dates from October 2008. Reading Simon Wessely for the second time, I noticed that a tag requiring citations had been in place for a year, but had not been acted upon. So I tagged individual unreferenced statements as a reminder. Starting a new Talk section headed Crazy tag section, R1 accused me of being "some one who does not like Wessely and does not want any thing positive about him in article. Can we pls take this mean spirited stuff out?" All that in response to a repeat request for citations. I did not bother to react to R1's rudeness, false assumptions and accusations of bad faith. But since R1 is making accusations here, I'd like it on record as an instance of the multiple issues surrounding R1's editing that I have been aware of since October 2008. Sam Weller (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Out<RetroS1mone notified me I was being discussed. IMO the user's edit summaries and talk page edits are often accusatory of other editors or their motives if they have a differing opinion.[125][126] The editing of RetroS1mone is prolific and intelligent yet often tendentious and not verifiable to sources in articles, on talk pages, and edit summaries. Examples: RetroS1mone adds WP:OR about hypochondriasis to the Chronic Fatigue syndrome article,[127] in the Malingering article the "Category:Mental illness diagnosis" was wrongly re-added by Retro with an edit summary using a source that didn't support the edit.[128][129][130], removes against consensus a personal account by a researcher sourced by the NY Times because RetroS1mone disagreed with it.[131][132] I can give many more diffs like this. I trust that readers will examine the diffs carefully to determine the actual accounts.

RetroS1mone gave one example of using "Wikipedia for social networking for patient activism." Once I asked a computer savvy editor, "How much would you expect to pay for web hosting a website similar in size to PatientsLikeMe?"[133](not a patient activism site). Social networking and patient activism from one simple question? A bit of exaggeration I believe.

RetroS1mone believes the IP harassing them may be one of a group of editors that RetroS1mone has named (the IP should be check usered for sockpuppets and permanently blocked). So my name isn't further implicated, I give permission to check that I don't use sockpuppets.

On July 7th Retro linked Medically unexplained symptoms (MUPS) for symptoms in the lead of Chronic fatigue syndrome[134]. The MUPS article is mainly undeveloped. After researching I found Medically unexplained symptoms is sometimes just that medically unexplained. But in physiological literature some authors use MUPS to refer to somatization. [135] There appears to be no official DSM, ICD or MESH approval of the term, so its use to describe symptomatology is controversial. I started looking at other articles to see how it is used and found Retro had added it to Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Syndrome, Chest pain and other articles. Other editors also noted and discussed how the term was being spread throughout multiple articles.[136] When I found MUPS was piped as easter egg links I reverted them explaining with an edit summary.[137][138] After RetroS1mone corrected it I didn't revert. In the Malingering article I found the sources did not support and actually refuted the MUPS material. I removed it leaving a detailed reason with citations on Talk:Malingering#most commonly feigned. RetroS1mone reverted my edit and the material is under discussion. Culture-bound syndrome has been on my watch list for over a year. When I saw some of the illnesses added they appeared to not fit the category. I found sources that refuted the identification criteria for some. I removed those with reasons and citations on the talk page[139]. It wasn't a complete revert. RetroS1mone reverted and left citations which I am still reading. Two of the citations do not appear to support the material.[140] [141] As I told RetroS1mone I have an interest in these subjects, some of our editing overlaps and some are completely separate.[142] When RetroS1mone complained on my talk page no time frame was used and no diffs were used to specify articles[143]. Since we both edit articles in common I believed RetroS1mone was talking about those also.

"This" and "it" are explained here and here. Ward20 (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Shmayo and his Assyrian struggle

In the article Syria, i filled out text in the section "Etymology", text about from where the name "Syria" derives and to which people the term "Syrians" were approved. I also came up with academic sources prooving that the name "Syria" is NOT derived from "Assyria". Earlier, scholarship confirmed that Syria was derived from Assyria, but this has in later time been disproved, confirming that Syria does NOT derive from Assyria. I came up with 15 sources, that was backing up what i wrote. But this does not "fit" for User:Shmayo, who dont want to believe that the term has been proved wrong about being derived from "Assyria". Wikipedia should stand for the latest information, and this is the latest informarmation. The name "Syria" is synonym with "Aram", "Syrians" with "Arameans" and "Syrian language" with "Aramean language". In the first translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, 'Aram' were translated into 'Syria', 'Arameans' into 'Syrians' and 'Aramaic' into 'Syrian'. Everything is also backed up with sources. He reverted my edits, [144] and then i reverted back his edits, but i know that he will continue reverting my edits. What can we do about this? SyrianskaFC (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can go to Talk:Syria (which I note you haven't edited at all) per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and as Shmayo's edit summary ("discussion time") even said to do. What you should not be doing is what you are currently doing, which is edit warring without discussion, when you were even invited to discuss. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SolvedSyrianskaFC (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drmargi - Disruptive editing

Drmargi's manner in editing is directly stalling a resolution to the discussion at Talk:Robin Hood (2006 TV series)#"Fates" of Isabella, Sheriff. He continues to ignore the messages I have posted on his talk page (even blanking one without responding) and the article's talk page, yet persistently reverts the article back to his preferred version ([145][146][147][148][149]), the latter time responding to my backing up my action with policy with "Nice try". I have no doubt that had I been as immeditate in reverting we would both have greatly exceeded WP:3RR. The only explanation I can see for this behaviour is an attempt to force his change onto the article by repeatedly re-adding it yet refusing to participate in discussion. U-Mos (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You two are seriously edit-warring over the words "are caught" and "die"?? After all, "are caught" often refers to "die", in theory. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no fanwars!! Auntie BBC has cancelled the series, so it makes no odds to anyone except writers of fanfiction whether you say "got caught in the blast", "died in the explosion" or whatever - they aren't appearing on another season anytime soon.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, lame edit war. I've told them to stop it, or I'll block 'em both. Should be handled. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I've tried every way I know of to reach a resolution, only changing the article due to a lack of response from Drmargi or anyone else, which clearly indicated a lack of consensus for the change, let alone any opposition at all. I'm well aware that they mean very similar things, but that doesn't mean one isn't preferable, it doesn't mean one doesn't employ subjectivity, and it doesn't mean Drmargi hasn't been very obstructive in his edits. U-Mos (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Image pushing

Resolved

Four times over the last 24 hours an IP and a logged in user (presumed to be the same person) have been pushing File:Logoforcbs.PNG onto CBS [150][151][152][153]. File:CBS.svg is a superior quality image. Myself and another user have attempted to discuss this with the user in question, but the user has been unresponsive and chosen to edit war instead. Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I just deleted it instead. It's never going to be used as it's clearly inferior to the other image, so however much the user edit-wars over it then WP:CSD#F5 is going to apply in the end, I merely hastened the process. Black Kite 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Wikistalking may be resuming

An anonymous wikistalker previously dealt with [154]] appears to have resumed his hijinx once the block ran out: [155] -Legitimus (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have applied a new 72 hr block on the 217.112.176.0/20 range. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad Moves

Resolved

Newer editor User:Divod just did a ton of page moves against Wikipedia naming conventions to cap the words in the names and shorten them because he thought they were too long. Can some revert all of those please (as well as his subsequent changing of links to those pages). I've already left a note at his talk page asking him to stop now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Goddess!! It's every flaming tv station listing article. And I bet he hasn't touched all the what links heres!! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He has agreed to stop, so "just" a question of putting everything back, which it looks like User:Bearcat has done. Black Kite 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of his talkpage, does User_talk:Davodd#I_need_your_help_to_write_a_thesis. concern anyone, or should I WP:AGF? I know it's a couple of months ago, but... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It does a bit...I got something similar from a new user not to long ago that wanted to email me some survey questions. When I reactivated the "email this user", instead I got hit with some 20-30 disgusting messages from Grawp. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of these, but I screwed up one of them. Need an admin to move List of Adult Swim programs back to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim and fix any resulting double redirects. Deor (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia ad spam

Resolved

Template:Wikipedia ads is intermittently showing external spam advertising. Anyone know what is going on there? Melburnian (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to mean either of these two images? Unless I'm mistaken, they're both for editing interfaces, and should link to pages somewhere on-wiki. If not, it doesn't seem like there's been any other activity on the ads recently, so I'm stumped. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Each time I open those files I get something different including such things as "Green Card lottery", "Whiten your teeth like a celebrity", "Shoot 5 iphones" and "Cash Converters" that when clicked lead to external advertising sites. Does anyone else see these? Melburnian (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. I'll bet (based on my not-terribly-informed opinion) that this is an issue on your end, unfortunately. Some sort of virus. If you have antivirus software already, I'd suggest running a scan, to be sure. You might have better luck asking at WP:VPT, as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...if no one else is seeing it, it must be on this end. Thanks for your help. Melburnian (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Celebration1981 using multiple IPs

Resolved

 – pages protected.--VS ^talk 05:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya... Banned user Celebration1981 has been using multiple IPs to evade block and continue to create problems -- see User_talk:VirtualSteve#History_of_television. So far the following have been used:

IP 94.44.11.255

IP 94.44.4.235

IP 77.111.185.144

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly socking by using a dynamic IP/s Rico - I will protect article and that might assist. Thanks for your messages at my talk page along similar vein. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't normally block talk pages but have for 3 days on this occasion. Dougweller has protected Transformer article already and I have also protected Photoelectric effect for 3 days - hopefully that will be enough time. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RPP Backlog

Resolved

 – Looks like some other admins took care of this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is somewhat of a backlog on RPP, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

history of US

Resolved

 – No issue: DR and perhaps forum shopping Toddst1 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor User:Perspicacite split History of the United States (1991–present) to two articles 1990s in the United States and 2000s in the United States with no discussion and no justification to do so. This decade scheme puts these two articles at odds with the rest of the 'History of the United States ( - )' articles, which have cutoff points based on historically significant turns of events in US History--not decades, and differs from the naming scheme of the rest of such articles, differs from their category names, etc.

I left a notice on his talk page but no response. It seems this editor just came online to make this one change and then disappeared again.

Request these article and re-direct changes be properly reversed--which I cannot do. Or tell where to go to get this done Hmains (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you already post this here? This is a content issue and not within the remit of this board. → ROUX ₪ 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Why can't you do it? lifebaka++ 02:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#destruciton_of_US_history_articles.27_pattern HalfShadow 02:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User Lomglastisland3

Lomglastisland3 (talk · contribs) has somehow created a confused situation. User talk:Lomglastisland3 is a redirect to User talk:Longlastisland3. That has the message "User account "Longlastisland3" is not registered. If you wish to use "Longlastisland3" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username." Almost all edits by this editor relate to "Long Last Island", which is unknown to Google. Is that a real thing, or is this bogus-article vandalism? Articles involved: Long last island 2 Long last island 3 Season three Season four. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted all as CSD#A1, moved his talk page back to the correct place and warned them, again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Resolved

 – I'll button this up before someone loses their temper. Protonk (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I need a ruling on this, from an expert. I was under the impression that certain editors, including User:ChildofMidnight, were under a topic ban from Obama-related articles. If I'm wrong about that, I will revert my reversion, mark this "Resolved" and be done with it. In any case, Henry Louis Gates and Arrest of Henry Louis Gates have become Obama-related, due to the President speaking out on the matter (whether he should have or not, he did). So I just want to know if I'm right about the topic ban in general, and if so, should it also extend to this pair of articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Not closely familiar with this; a quick look on my part found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight topic banned. This might be a better fit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I've also notified CoM of this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I had notified him just a little bit before you did. I just want to know what the rules are. If I'm right, he (and Grundle was well) must stay away. If I'm wrong, I'll revert him back and stop watching the pages. I'll take it to that other page if that's appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC) C of M obviously is under a topic ban from Obama-related articles per this. Such bans are generally broadly defined, so in my view articles relating to Gates would currently fall under that scope. However that was not obvious from the beginning of this arrest issue, as Obama was not initially intimately implicated in it, as he is now. I doubt C of M was thinking of this in terms of violating his topic ban (and from what I can gather he has not actually discussed Obama on the article talk pages), so I see no major problem here. However I think he should err on the side of caution and leave off editing those articles, particularly Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. It would be good if someone could make a suggestion to that effect on his talk page. I am not ChildofMidnight's favorite admin and as such the comment should probably not come from me, so I would appreciate it if another admin could drop a note on his page (assuming others agree with my interpretation of the situation here). I think he'll likely be amenable to avoiding Gates-related articles, and if he disagrees we could get ArbCom to clarify, but ideally this can be taken care of without bother the Arbs. Again, I don't see a problem behavior here on C of M's part and I'm sure he was editing in good faith, but probably he should leave off those articles for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC) He was engaging in subtle pro-police (and implicitly anti-Obama) slanting of the article, but that's more of a content dispute, which others are also on top of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (ec)I really don't think good faith can be assumed here, as this is not the first time CoM has tested the waters re: the topic ban. #1 and #2. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 23:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry but that was not a good block in my view. I'm as familiar as anyone with the background here, and I have been strongly critical of C of M in the past. I do not see a reason to assume that he was acting in bad faith and knowingly circumventing his topic ban. It would have been far more advisable to leave a note on his talk page first asking him to leave off editing those articles. Only one admin had commented directly on the matter at hand before you blocked (me) and that was to recommend not blocking. The other editors who have commented (excepting Luna) have in the past been in disputes with C of M. I strongly recommend you unblock pending further discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The diff I have provided in my block summary resp. in my block notice, which you might whish to read, shows that this was indeed a violation of the topic ban. If one adds “Obama stated” to an article they clearly do know that the article they are editing is Obama related. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I looked at that diff, and it doesn't look like CoM added those words about Obama, but only moved them from one part of the article to another, as part of a large re-organization for better flow. It looks quite harmless to me. Jonathunder (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) He also tried to re-edit a line that said "according to police reports, the witness identified two black men", to simply, "the witness identified two black men". That's what specifically caught my attention, as it's subtle manipulation of the story to be more favorable to the police and to subtly criticize Obama. In fact, the woman claims (now, anyway) that she never said that. So to say she did is simply to make the cops look better, and is not appropriate since the sources are saying otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No, xe didn't. this is the edit, and clearly it doesn't remove "According to the police report". Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Bah! I take that back. I thought that I'd reviewed every single edit. I did scan them two different ways to find any edit resembling what you were talking about. I've just found this one. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) Here's a question that would help clarify matters for me. What are the content of CoM's comments in regards to the article, and when did they begin? If the comments began after the Obama content was added, he's guilty of trying to sidestep the topic ban. If he's adding content to the article to color Obama's involvement, well, that would amount to the same thing. Seeing as CoM's been nicked for this sort of thin before, and has been trying to weasel around his restrictions, if he's guilty, he actually deserves a longer block than a day. We have too much work to do without having spending time to ensure that topic-banned editors stay the hell away from those topics. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's a fair statement. I don't know when he started editing the page, as I hadn't even looked at it until today. But the Obama angle on this has been out there for several days now [since July 22]. In fact, if Obama had kept his trap shut, this story might have faded a lot faster, so it's definitely an Obama-related story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Hm... my initial feeling was that a notice like Bigtimepeace suggested might have been more appropriate -- it's not every day the subject of your topic ban is suddenly added to an article you're working on, after all -- but there's mention here of pushing the envelope previously. Any chance we could be more specific on that point? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I think the blocking admin is correct about that fact, though I can't say for 100 percent sure. In this case, rather than blocking right away, I might have simply told CoM to stay off that page (including talk), period; and that he would be blocked if he violated that warning. However, he was trying to steer the page in a certain way, so he would be hard pressed to plead total innocence. He's also banned from the talk pages of Obama topics, but I didn't revert any of that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Chiming in on 2 points; first, to Bigtimepeace. That several here have been involved in past disputes with this user should certainly be taken into account, sure, but it seems like you are suggesting that our input be disregarded because of that. What I contributed was two reference points for past behavior, as evidence of a pattern of behavior that should be considered. Second, I believe this has been an Obama-related topic ever since his "the police acted stupidly" comment. This commentary was already in the article by the time CoM made his first edit there. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Just to be clear Tarc, and my previous comment probably was not as it was typed in a rush before sitting down to dinner, you are of course welcome to weigh in here, I was just concerned that Aitias may have blocked seeing comments from a couple of users (yourself and Bugs) without realizing they had butted heads with C of M before. No wrong doing on your part at all. In terms of past topic ban violating behavior on C of M's part, I think the main issue (and this is just from memory) was an AfD involving Gerald Walpin. C of M had commented there and it was pointed out that this violated his topic ban. C of M said he had not realized this, but then agreed and left off commenting. I'm not aware off any other direct violation of the "don't discuss Obama" ban, excepting a clarification with the ArbCom about whether the disputants in the case could refer to one another in a negative way (they cannot). Blocks are preventive, in this case to prevent C of M from editing a couple of articles relating to Obama. If we could have accomplished the same thing with a simple talk page note, than that would clearly have been desirable, but this was not even attempted. I continue to think this was a bad block done in haste and against the explicit advice of another admin familiar with the background. If C of M requests unblock and agrees to hold off editing articles related to HL Gates, I think the request should be granted, and I'm inclined to do that myself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Ahhh geesh. Umm, OK - I basically agree with Bigtimepeace on this. I completely understand Aitias' rational and all, but I think there is enough ambiguity in this case to release the block, and as such I've asked him if he's willing to discuss the matter. Several things stand out in my mind: 1.) At the time the articles became viable for WP, I don't believe that there was an "Obama" factor. 2.) The parties involved in the article have not even met for their much anticipated "beer" yet. 3.) I question whether Obama simply commenting on a news story constitutes any tangential items becoming such that they fall under the "Obama sanctions" 4.) One item that is not explicitly stated in the sanctions, which I have seen in many other cases, is the term "broadly construed". Perhaps we are into an area with Gates that now falls under the "Obamaa sanction", but I have to ask the requisite questions: What did he (CoM) know, and when did he know it? I think it's always best to discuss first, and block only if we can't find a positive path forward. I realize that many editors have had less than positive experiences with CoM, but I'm seeing some real "gray" areas in this one. Rather than blocking folks out - I'd ask that we try all the other options first. — Ched :  ?  03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Too late for that though, isn't it. Mr "Shoot From the Hip and Ask Questions Later" has simply done what he's renowned for doing. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know how to answer that Mal. Since the punctuation is a "period" rather than a question mark, I'll assume it's rhetorical. I've never had a problem with Aitias, so I don't have call to WP:ABF. I agree that we need to remember the past, but at the moment, I'd rather focus on the present, and reduce future drama. Has CoM requested an unblock? — Ched :  ?  04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No editor with any self-respect requests an unblock, but CoM has been unblocked anyway, by Bigtimepeace. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC) As Malleus notes, and per the discussion here on ANI and this from C of M, I have unblocked (see also my note to C of M here). ChildofMidnight has agreed to avoid the Gates-related articles so the block seems wholly unnecessary at this point in terms of preventing further breaches of the topic ban, which is the only point of a block in this situation. Some of C of M's comment is not very edifying and I've cautioned him for that, but I don't think it's a reason to keep the block active. I've also cautioned C of M to avoid any article that might remotely relate to Obama so this kind of thing does not come up in the future. I think (hope?) this solves the issue for now and that we can move on, barring objections of course. I'd rather have left this up to Aitias to reconsider but that editor seems to have gone offline for the evening, and I don't think unblocking in the face of a promise to not do the thing that caused the block should be all that controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Editors and administrators should always consider dropping a courteous note to an editor with whom a concern arises as a first step. It's a great way to avoid abusive and disruptive blocks like this one. As I edit lots of articles and jump from topic to topic and subject to subject, it's entirely possible I will edit something in the future that is in some way related to Barack Obama. If there is a concern, please just let me know! Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I am sorry you were blocked. The lack of structure in this discussion seems to have contributed to the problem. As Bigtimepeace observed, the opinions of those in dispute with you seem to have been read as a consensus to block, when they represented no such thing. I've just made a proposal at WT:AN to try to improve this situation. Feel free to comment there. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Obama's comment about Gates was on the 22nd of this month. CoM's first edits to either gates article were well after this. We'll have to trust him, but I have my doubts that CoM was happening to edit the gates article and it became an Obama related article. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) In defense of C of M, prior to editing the Gates article, he was very active at Contempt of cop which obviously led him to the Gates material. You'll notice he was engaged in in-depth conversations at Talk:Contempt of cop which had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama (though they came after Obama commented on the case). L'Affaire de Gates has stirred powerful feelings in the U.S. about racial profiling, policing, etc., and many people are extremely interested in these issues without caring what Obama said or how it affects his administration. That seems to be how C of M got into this nexus of articles, which is why I don't think it's too hard to assume good faith (if we aren't assuming good faith, he got in a lengthy back and forth with User:Sandstein and others about policing and race just so that he could eventually go over to an article about Gates' arrest and move one section of text which discusses Obama from the intro to the body without changing the prose—I think that stretches credulity). In general when it comes to topic bans, we should mindful of the fact that people might wander over into areas that are covered by the ban somewhat accidentally. If they are contrite and realize the problem when called on it then I really think there's no big deal, which is why it makes a helluva lot more sense to ask first and block later. Our overall goal on this project is actually to not block people if we can avoid it. Here we clearly could have. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Interesting. :) Frankly I didn't recall how I got onto those articles. The nature of Wikipedia makes it pretty easy to get off onto tangents. It's also worth mentioning that while I was punished for an innocent oversight, this thread is filled with personal attacks, smears, falsehoods and assumptions of bad faith. The blocking admin and the others who would rather jump to negative conclusions and attack a fellow editor than to properly investigate and discuss should take a good long look in the mirror and reflect on the meaning of civility, good faith and collaboration. And by the way it's not 100% evident that Henry Gates or the article on his arrest are Obama related articles (they certainly don't fall under any category or title that would suggest that) but I have no problem avoiding them and understand the reasonable (albeit misdirected) concern. Any time there is a legitimate concern expressed courteously I try to abide and respect it. And that's the case even though our Obama coverage is in hideous violation of our core NPOV policy and has been scrubbed of notable criticisms and controversies in a censorship and ignorance promoting bonanza. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I didn't say that it indicted him. I just said that the timeline precluded the explanation given above. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) At the risk of sending us into some bizarro infinite ANI loop (if I was trapped in one of those I think I would literally jump off a bridge to get out of it), C of M you really can't make the kind of remarks you make in your second to last sentence, because of the topic ban thingy. 'Nuff said I hope. So yeah, I'm leaving this thread now before we start over at the beginning, and maybe someone can mark this resolved before that happens. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) This isn't an article or an article talk page is it? I don't agree with your conclusion. If it's somewhere in the arbcom "remedy" you'll have to point it out to me. But I think the main point here is that Aitias, Basebull Bugs, Tarc, and Arcayne need to be blocked before they do any more damage to the encyclopedia via disruption and policy violating smears and personal attacks based on misrepresentations and falsehoods. Protonk's assumption of bad faith is troubling, but it's probably best to let his comment go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 83.46.216.120

I am raising this ANI against the above mentioned IP. The person is going on a vandalism rampage on all the Madonna related articles by adding inaccurate information, deleting references and inserting fancruft. His contributions will show what he/she is upto. I belive this IP is a sockpuppet of another IP 88.15.72.41 who was just blocked yesterday for ongoing vandalism by User:Tedder. Please look into the matter as warnings are not paid any attention by the IP. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No edits since final warning. Last ref was stale anyway - updated. Use WP:AIV for vandalism! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now is using vile language on my talk page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Movie/anime vandal back again...

It seems that the vandal guy operating from Indonesia has been going around vandalizing various articles by inserting various misinformation. Below are the IP address that the guy has vandalized from for the past 30 days alone (there may be more that I don't know of):

• 125.165.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.20.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.148.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.158.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.180.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.49.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I can't elaborate on the details, but it seems the MO is the same, and "victim" articles include MGM (and related articles), TMS Entertainment, CBS Television Distribution, Sony Pictures Television, related Disney articles, articles related to the Digimon franchise, etc.

I don't know on which articles this vandal would strike next or would return to vandalize any of the articles I've mentioned, but I know unless something is done, his vandalism will continue. What's more, WP:AIV will never work on this guy because I've discovered the edits days after the deed was done and reverted by another user. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by IP

Having just encountered the following IP user, I am surprised to see a talk page with so many warnings on it (not made by me, I hasten to add, but by numerous other editors) - and, apparently, no action taken.

User talk:194.60.38.198#July 2009

Could an admin please take a look at this user history and consider a block? Setwisohi (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's the proxy server for the British House of Parliament. I, for one, think I'm going to stray from creating an international incident. --Smashville^talk 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wanker Wimp ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a sensitive IP address. According to SIP, whoever's going to block this address is going to need to noticy the Communications_committee about it. (X! · talk)  · @707  ·  15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I see no need for a block. Problems every couple of weeks (skimming recent contribs) for an IP covering a major institution doesn't really seem a problem. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Blocked for 1 year.
        • Calm down, I'm kidding... I agree with Rd232, it's not persistent vandalism/disruption. It comes and goes and it very well may not be the same person. On the other hand, if warranted, I would have no problems blocking, sensitive or not. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hmmm. The United States Congress whitewashes Congressional biographies, and we get an entire article. The United Kingdom Parliament whitewashes M.P. biographies (example, example example example) to remove information relating to the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, whitewashes the biography of Patrick Mercer to play down a resignation (edits), vandalizes the article on Eric Clapton (edit), and calls an MEP an "ambitious" "snob" (edit), and we don't want to create an incident? That seems a little skewed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (also ec) Not necessarily - the edit history for the account has plenty of decent contributions from multiple editors, so we can probably live with the occasional POV edit/vandalism. If the problem becomes current, persistent and ongoing, blocking for a few hours would be useful. Re the articles, if some of the edits from this IP are picked up by the press, we might have the sources to write something. Until then... EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest that we write an article. I did point out the skewedness of not even wanting to create an incident. We were not only willing to create an incident for the U.S. Congressional staffer edits, we created a lengthy RFC.

      And this is a current problem. Look at the timestamps on those diffs. They are all, bar one, within the past week. And that one is within the past fortnight. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

      • I agree it's borderline - the number of recent warnings would justify a block in my eyes, if not for the amount of good edits as well (hence the resultant collateral damage). Creating an incident doesn't come into it; I'd hope we would treat all shared IPs the same way. EyeSerene^talk 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not we. Just me. Call me an insufferable, pompous wanker if you would...but I will straight up admit that I don't have the testicular fortitude to block Parliament...unless it's Parliament Funkadelic...but they would never vandalize Wikipedia. --Smashville^talk 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Lady Gaga recently played the "Parliament Ultraclub" in Ottawa. Gonna block her? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I should block her just for being Lady Gaga. --Smashville^talk 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ((super duper ec) We could have an article on it, once / if the press picks it up. Otherwise it is OR. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Incident! Incident! It's the title of this page. Incident! Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I read these alternatively as indent (which I failed to do) and indecent. And my apologies, I was extrapolating it to what I saw as the next step in parallel with the article you linked. Syrthiss (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• How about semi-protecting whatever articles the IP is messing with? That will fix his lorry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it won't. If you go and look at the history of Edward McMillan-Scott‎, you'll see one of the reasons that Setwisohi is here in the first place, and you'll also see (by the fact that they reinstate one anothers' edits) that the person making these problematic BLP edits to this particular article has at least two accounts in addition to the IP address, both of which are almost certainly autoconfirmed by now: Yorkshire Bumblebee (talk · contribs) and EPP fanatic (talk · contribs). And then there's Saer1957 (talk · contribs) writing content (edit) about how "honourable" and "selfless" the person is. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Huh. British Parliament: Bad teeth and ignorant. Who knew? Just because they're a government IP doesn't get them a 'Get Out of Trouble Free' card. Treat them like any other random idiot. HalfShadow 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think WP:NPA extends to all our editors, HalfShadow, IP or not ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If I were in charge, I would issue a block and make it very clear why it was blocked - that one of their own was the culprit. Let them fix the problem themselves if they want to use wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think one major point we are missing is that the IP hasn't actually vandalized anything since Setwisohi warned him. All the blocking talk is kind of moot at the moment. --Smashville^talk 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Um, whilst the userpage claims the IP address to be the British Parliament, both WP:SIP and Special:BlockIP claim the range to be 194.60.0.0/20 (i.e. 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.15.255), which doesn't include this address. Which is correct? Black Kite 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• As per RIPE:
  • inetnum: 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.63.255
  • netname: HOP
  • descr: Houses of Parliament
  • country: GB
• (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup, was just about to post this myself - should be 194.60.0.0/18. I've fixed WP:SIP but it'll take someone with more rights to fix Special:BlockIP, and I wonder if the AIV Helperbots have the correct ranges as well?. Black Kite 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You should have ample rights to edit MediaWiki:Blockiptext. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Eh, didn't realise that was transcluded. Thanks :) (and done). Black Kite 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• No need to block - although, as a British taxpayer, I will be more than willing to do so; fart around with my money of WP? - just send all the publicly availabe information on these HOP resolving addresses to the Daily Telegraph (who broke the MP expenses story earlier this year), the Guardian newspaper, The Times, or The Independent. I think our UK MP's should be a little wary at being exposed as whitewashers/smearers, and might take steps to resolve this. A word directly to the abuse contact, ruminating on the consequences of placing this before Fleet Street, may also do the trick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have any qualms in the slightest about blocking anons from this IP address. Remember that MPs have more-or-less unpaid interns who might be more enthusiastic than their brief permits, and are completely unaccountable- and dispensible, and deniable. I think what matters here is disruption to Wikipedia, and whereas I don't see it being a functional problem as things are, my view may change. After all, our Government is under considerable pressure at present, facing, as it does, a General Election within twelve months in the face of appalling opinion polls. If I see any sign of manipulation of Wikipedia to counter that from that direction, I will act. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest that you look at Edward McMillan-Scott. Whilst this discussion has been proceeding, another single-purpose account, Xerxes23 (talk · contribs), has joined in the fray. Not only has xe removed all of the sourcing from the article, xe has added content such as "The following day, the reference to Kaminski's membership of NOP after 1989 was removed from his Wikipedia page.". That's a reference to this edit by 194.60.38.198. I'm sorely tempted to revoke the editing privileges of all of the SPAs mucking around with that article, because it's looking more and more that they are all wildly non-neutral on the article that is their single-purpose, and here to abuse Wikipedia as a political football rather than to write properly sourced NPOV content. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The page Edward McMillan-Scott is now blocked for all editors. But it is an awful state. I think the block is fine but I suggest an admin restores a suitable prior version and then re-applies the block. It should not be kept as it currently is. (Especially given that it is a bio page of a living figure). Setwisohi (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this page Chris_Grayling is still being attacked. Sourced information being removed by anon IP. The material relating to recent expenses scandal. Setwisohi (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This page needs protection, looks like frequent IP vandalism

This page needs protection: Mark Holiday Looks like frequent IP vandalism: 14:26, 18 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,804 bytes) (undo) 04:03, 17 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,774 bytes) (undo) 04:03, 17 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,805 bytes) (undo) 02:16, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,774 bytes) (undo) 02:14, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,772 bytes) (undo) 01:48, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,709 bytes) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicmusicprofessor (talk • contribs)

• It looks like one batch of vandalism that you have already reverted. And Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is across the quad. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I stumbled on this discussion a little bit earlier and I've blocked one of the IPs. Those others listed in the complaint were added later. Re the ne I blocked: WHOIS comes back blank and Geolocate just says it's a Verizon account. Zombie, perhaps? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for WP:LAME? Ignore? Other?

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week by EyeSerene^talk

Mixed in with the random vandalism and false claims, Jay Sean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the target of a slow-burn nationalist edit war. Not sure what, if anything, to do. Today he's of "Punjabi Indian descent". Before that, he was "Punjabi Pakistani descent". Before that Punjabi Indian descent". How about Indian Punjabi for a little variety? Maybe just Punjabi? For typographical variation, maybe Punjabi Pakistann? Maybe he was born to Sikh parents who migrated from the Punjab region of Pakistan? Or Punjabi Pakistanian?

This crap is never ending. I watchlist the article because it is a magnet for fandalism, but 80% of edits are this little re-enactment of the Indian/Pakistan border conflict. Mainly IPs, but the occasional registered editor joins in the fray.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest semi-protection as a starting point - that should cut most of it out. Surely there are sources out there that define his ethnicity? Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist sources for a nationalist dispute. I just noticed the interaction between this thread and WP:ANI#User:Dewan357, so it's probably worth considering this in that context. My personal perspective is that "Punjabi" is both correct and sufficient.—Kww(talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good for me - they all agree he's punjabi something. Semiprotect and change to Punjabi would be my comment. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - done and done. EyeSerene^talk 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't last long. Take note of WP:ANI#User:Dewan357.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Further edit warring by User:Dewan357 on the Gupta empire page [156], despite a long and detailed explanation on the topic's talk page and clear reasons for previous edits, the user continues to make disruptive edits. Khokhar (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by User:EyeSerene

Hotwiki

Have you seen all of the troubled files this user has uploaded? Check out the talk page, tons of warnings. The user has an image in the corner that reads "Say NO to Fair Use, Free Wikipedia!", does this user understand fair use? Some action needs to take place.

Shortcuts:

• User page, Talk page, Contributions, Fair use, Contribution summary

• S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hotwiki uploaded a number of fair-use media files in 2006, and tagged them (as far as I can see) in compliance with fair-use policies as prevailed at the time. Since then we've asked that people fill out a little form when they upload fair use, and those bot messages are reminders to keep that info up to date. I can't see any evidence, and you've failed to provide any (bar some routine bot messages that prove nothing) of any breach of Wikipedia rules, as they stood at the time, by this user. Hotwiki hasn't uploaded any files for nearly a year. How is this an "incident"? Why didn't you discuss this matter with the user? What edits, specifically, are bad? -- Finlay McWalter Talk 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note that the "say no to fair use" is normally used to indicate that the user wants Wikipedia to use PD and free use images only, as it is more in line with Wikipedia's stated goals and situation than snippets of copyrighted works. This does not indicate that the user is some massive copyright violator who's interest is in uploading stuff that can't be justified under FU. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources are the album. Did he/she get it from the album? Off a website? etc. Some have no sources at all. This needs improving, no? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but the images were tagged in compliance with rules as they were then, and nothing the user has done indicates any deliberate attempt to stick copyvios and dodgy fair use images throughout the site. I'm not quite sure what admin action you're asking for here - a block is inappropriate, deleting the images is fairly silly without some attempt to save them.. What is it you want, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 and Rannpháirtí anaithni

Resolved

This conversation has been moved from WT:AN where is was mislocated.

Locus of dispute

• Laudabiliter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments by involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Nothing too serious here, but knowing the editor and seeing his/her non-response on this occasion, I don't see any course of action other than to ask for admin intervention.

User:Domer48 is working on a expansion of Laudabiliter - and quite good job he is doing of it too. After a few days of this work, I stuck my head in to lend a hand with copy editing - only to every attempt reverted in turn: revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. No explanation. Just reverted on sight.

I left a message on the user's talk page and on the article talk page, neither of which got a response before he/she reverted the page again.

Can an admin please explain ownership and civility to this editor?

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been adding citation tags to text which is referenced, and has ignored the unreferenced text. Having been in dispute for weeks over them not wanting to use references and sources this is a bit rich. Placed wiki source links at the head of the article. Placed dead links on the article, and changed the chronology of the sections.

That they have been in consistent dispute with me along with their fellow traveller who has also shown up now to lend a hand, and edit war in addition to this editor who have never edited this article till I went near it, does not bode well.

In addition to this article, I’ve expanded this article also, and will be continuing to expand more articles as they become applicable to this one. Now if they want to stalk my edits, there is not much I can do, but just coming along to create disruption is not helpful. This is just provoking here, and this comment here is a joke. First I did not add this section, but I did tag it. Secondly, this editor also for weeks refused to agree to source and reference contrabutions in the same discussion mentioned above, and now they want sources? --Domer48 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example of disruption is this edit here. The source clearly states English, and they change it again back to Norman. This is just editing for the sake of it. This is just adding citation tags to referenced text? This is just plain disruption. They stalked me to this article, having walked away from a pointless discussion with them. I was going to reference this section, but here is the other partner, so now I have the three of them. --Domer48 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "This editor has been adding citation tags to text which is referenced..." As explained in the edit summary and on your talk, the {{huh}} template is because those sentence don't make sense grammatically. It is not a request for citations.
• "...dead links on the article, and changed the chronology of the sections..." Three red links out of what, 30 or so, link that I added? Red links are how articles begin.
• "...who have never edited this article till I went near it..." See the edit history and my user page. No one is "stalking" you.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And it continues. I've made 10 to the article since yesterday. All 10 have been reverted on sight by Domer48. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my rational above. You are trying to disrupt an article expansion and continue a dispute from another talk page. Adding original research, citation tags for referenced text, creating red links with no intension of addressing them, and trying to create drama here is all one can expect from a returning editor under a new name with a history of disruption. Now I'm going to continue to build this article up and this expansion will take some time as it involves working of a number of articles your disruption is not helpful, please stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Adding original research, citation tags..." It was a copy edit only. No citation tags were added. You need to get over your ownership issues and learn to collaborate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I've organized this case so that uninvolved editors can get a better idea of what's going on. We need to check the claims of WP:OWN violations by Domer48 and the counterclaim of disruptive editing violations by Rannpháirtí anaithni. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon first review, Rannpháirtí anaithnid appears to be a trouble-making sockpuppet account. They made a bee line to a hot dispute and started picking fights. Do we have a checkuser who could take a look at this account and compare it to the usual suspects related to The Troubles? Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A check user can be avoided by seeing this entry on Wikipedia:Changing username. Also, WP:HUMAN describes what I learnt from my "year in the wilderness" after I abandoned my previous account and edited as an IP.

Never had the words "trouble-making" used to describe me before. Thanks for taking this up BTW. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Domer48 has been involved in a very intense dispute. If he wanders off and starts a new article, it would be good for those who'd been in wikilitigation with him to let him be. I agree that you are not a trouble-maker, but I can understand from Domer48's perspective how you could look like a troublemaker to him (and even to me, an outside observer). Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that this issue has been semi-resolved since at least Domer48 has discussed one issue on the talk page. Although I haven't tried to edit the page since. I would however still like a comment on his earlier behavior re: my attempts at copy editing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've only a few things to say. Firstly, it seems like rannṗáirtí was making simple copyedits, so reverting them confuses me. Secondly, it doesn't look like there's been any OR; including a link to Wikisource (which I believe is the cause of that particular dispute) cannot be considered research, because no text is being added to the article. And thirdly, this really should've gone to dispute resolution. Heading to the drahmahz board is almost always a bad idea. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing administrator

It seems that no further action is needed here. Circumstances have been explained. Domer48, an important part of civility is being agreeable. If somebody makes trivial copy edits, just let them be for a while. Try not to revert unless it's really necessary. You can always revert a little later. An especially good idea is to use the talk page to explain why you want to revert, and give the other editor a chance to reply before you take action. Other editors, please do not follow people you've been disputing with to new venues. If somebody walks away from a dispute, let them go. Don't follow. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia-India relations

AdjustShift (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)}} Against my better judgement (and I should know better) I have been drawn into an edit war with Ankitsingh83 (talk · contribs) at the above article. The situation has deteriorated so badly that he/she has made a complaint that I have been acting in a racist manner towards Indians. "curry-bashing". "Curry bashing" is a slang term for this phenomenon.

Given my edit warring has been unacceptable and a serious complaint has been made about my actions as an admin, I feel it is best that someone else attempts to straighten the matter out and take whatever action they feel appropriate against myself and the other party. Regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And again, I've notified the editor in question about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. Unless this escalates I don't see the need to block anyone or demand that folks disengage or apologize. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, I would like to present this case before you. I am the editor ankitsingh83 mentioned. The person who has been responsible for creating an edit war is Mattinbgn. He has used bigotic statements against me. Apparently he is the only editor from Australia editing this page. Other administrators like YellowMonkey have been useful editors. I have not used bad language or blamed anyone personally. Mattinbgn started using comments like "your false assumptions of superiority", "you should look into the mirror", he even tried to lecture me into leaving wikipedia and starting a blog. I think he has overstepped the line as an administrator. I want to even push for blocking him from wikipedia. His bigotic actions and comments are hurtful as well POV pushing. I am beginning to feel that he is being paid to do his POV war. Because I don't see anyone else editing this page. Administrators help is urged. ankit 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

(ec) Agree with Protonk (was heading that way myself, but Protonk pipped me to the post). With the page protected there would be little mileage in a punitive block, as it would quash the talk-page discussion that will hopefully now follow.

Looking through the edit history, I think, Ankitsingh83, you must realise that racist imputations of the sort you've raised have a chilling effect; they're utterly unacceptable, counter-productive, and won't be tolerated. I hope you can retain a sufficient detachment from the subject - upsetting though it is - to edit in a neutral way. If not, it may be best to find other articles to work on. Can you provide diffs to back up your allegations?

Mattinbgn... you're right, you should know better. Consider yourself trouted. EyeSerene^talk 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not calling mattinbgn racist, though I did use the term curry bashing, as is common in Australia. It was only because he was calling his administrator friends from Australia to help him out. Although others were neutral unlike him. So I had to ask for help somewhere. But I do believe he has an agenda, he is paid by someone or something. I don't have an agenda, I am a private editor. I was just editing based on facts and media reports. Mattinbgn unnecessarily clashed with me even when I was being impersonal. He started getting personal as he realized he wasn't the only one editing the page. The he started claiming superiority. Saying I cannot proceed against him for blocking him, and told me to "look into the mirror" whatever that was supposed to mean. I was frustrated that I even stopped discussing this on his page. His attitude was aggressive and delimiting. I think administrators should check into the page's entire history to see what was being said while editing. I wasn't even paying any attention to him when he started getting personal and unnecessarily angry. I didn't have an agenda while editing the page. I was just trying to update. He definitely does have an agenda with the page. ankit 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ankitsingh83, you do realize that accusing someone of an agenda, or being paid to make specific comments in this manner can be considered to be an attack? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not attacking him, he did attack me. I do believe mattinbgn has an agenda. That is a firm belief. If you guys just look into his comments on my page or the history of pages involved you will know what I mean. As per EyeSerene's suggestion I am looking away from this page for sometime. But it would be highly disruptive if mattinbgn is allowed to edit that page again. Currently the status quo of the page reflects the reality so I am happy with it. Mattinbgn's aggressive attitude doesn't befit an administrator or an editor. But I am ok with the fact that he doesn't create an edit war with me again. That would be all. ankit 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

Antkitsingh83, did you even read Bwilkins's comment above? If you did, and still don't get it, let me be more blunt: stop accusing other editors of having agendas. It is considered an attack. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above Ankitsingh83 - whether or not you have a disagreement with an editor, your painting of editors, and Australians generally with such a broad brush that escalates any perceived tension by by introduction of the derogatory phrase "curry-bashing" is unfair and looks to be poisoning the well. I am very concerned by these edits and your continued suggestions about Mattinbgn having an agenda. This sort of behaviour by you must stop!--VS ^talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that while accusing an editor of having an agenda is considered an attack, so to is repeated claims that the editor is "curry bashing" ([157] [158]). I'd like to reinforce VirtualSteve's comment above, and strongly suggest toning down the language. - Bilby (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey I am done with whoever that person was? Now are you guys up here trying to change my belief? The whole world cannot change a person's belief. Or are you accusing me of retrospective racism? Since I am trying to put this matter to rest and since you guys want the same, might I suggest "Leave me alone". I have left the person responsible alone as well. As to the supposed derogatory term that I used. Did any administrator take any action before I urged for it? It is not a derogatory term, if you have lived in Australia, it is just an acknowledment of a certain type of action. ankit 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

ARticle should not have been locked in a POV state supported by one SPA against 3 regular editors. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons.. There are a few ways to interpret the protection policy. One favors the first sentence, the next favors "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." I prefer the former. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I just hope they wait until it is in the non-silly version, YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that you can use {{editprotected}} to request a consensus edit on the talk-page. EyeSerene^talk 08:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the page be unprotected now, with a stern warning that continued edit-warring will lead to blocks ? I am hopeful that with enough eyes on it the edit-warring won't resume. The page needs much work to overcome "recentism", and edit-protected requests are not an efficient means for overhauling the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I analyzed Ankitsingh83's edits, and they are disruptive. This edit, this edit and this edit are not neutral. Ankitsingh83 also accused Mattinbgn of "Curry bashing". I'll warn Ankitsingh83 to stop his disruptive editing; if he continues, he should be blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've warned Ankitsingh83 [159]; further disruption should lead to a block. AdjustShift (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Two "new" accounts/SPAs Utopialover (talk · contribs) and Oskarstewart (talk · contribs) have cropped up at the page and their talk page comments [160], [161] seem intended to bait User:YellowMonkey. Can someone with checkuser priveleges find out who the sock-master is and look for other sleeper accounts ? Also can the page be semi-protected temporarily to prevent it from becoming a battlefield ? Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the comments as unhelpful. I don't think protection is warranted at the moment though. EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:IllaZilla

Resolved

 – Situation calmed down, looks like. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This user won't stop reverting my edits. I was just making some very small and harmless edits, but this user is just being rude and intentionally reverting them without the slightest reason, besides those stupid sources, which was not really necessary. This user is just being continuously rude! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like IllaZilla explained their actions at User talk:IllaZilla#Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- is that what you're referring to, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes! Yes i am referring to that! I came here for help! This user is seriously trying to abuse me by reverting my edits on purpose! Again, i came here for help! What if you're hurt and alone and you dial 911, but no one answers? Huh? That's what it's like by your above response! Better help me solve this dispute! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... if you're so sure the information you're posting is correct, then you must have a source, right? If you don't have a source, how can you be so sure? I'm sorry to repeat something you've already heard, but the question seems quite relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's made the most money, been seen by the most people or whatever, just point us to where you read it. That'll do.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some dumb clown must have made up the rule about sources and verification, and that clown didn't know what he was thinking. If User:IllaZilla or anyone tries to revert any of my edits again, there WILL be severe penalties. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Dumb clown"? Next to perhaps neutral point of view, verifiability is one of our most important content policies. Please calm down. These are not hard questions we're asking you. Where did you get this information? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the term "dumb clown" from what you assholes are doing, things like "respecting your god damned beloved sources", which i sure as HELL don't respect at all! I never did agree with sources. Now you will pay the penalty, and it will not be good. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh very intelligent [162] Are you looking to be blocked from editing? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. If we aren't careful, he'll...um...type mean things at us. Or something. HalfShadow 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Ryanbstevens has been here for over a year and self-identifies as an adult, and not a child, this needs to be resolved. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. From his talk page, it would seem everyone has had a go at explaining about Wikipedia policies, the pillars, verification and sources etc.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only resolution here is an indef block, if not outright ban. User has made multiple personal attacks, and has announced they will not abide by core policies, to say nothing of the threats. → ROUX ₪ 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

He does some good stuff I think, but a threat like the above should be met with a block pretty much automatically (MHO) as he's threatening to disrupt the project, not just using bad words at someone.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ETA - a short block. I think he'll come to his senses in the morning. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning, since a cursory look at his talk page didn't show me one (could be that I missed it/them, if so feel free to block). Either he'll keep it up and get blocked, or he'll go do something else and won't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been here for a year should understand our core policies, and an announcement to ignore them should mean an immediate block until they reconsider their position. On the other hand, if after a year someone doesn't understand our core policies then they should be blocked anyway due to being incompetent to participate here. In any case, the outrageous personal attacks should have meant an immediate block anyway. We are mollycoddling this person because...? → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he removed lifebaka's warning, but at least that can be taken as having been read. Who then was a gentleman? (talk)

Personal policy, Roux. Seems to have worked, too. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here was Ryanbstevens's original edit to Terminator 2: Judgment Day and here was my revert of it. I think I was totally within WP:V to do so and explained so in my edit summary. To my knowledge I have never reverted any other edit of his, nor have we ever interacted before this issue. Here was my reponse to his complaint regarding my revert, and here is his rebuttal. Please take whatever appropriate action you like. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I do apologize for what i did. I did not mean any of that stuff. I was just feeling down. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  The internet is a baaad place to be when pissed off. Do what I do - turn the PC off, go get a drink, read a book or something, and come back to the problem in a few hours. Despite what some users will say this project isn't going to fall down in an afternoon :). Ironholds (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:209.152.60.173

209.152.60.173 (talk · contribs) is triggering an abuse filter as being a possible sockpuppet of Scibaby (talk · contribs). Could somebody investigate? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Warm as ice request admin action

Resolved

 – initiating editor is happy with result of warning upon Warm as ice see User_talk:Zero0000#Can_I_mark_resolved --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Before it gets out of hand, can someone please jump on new user User:Warm as ice? It is here purely for the purpose of disruption. Highlights:

1. [163] Claims Palestinians don't exist.
2. [164] Edits "Arabs" into "Palestinians" in 1929 Hebron massacre (contradicting #1)
3. [165] Admits #2 was just to make a point.
4. [166] Now claims the word "Arabs" needs a reliable source (which is of course ridiculous).
5. [167] Posts on Palestinian editor's talk page, claiming to ask for "advice" about putting Palestinian people up for AfD.

Zero^talk 10:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive, pointy edits that go far over the line. Give a final stop-fucking-around warning and then blocks if nothing changes is my two pence. Has he been informed of this section? Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only edit that has been made to his talkpage is a notice of this discussion, users are obliged to attempt to discuss matters first on users talk pages before taking them here. You may very well disagree heavily with this user and he may even be wrong but he is still entitled to due process.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "discussion" is at Talk:Palestinian people‎. In my opinion it is sufficient. Zero^talk 11:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My two cents worth is that Wikimedia Foundation policies regarding Non-discrimination and Code of Conduct do not permit administrators to practice or tolerate harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against project users on the basis of place of origin, nationality, ancestry, or any other legally protected characteristics. This isn't a content dispute, it is harassment. harlan (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have given Mr "Warm as ice" a final warning regarding his purposeful disruption of wikipedia. Should he again disrupt wikipedia please feel free to come to my talk page and if proven I will block him. I hope that this will nip future such edits in the bud but if my fellow administrators feel that more action is required at this time I will not argue against that action.Best wishes Virtual Steve --VS ^talk 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this user is/was purposefully disrupting. He clearly believes he was doing the right thing, he just needs setting straight. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because I'd say here he admits he's being deliberately disruptive. Ironholds (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see the lower two paragraphs he wrote on that edit. Nevertheless though, I don't think he created an account solely to disrupt. U-Mos (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

if a jewish editor was asked for help in proposing jew for deletion by an editor who previously questioned the existence of jews as a people on the talk page of that article, i wonder what the reaction would be? would anyone think twice about whether he was here to cause a disruption or not? i'd say warm as ice got off with a minor scolding. largely because no one treats palestinians as though they are full human beings. my two cents. 217.78.51.174 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, insinuating that there's passive racism abundant - nice. Well, speaking as a Jew who thinks that the existence of Israel = mega-problematic and the Palestinians should have got their bloody land back by now, I support the final warning. If it was the scenario you proposed with an AfD for Jew... I'd still support the final warning. Editors with problematic opinions in certain areas can be redirected to other places where they'd be useful, and blocked if they fail to cooperate. I see no reason to completely eliminate the first option. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Close RM discussion at Willis Tower

Resolved

 – Done by Mazca (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting that we are now at past 7 days into the RM discussion at Talk:Willis Tower#Requested move. As I commented in the section below the RM discussion (WGN-TV news), the nominator was an SPA that abandoned editing last Thursday and the other primary supporter of the move, Raime (talk · contribs) has conceded in his words: "there is clearly no consensus for a move back to "Sears Tower" in a comment within the Talk:Willis Tower#WGN-TV news section. There have been 8 additional !votes since July 24 with the overall total being 13 Support moving, 19 Oppose. I am requesting someone close the discussion. Sswonk (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably put this in the wrong place, s/b AN. Please excuse the misplacement. Sswonk (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... ~ mazca ^talk 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now  Done, it appears that we're keeping it at Willis Tower for now. ~ mazca ^talk 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Reyycool evading block

Seems like another one of his sockpuppets has appeared in a very sort time. The user Reyycool (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet of Rcool35 (talk · contribs) and Coolrey57 (talk · contribs), he also seems to be editing in the 99.XXX.XXX.XXX IP ranges now. I'm just brining this to your attention but can we dicuss a way that we can stop him from creating usernames and probably blocking him from doing his vandalism with the IP's. --Taylor Karras (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. Exxolon (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaymack916

A quick check of this user's contributions tells me they are not here to help - lots of nasty racism, sexism and BLP violating personal attacks. Indef block methinks. Exxolon (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Blocked indefinitely. You can report clear cases like this to AIV in the future. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Potentially Compromised Account Block Review

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia for over a year without causing any major trouble. However, in the last few hours, he has created a pointy AfD, reverted my close 3 times (1, 2, 3) and then vandalized my userpage. Since these activities are drastically atypical of the user and go in-line, I have blocked the account indefinitely as being potentially compromised. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Smashville^talk 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Vandalised? No.. accidentally left a message there instead of your talk page. I agree the AFD is misguided, and warring over the closure was stupid. But I've not seen enough to make me believe the account is compromised. Friday (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. He needs a short block to cool off and an explanation why his behaviour was not on; no more unless he re-offends. I'd say he acted under misguided good faith here. U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that if anyone wants to change my block, go ahead and do it. I did a quick sweep of his editing history and it all seemed out of character to me, hence the block. --Smashville^talk 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After a quick review myself of the editing history, I'm not seeing evidence the account is compromised, just perhaps a frustrated editor. I'll boldy undo the block. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You go be "boldy" :) --Smashville^talk 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I may just do that. ;-P No one ever asked about my typing skilz at my RfA. Good thing, too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He;s appealing his block. I think you may have flubbed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a search for autoblocks and didn't find any. However, I welcome anyone else taking a look, because I don't often unblock. (It's also possible he stopped reading at the block notice and didn't go further...)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This probably would have gone better had you not inflamed the situation by using the revert tool here and here instead of just editing the closure back in. You did, as xe has complained to you, remove RHB100's discussion contributions there. RHB100 even has a point about the g-force article. It is somewhat misleading. That doesn't mean that deletion is the answer, of course, and xyr attempt to abuse AFD as a cleanup tool was a trifle inept. Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cool-off block?" Do we do those? Is there a more valid rationale? Edison (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was perfectly within my rights to revert him instead of going back and deleting everything he added to the discussion after I closed it. You can't re-open a closed AfD just because you don't like the close. And I did post on his talk page that he had been around long enough to know not to do that. But he still kept doing it. And then posted a long bolded statement to my userpage. Anyway, it's done...apparently I'm the only one that thought it was disruptive. --Smashville^talk 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Were his edits disruptive? Sure. But the reason you gave for blocking was compromised account, and no one is seeing evidence of that. If disruption is the real reason (ignoring the whole blocking-by-an-involved-admin issue), then you've made your point and he's stopped reopening the AfD, so the block served its purpose. Can we mark this as resolved?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

JJimbo3 - escalated from WQA

Resolved

 – editor blocked 31 hours --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This WQA says a lot about User:JJimbo3. Not only has the user referred to others as "cunts", they seem to believe that it's quite okay, and that they're somehow allowed to do so - even in response to other's supposed incivility. They "don't care" what happens in WQA, as they will do what they want. I have provided them with my "uncivil new user" template yesterday, and asked them to retract this morning - granted they're not online until later, but I think "cunts" is far beyond what we accept. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Gross incivility - editor blocked 31 hours for personal attack on more than one editor.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this a username vio? (similarities to User:Jimbo Wales) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a "User:Jimbo online" somewhere, and it's been found to be ok, so JJimbo3 is likely alright. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User page being used as an attack page on a religion

Resolved

 – PMDrive1061 already indefinitely blocked them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stpdjokeass (talk · contribs) (username block?) started off by using a talk page as a forum to attack Christianity, now his user page has the same - "Christianity is nothing but the rape of Indo-European people by ancient Semitic religion" etc. Whatever I may think of religion, I don't think this belongs anywhere. I'm off to bed now though, and too tired to remember if I can just speedy this as an attack page, so if someone else could take a look please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the page and explained to the editor that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Someone can come along and apply some cluebat if this doesn't work. Friday (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of cluebat...is "Stupid Joke Ass" an acceptable username? --Smashville^talk 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I should be turned in to the usernames page, WP:UAA or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent it to UAA, and it's been blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving of Home secretary

The moving of Secretary of State for the Home Department to Home Secretary is once again up for discussion (here). This is after another editor unilateraly moved it from Home Secretary to the new title. The reason I bring it up here was this was only discussed two months ago and a consensus (all by it of only 3-0) was that it should be at Home Secretary. If this was an AfD or similar I'm fairly certain the debate would be speedy closed as too close to the previous discussion and the page moved back to home secretary. As I non-admin I'm not happy making such a close myself and as discussion is not centralised on one page I'm not sure an admin would see my recommendation until it come to the normal time to close the debate. I also think it would be better coming from an admin as there's probably less precedent for this in the case of requested moves than for AfDs and the like. Of course it may also be decided that either a) two months is enough passage of time or b) there's no policy for this so no one's happy doing it. If the later I'll start a discussion at the requested moves talk page so the policy can be changed. Dpmuk (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

3E Wireless

I filled out a sockpuppet report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3ewireless several hours ago, but the bot never added it to the sockpuppet investigations page. Can one of you take care of the sockpuppet report? Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and blocked him anyway since it was pretty obvious. You can probably just come directly to ANI with stuff like this; SPI is for investigations that might require a bit more delving. I'm not sure what the deal is with the bot; I've haven't logged on to Wikipedia in a long time, so I'm not really familiar with all this newfangled bot stuff. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Spaladium Arena and User:Jfrost81

Jfrost81 has been making edits to Spaladium Arena with edit summaries such as "Official changes by Spaladium Arena marketing department." Recently he blanked the page, with the summary of "spaladium arena director of marketing taking page down due to incorrect posts". He was warned once previously for deletion of material on that page. I have restored the material and left him a second warning, a COI notice, and a comment to review WP:OWN. This seems like a situation that could easily escalate to an office situation, so I'm asking here so that an admin or two might keep an eye on it. I'm also heading out of town shortly, and will have limited time for WP. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drag-5 at Kamen Rider Decade

When I signed on today, I found that Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had moved Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the title "Masked Rider Decade". I had seen that there was discussion on the talk page, and as this article is in my area of interest, I moved it back and left a message on the talk page explaining why the title was chosen and then left a message to Drag-5 concerning my issues with his move. In the past half-hour he's moved it back three times, and every time I move it back to the original title. I've just left an edit at the redirect so that it now can't be moved again (I know, bad practice), but Drag-5 has ignored me and directly taunted me in his recent move summaries and his replies to me on his talk page. Even though I directly interfered with his ability to move the article again, I would like to see some action taken against Drag-5 to prevent further disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong left a message on my page in an intimidating manner making orders using false authority. he made me feel intimidated and threatened. he failed to assume good faith and reverted edits more than 3 times and used practices that are against wikipedia policy. he is taking a power trip and is not considering that my edits are for the good of wikipedia and has treated me with disrespect at first. I do not caqre if i get banned but this will only result in people like this gettig their power trip and continuing to stagnate sikipedia and keep bad editing practices and bad communication and intimidation of other members. Drag-5 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this diff is proof that Drag-5 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopædia. jgpTC 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think my contributions page shows quite clearly that I am here to contribute. as a human being I reserve the right to get a little hot headed sometimes. Drag-5 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not "hot headed". That is outright incivility.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Content relating to the dispute rather than resolving it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's just a small mistake. right? AlienX2009 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC) further to this, Ryulong has now demonstrated clear personal bias towards me here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamen_Rider_Decade#It.27s_.22Kamen.22 , which suggest to me that his motives for reverting my good faith edit may not be pure. Drag-5 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC) My comments on Drag-5's activities elsewhere are inconsequential. Drag-5 should not have moved the page without discussing it in the first place, and he should not have moved it three additional times following my revert of the move, without a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC) That's it this is getting stupid. we're fighting over a thing that has been done in the past and I am going to end it. like I said examples: 12796 Kamenrider, english relese of Kamen Rider and Kamen Rider V3, Kamen Rider Double and Kamen Rider Dragon Knight. face it Ryulong is right. AlienX2009 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) alienx2009, your statement does not follow wikipedia usage guidelines. the issue is not dealt with and is still going until the proper title is used.Drag-5 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC) What?!. my statement does not follow wikipedia usage guidlines? for your information if I wasn't I wouldn't be here on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. and don't ever call me "alienx2009" call me Alien X or "AlienX2009". AlienX2009 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) This content relating to the content dispute is getting off topic from the original purpose of this thread. Leave any and all commentary about the article content on the article talk page and not here where I intend for the actions taken to be investigated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryūlóng's comments on Talk:Kamen Rider Decade page are continually personal. his comments are seemingly aimed at myself instead of concerning the topic itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drag-5 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is false, as Drag-5 continues to disrupt the talk page despite consensus being against him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryūlóngremoved my comment from the following talk page Talk:Kamen Rider Decade please help, this is getting ridiculous.Drag-5 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5's disruption of the article is what is getting ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5 is not disrupting the article by requesting that it be moved to the english title and Ryulong you should not remove other users comments without their permission per WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 04:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is disruption at this point, because he subsequently requested a move on a different article to make a point about the discrepancies in page titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian and FT2

Resolved

 – PD blocked for 1 month

→ ROUX ₪ 03:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm concerned with Peter Damian (talk · contribs)'s latest edits. They seem to be tagging FT2's userpage in a disruptive manner, and an apparent sock of FT2's labelling it as a sockpuppet. This is apparently to make some sort of point (WP:POINT as it were) due to Geogre's ongoing RFAR. Peter Damian and FT2 have quite a history, and I really don't believe Peter Damian should be the one to tag pages, if anyone should be at all. These edits, which look fairly harmless at a glance, are from three years ago, before FT2 held any adminship or arbitrator role. What should be done about this? Majorly talk 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I've protected the page. Those edits were purely provocative and I can't see any need to add those tags. When FT2 is around, he can decide when to remove the protection. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I've commented on PD's talk page, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) This is an obvious case of Getting Attention by Provoking Drama. May I suggest we don't let it succeed? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) The relevant pages have now been fully protected, Peter Damian has been advised on how to deal with this issue, so I agree it is probably as resolved as it could be. Hopefully Peter Damian will drop this business from over three years ago. Majorly talk 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Especially, as Peter is under the following terms for his unblock. directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia"" ""Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked". Peter, we get it. You and FT2 will never be on each other's christmas card lists. But please, drop it. It does you no good, and it does the encyclopedia no good either. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Is there, then, a good reason why he is still unblocked? The condition seems pretty clear, and not holding people to conditions to which they agreed is precisely why such conditions are largely a joke that can be gamed at will. → ROUX ₪ 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I'm also wondering why he is still unblocked? The mind boggles! Jeni (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Concur, and I've struck the "resolved" tag (if people disagree, feel free to add it back in). He edits under certain conditions, with a potential block for any violation. He has blatantly and provocatively violated these conditions. He should be blocked. Seems simple enough to me, anyway. Failing to enforce these sort of things is precisely why people are willing to push the boundaries - because they think they can get away with it. Ironholds (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) WP:AE or wherever it points now is your next stop.--Tznkai (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Aren't sock tags kept on respective user pages? Are they taken off after a while? There seems to be a legitimate discussion and issue at the core of this which is consistency in the application of enforcement mechanisms. Having made his point and spurred discussion, I don't see how blocking PD now serves much of a purpose. Is there ongoing disruption? I'm not seeing any. But I do think the issues involved are appropriate to discuss. We've had a couple recent cases of Arbcom socking. I'd like to know more about how we can better check up on our authority figures and apply our enforcement remedies fairly and equitably without double standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply I kept to my side of the agreement. However since FT2 has chosen to discuss the issue on Wikipedia Review [168] consider the agreement broken on both sides. Also FT2 has finally admitted (on Wikipedia Review) that the sock was his, having previously lied about this. We should not be defending double standards. If Geogre is to be de-sysopped, why not FT2? On the alternate account, it involved the same abusive 'stacking' [169] that Geogre was accused of. Peter Damian (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) On Chillum's question [170] about whether this account was in violation of our sock puppet policies for that time [171]. Yes. The policy then stated "sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. " Chillum also asks whether something that happened some time ago is still relevant. Well if the issue had come to light earlier, possibly. But as FT2 has previously (and relatively denied this or avoided answering the question, it should be brought up. Otherwise we are admitting the principle that it is OK to lie about or deny something bad until it is long enough after the event to claim time limitation. Peter Damian (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry? You directly interacted with him after no direct provocation - how on earth is that "keeping to your side of the agreement"? "he did it first" is the sort of argument five year olds use. "he should be blocked as well as Geogre" - fine, bring it up at WP:RFAR. You can stick it quite neatly below your coming enforcement request I'm sure. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) And does it really matter what he does on Wikipedia Review? I haven't even bothered clicking those links because its irrelevant to this discussion. Jeni (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Why, if he comments at Wikipedia Review, does that give you the right to act here? Shouldn't the response be at Wikipedia Review? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reasons of morality. Morality is fundamental to human existence. Do we do what is right or wrong? Ricky, Jeni, do you want to do the right thing? Or the wrong thing? I mean, right or wrong, independent of any project like this you are involved in. I think you know the answer. Peter Damian (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's a bunch of sophistry that simply does not matter. The very simple fact is that you were unblocked on the condition that you leave FT2 alone on Wikipedia. Or did that condition magically disappear because you decided it did? → ROUX ₪ 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's just BS. If you have a problem with his comments at WR, talk to him there. Now what, you want him to respond there, you play here, and everyone just acts like this is ok? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Proposal Ok, trying to see what people think but I'm of the view that Peter should be indefinitely blocked for just being a continued disruption, and we can all move on. If we allow people to violate their restrictions because of what is done off-wiki (let's not wait until we have a situation where someone just thinks something is happening off-wiki), there's honestly no point to having any restrictions. It's a simple restriction: don't directly deal with him. There's a million other ways to bring it up and he chose the most drama-causing method. Someone else can deal with his concern about FT2 in another manner but not here. If he promises to knock it off and actually follow the restriction, fine but I don't like keeping people around who won't follow simple restrictions. We have enough drama around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ok. Do you have a sensible proposal? Your suggestion is disproportionate to Peter's actions. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) In seven months, he's been blocked a number of times, including twice indefinitely (well, the last was reversed). What do you think, a day, a week, is there a period of time that will make him suddenly realize the restriction is serious? Why not another one second block? That really should make it clear when we say "hey, you two don't get along, don't bother each other", we expect him to be mature enough to actually do it. He hasn't even lasted a month. I really don't care if everyone just wants to ignore this. He'll continue doing stuff like this until someone blocks him, others will claim it's overkill, and we'll continue having 200KB ANI pages with a dozen of these complaints because this is amusing. I say indefinitely until he actually agrees to not interact with people he cannot deal with, and means it. If you cannot do something as simple as that, there's no point to allowing him to continue here until we get this again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I reiterate, WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, I'll agree to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) It's been there for several hours (I forgot to inform people in this thread, sorry chaps) so Rocky's suggestion is rather moot since it's in the hands of the community. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting removal of rollback privileges

The rollback feature is a "fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, first paragraph). Editors who "show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right" (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, rollback permission description).

Yesterday, I conducted a series of edits in concordance with Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries, removing galleries of fair use logos from several articles [172][173][174][175][176][177][178]. I have conducted fair use image gallery removal on many other occasions in the past [179][180][181][182]. For each image that was removed from an article and as a consequence orphaned, I tagged them as orphaned (example). A few hours later, User:Emarsee began undoing my edits.

I am not here to debate the concern of fair use logo galleries. I am here to raise a serious issue of abuse of rollback privileges. In particular, User:Emarsee used the rollback feature to undo my edits on two of the articles [183][184] and on 15 of the images (examples: [185][186][187]). In effect, User:Emarsee was treating my edits as vandalism.

Further, whether User:Emarsee debates the appropriateness of the logo galleries or not, removing warning templates for missing fair use rationales using the rollback feature is yet another abuse of his rollback privileges [188].

I challenged User:Emarsee about this, to give him an opportunity to respond before reporting this abuse here [189]. His response [190] acknowledges that my edits were not vandalism. He does apologize for the edit summaries lacking explanation, which is good. However, to use rollback for an issue of content is still improper use. Quoting WP:RBK, "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert."

This abuse of his rollback privilege is not isolated. In a casual review of his rollback usage, I found multiple cases of its use for non-vandalism edits. Examples include [191][192] and [193]. There are multiple other examples.

I am requesting the removal of User:Emarsee's rollback privileges until such time as he can properly identify vandalism and use non-rollback tools to demonstrate his understanding of what constitutes vandalism.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally have not requested rollback privileges because I like to carefully consider all actions and spend the time to manually revert vandalism. However, this is just me, not others User F203 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And me. I prefer WP:TWINKLE because it forces you to use an edit summary unless you have chosen the "Vandalism" option. Surely there is someplace where the removal of files that do/do not meet fair use is discussed?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this is very troubling buta quick scan of the users contribs suggests that they do generally supply an edit summary when they use roleback. nevertheless, Hammersoft is right that the rollback took was used inappropriately and the refusal to apologise or accept fault is concerning. I'd like to hold fire until we hear from Emarsee but given the attitude I'd support removal without a good explanation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks to me that Emarsee has apologized. Hold the pitchforks and torches, I say, until evidence arises that Emarsee continues after being warned. Powers ^T 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That evidence exists in the form that he refuses to undo the edits, choosing to continue to treat my edits as vandalism. I grant there is an apology, but it rings a bit hollow given his words elsewhere at User_talk:Hammersoft#Re:Rollback. If it takes me twice as long to conduct good faith edits as it does for Emarsee to use rollback to undo everything I do, it becomes incredibly frustrating. It becomes even more so when, despite apology, it's blatantly obvious what his stance is regarding my edits; bad faith. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • By apologising, he's effectively implied he does not consider your edits vandalism. What do you want - him to revert his own rollbacks, then revert your edits again with an edit summary? I do still get the impression that you are trying to conflate the content dispute you're having with him with his incorrect use of rollback. I agree entirely that his usage of it was incorrect; but personally I am happy to treat this occasion as a warning - I will keep an eye on his use of the tool and will remove it without further ado if any additional good faith edits are reverted with it. ~ mazca ^talk 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • As I noted in my initial posting here, I am not conflating the issues. My concern about his abuse of the rollback privileges is entirely separate from the fair use issue. You agree his use was incorrect. Thank you. What I want to see happen is his rollback privilege taken away until he can prove he can use it appropriately. It is easily given, it should easily be taken away until he can prove he can use it appropriately again. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "I've never stated your edits were vandalism, I just disagree with you removing logos which have significant historical value to the television station articles." Maybe it's me, but it appears that he is saying your edits weren't vandalism. He also apologized for the rollbacks without edit summaries...but if he is having a content dispute...why would he revert himself and then revert himself again just not to have an edit by rollback. --Smashville^talk 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The use of rollback privileges for a content issue is abuse of the privilege. It is to be used for vandalism and nonsense edits. Most certainly not to remove warning templates for missing rationales, as he has done and refuse to undo. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding this and this edit, I can't see why the first one wasn't vandalism. It was a clear attempt of promotion. The second edit was made by a user who would never listen to anybody, used incorrect English, got blocked a few times for PAs, and continues to push unsourced fringe ideas (see his account contribs, [194]). It's been quite clear that a majority of people don't even bother fixing his edits, instead choosing to reverting them instead.
• Like many others said, I've apologized for the edits where I didn't use an edit summary. What else should I do, if I'm going to revert my own edits back and then use rollback with an edit summary, the tags are still removed. I admit, I should've used Twinkle or undo instead of rollback for these edits. For that, I apologize and will use these tools in the future instead of rollback regarding NFCC issue on television/radio station articles.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I seriously wouldn't do that, because you'll then yet again be using rollback to break Wikipedia policy. Black Kite 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Emarsee, given that, by your own admission, you have a poor understanding of non-free content policy, it would be better if you didn't mass-revert editors with more experience in that area - whether you use an automatic edit summary or not. CIreland (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Since Emarsee has declined to undo his edits, I have undone them for him. In some cases there is room for discussion in interpretation of non-free image policies, but since these articles in their current form were clear failures of WP:NFCC - they are purely decorative - I will treat any further reversion to that version as vandalism. This disruption has to stop. Black Kite 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a few articles that have failed NFCC, but only 3a. There is no free equivalent to any logo as they are copyrighted, the only ones that could possibly be free are recreations of expired copyrighted logos. Most of the articles qualified for 3a. 4-5 logos are not excessive, however most stations have have been around for over 50 years have several logos, a good example would be WWOR (which doesn't have any historical logos galleries at the moment). I don't see how the logos are decorative, it's pretty damn hard to describe a logo, if it's not a wordmark or a widely known logo. I will not revert to prevent any edit wars, but I do not agree with this decision by Black Kite.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You noted earlier than you didn't understand the non-free criteria, and I have to say you're now proving it. "4-5 logos is not excessive"? One logo can be excessive if it fails WP:NFCC. However the main problem is WP:NFCC#8 - the logos aren't necessary to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject (i.e. the station). The only thing they could possibly increase is an understanding of what the logo looks like, and the articles aren't about the logos. In most cases they're not even discussed in the articles at all, which means they're clearly not significant. And all that is before we even consider guidelines such as WP:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. Black Kite 19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• BK, this strident and over-assertive tone isn't helpful. Knock it off. There is a legitimate bona-fide difference of view here, both sides seeing themselves acting in line with WP:NFCC, but coming to different assessments of what is and what is not significant. To those who see branding history as a significant part of a TV station's identity, indeed part of a regional area's shared historical mass-culture, the images presented e.g. at [195] do represent a significant addition to the understanding conveyed by the article; particluarly as we recognise that the quality and degree of the copyright taking in reproducing logos, which is what we have to balance the significance in terms of, is so slight because these logos were specifically designed to supply as widely identified and reproduced an image for the station as possible. (That, incidentally, is exactly why they passed Mike Godwin's legal test, and why that legal test is relevant here). This stridency, and particularly the threat of vandalism sanctions, is not appropriate in a legitimate question of judgment; and not helpful for community cohesion. What is needed is calm discussion and resolution, and if necessary neutral third-party mediation. Jheald (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Five fair use images. Two sentences. The second sentence just tells you the images are there. So, we have _one_ sentence talking about the logos. We're to include five images to support the 'discussion' in ONE sentence? Come on. We might as well give up and include fair use in discographies, character lists, and everything else then. Open the flood gates...
• No, if there's no significant discussion of an image there's precious little reason to include the image in the article. The images in your example aren't discussed. The fact the station has gone through logo changes is discussed in the one sentence, but there's nothing about the logos themselves. Further, there's no secondary sources used to support the one sentence. If this is all it takes to include as many images as we want, then discographies could just say "the performer has had a number of different album covers that have evolved over the years showing different themes, styles, and changes in record label affiliation" Tada! Include those album covers...fire away! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• No, sorry, I won't "knock it off". I am utterly fed up of this policy (which, let us not forget, is the cornerstone of one of the five pillars) being treated with contempt. I am always willing to engage in discussion on articles where a reasonable justification is made for use of non-free images, but in recent times we have had numerous occasions where editors have quite blatantly stated that because they (or in a more disturbing recent development, their Wikiprojects) don't agree with the policy, they don't have to follow it. That's what's happening here - you claim it's that editors have a different interpretation of NFCC, but they don't - they're just ignoring it if it gets in the way of their opinion. None of the articles mentioned in this episode come even close to passing WP:NFCC in their current state; they fail 3a and 8. The example you give clearly fails too - it basically says "here are some logos". Their design, evolution or how they relate to the station itself isn't discussed; that would be the very least that such an article would need to support such a gallery, and even then most attempts at this tend to end up with text such as "First there was a green logo, then a yellow one, then a blue one with a smiley face on ..." which not only isn't critical commentary but probably fails WP:NFCC#1 as well because the logos are being described perfectly well in text. We've tried calm discussion before; all we end up is wikilawyering and hand-waving about "there is consensus to include them", which is utterly irrelevant. Black Kite 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Says you. It's your opinion that showing how the station presented itself and how it is remembered by its viewers is not significant. It's not the opinion of our legal counsel, nor of the people who are actually interested in these articles and read and write them. Jheald (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now I'm going to ask you to knock it off, because you're being misleading, and claims like that are what caused much of the disruption on the TV articles in the first place. What Godwin said that the images were legal to use - and they are. But he mentioned nothing about the use of images in relation to our fair-use criteria, and as you well know, NFCC is more restrictive. Please don't try to insinuate that he did. And your last sentence ... imagine if you applied that to, say, WP:BLP? Wouldn't be good, would it? Black Kite 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP very much represents legal issues. If our attorney said we were censoring ourselves more than we needed to, we should consider that very carefully.
• As for WP:NFCC, it is stricter than fair use, true -- in certain ways. (eg substitutability). But this isn't one of them. The interpretation of NFCC#8 given by our guidance closely tracks the question, what could a U.S. commercial reuser republish, if they couldn't shelter behind WP's education and non-profit status. That is absolutely a question of legal fair use. And that is why Mike Godwin's answer is actually absolutely on point. Jheald (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not really - the legal aspect is dealt with elsewhere in NFCC, but WP:NFCC#8 is about reducing the usage of fair use images to those that are completely necessary in order that the user's understanding of the article is not diminished. Hence - would the reader's understanding of an article about a TV station be significantly diminished if they couldn't see the historical logos? Clearly not - unless the design or evolution of the logos was in itself historically notable or significantly relevant to the station itself. Black Kite 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• But that is not what NFCC#8 says -- and more to the point, it is explicitly not how the guideline examples apply it. If you don't understand NFCC#8, perhaps this is why you are so angry? Jheald (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon? That's pretty much exactly what #8 says - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Black Kite 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The key point is that it is the understanding of the topic which is at stake, not the understanding of the article. It's not "Could the article still be understood without the image", rather it is "Is the topic better understood with the image, in a way it would not be without it".
• The second point is that this is the key proposition for making a fair-use case for the inclusion of the image, and it is the fair-use connection which is directly important in gauging the degree of significance required to qualify as "significant" -- as witnessed by the rising scale of requirements for including different kinds of content in the guideline examples. Jheald (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• No Jheald, it's not Black Kite's opinion - as he said it's the opinion of the people writing the article (and, by extension, the sources available on the subject) - if it were significant then it would be discussed as such in the article. The argument of "Oh, but, NFCC 8 is all subjective" applies only in a tiny number of cases and is more often simply the prelude to a filibuster. CIreland (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. There's a useful rule of thumb here - if you're adding a non-free image to an article because it shows an important aspect of the subject that can't easily be conveyed in text, then you might be doing it correctly. But if you're writing text in an attempt to justify a non-free image that was already there, it probably didn't need to be there at all. Black Kite 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• And that is why these logos were added - because to the people who added them, they exactly showed "an important aspect of the subject that can't easily be conveyed in text". Those people thought the key visual images associated with the station across its history were "an important aspect of the subject". Not because they symbolised something, or because they were designed by somebody, or because they won some award; but because they were what millions of people saw night after night and identified as the essence of the station. That is their real significance - the rest is just interest by-the-by. Jheald (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• How could they be significant if they were hardly mentioned in the text at all? No, there are obviously articles where illustrative images are fundamentally important to understanding the subject, but these articles aren't them. They aren't discussed at all, and this is mainly because there's little to discuss - they're just completely standard logos, changing every time the station had a rebrand or facelift. Black Kite 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because you're not reading the comment above as to why they are significant. They are not significant for what could be said about them. They are significant for what they were -- the image of the station projected to millions of people night after night, so that that is what those people identify as the essence of the station. Conveying that is what is adding to people's understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Right, now we're on the right lines - if you could source the fact that the logos were important to the identification of the station and seen as iconic, for the lack of a better word. Now, for very well known logos for major stations, there's probably a good chance of doing that (and there's also the fact that there's likely to be good sources that discuss the actual designs, and so on) but for minor TV stations that rebrand themselves all the time, I'd say that was unlikely. This is starting to run off the point into a discussion of the policy rather than what this ANI was originally about though, probably better to continue it on one or other talkpages? Black Kite 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well note that one of the stations that J.Milburn recently purged was Australia's ABC 1, so I don't think we can characterise them all as "minor TV stations that rebrand themselves all the time".
• It's getting late, and I must call it a night; but basically my position is that generically to the people that live in their footprint, I believe that these images become an important part of their mental environment. "PQRS station, when I lived in PQRS-market? Oh yes, that was the one that looked like this". So I believe that, in themselves, these images have acquired significance in the context of the stations and those who actually watched them. As to "rebranding themselves all the time", is that fair. Consider CHCH which is the one I cited, completely arbitrarily, above. The first logo there lasted sixteen years, from 1971 to 1997. In 2001 it was taken over, and the radical rebranding reflects that. But then, even though some of the details changed, which I do think is appropriate to document, the key CH element remained pretty much invariant for six years. I could go on, but I need to turn in. Jheald (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with what Black Kite said above. It is very disturbing that people generally act in such a way that if they disagree with policy, they can therefore ignore it for their particular area of interest. If someone steps in to apply the policy, the wikilawyering begins. It turns into a quagmire, and the people wanting to include the images insist that if consensus doesn't exist to remove the images, they have to remain. Over and over and over and over again this happens. It's repulsive. If you don't understand what Free content is, don't understand Gratis versus Libre, and have never heard of the Free culture movement, you have no business dictating to other people what should and should not be included via fair use. EVERYtime we include a fair use image, we give away some of the power of this project; the power to enable everyone in the world to have access to the information on this project. Sometimes I seriously wonder if it's not a conspiracy by mega corporations to bring this project down. :/ --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, if you don't like the compromise that is what the WP:NFC is, then you know where the door is. It's a balance between trying to get as much as possible of the sum of all knowledge into WP, and still being able to get as much as possible of it out again. Jheald (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The compromise remains subject to adjustment if there is consensus to do so. We ought not to say that people who disagree with the present formulation ought to leave the project--as long as they are willing to respect it. DGG (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. Admonishment accepted. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jheald, you'll note that I wasn't complaining about WP:NFC or WP:NFCC. I recognize and adhere to the compromise that it is. The problem is when other people insist on doing something beyond what it allows, and claiming we have to work towards a compromise and without it the images must remain. We already have the compromise in the form of the EDP. Yet, people routinely ignore it and wikilawyer to death when challenged on it. To date, we've been dealing with this with very soft means. It hasn't worked. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wider issue

Separate section to the rollback issue, so moved.

• Emarsee is not the only one doing this at the moment, whether it be with normal editing, undo, rollback, Twinkle or whatever. We recently appear to be overrun with editors who insist that their own pet articles and Wikiprojects don't have to comply with our non-free policy, and are perfectly capable of not only edit-warring, but wikilawyering for hours on end on spurious grounds to try to justify it. Furthermore, I don't believe the situation is going to get any better until we start enforcing the policy properly, and that means treating edits which restore violating material as vandalism, with the resulting sanctions. Black Kite 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the most common sense I have heard in a long time! I couldn't agree more. Jeni ^(talk) 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know the entire story behind the NFCC issue, as far as I know, Mike Goodwin has stated that using logos on articles constitute as fair use.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do constitute fair-use. However, our non-free policy is a lot stricter than fair use. Now you might not have realised that, but I'm guessing that's mainly because of certain people very active on relevant talk pages who don't realise the difference either and are very vocal about displaying their ignorance on the subject. They are determined that "their" articles should not be subject to the same rules as everything else, and their determination is now crossing the line into disruption - hence my comment. Black Kite 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd like to see this discussed further, as the use of logos (and other fair use claims) seems to be increasing. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not entirely aware of the issue, and as such, I probably won't comment any further on this until I know the entire story. I'm bringing this issue up on WP:TVS and WP:WPRS.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The frequent misunderstanding about fair use policy is that wikipedia has a much stricter rule. A non-free image FIRST has to meet general fair use rules, at minimum. THEN it is further restricted by wikipedia policy to include only images that "add encyclopedic value", as opposed to being used as "decorations". That distinction, I think, is where nearly all the image arguments come from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Plus due to the vagaries of individual interpretation, one editor's "adds encyclopedic value" is another editor's "useless decoration." — Kralizec! (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, especially when you run up against those who think that what something looks like somehow does not add value. Which is why I gave up and stopped uploading images - except those that I took myself, which, ironically, constitute "original research", but wikipedia tolerates OR when it comes to picture-taking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:OI is specific about the use of original images not counting as OR ... in fact, it's encouraged unless the images are meant as supporting documents to original research (such as diagrams of the subatomic particles an editor is claiming exist).

Also, remember that creating an image yourself does not necessarily make it free (i.e., screenshots, pictures of copyrighted artwork (including, in the US, statues and sculptures)). Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Daniel) Er, well ... thankfully since "a picture is worth a thousand words" most photos sort of speak for themselves. While it is possible that someone might claim that this image is not the main entrance to the ORU campus, the facts of the image speak for themselves and indicate otherwise. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, the NFCC are subject to interpretation in some areas. Treating edits with which you disagree as vandalism is what brought us here in the first place, isn't it? Powers ^T 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Rollback should be used ONLY for removal of obvious trash, like "Hi Mom", random character strings, and vulgarities; NEVER for content disputes. If there is any question at all, they should do a normal "undo", replacing the generic edit summary with something meaningful. And if they abuse rollback it should simply be taken away. Very little discussion needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • An easy way to remember...if there's a multi-level template for it...you can usually do it. --Smashville^talk 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is always possible to start a discussion on adjusting the NFCC policy to permit logos for articles where they are the logos for the subject of the article. Since this is within legal limits the community has discretion to do this. Whether it will choose to do so or not is another matter. DGG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• There have been multiple discussions on this subject before; general consensus was that a single use of the current logo in the lede of an article was unexceptional, but to justify multiple non-free images (usually a gallery of historical logos) then there needed to be good reason why the overuse and significance aspects of NFCC did not apply; this was usually in articles where there were particularly notable or iconic logos. In some cases this led to the logo having its own article (i.e. Leo the Lion (MGM)) where the fact that the article was about the logo itself meant that NFCC#8 was complied with more thoroughly, but usually it was down to the availability of sources discussing the logos themselves, because without such sources editors were unable to reliably source the fact that the logos were in themselves significant. Black Kite 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Logging in to vote for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees election

Resolved

I voted, thanks. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having problems logging in to the special server. I can't imagine that I'm the only one. Is it the computer, or did I forget to register to vote? Bearian (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure that you have cookies enabled and that you meet the requirements. Your username will not be shown at the top of the SecureVote page, only your IP address. Nakon 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusingly, the voting page also displays a "log in" link that isn't needed or usable, along with your IP address (which normally indicates that you're not logged in, when seen on Wikipedia). It's no surprise that people are confused by this. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is needed, because how else are the Election Committee members meant to log in and audit the voters to ensure that there's no double-voting going on? Daniel (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the ability to log in is needed, for the reasons you've mentioned, but there's no need to display a login link for people who have arrived through the WMF-side redirection; that can only cause problems. Removing the link wouldn't remove the ability for authorized people to log in manually. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed for AfD issue

Hello,

A user recently rapid fire nominated 38 former American Idol contestants for deletion a couple days ago. I recommended they all be speedy closed with no determination of notability rendered. (Basically with the rationale that the large number of simultaneous AfDs would lead to "I like it"/"I don't like it" voting rather than a proper determination of notability based on researching sources.) A fair number of other editors have offered the same opinion and some of the AfDs have been speedy/snow closed as keep. However, the majority remain open. As such, I would like an uninvolved admin to review the situation and decide if the remaining ones should be closed or not. If they aren't going to be speedy closed, I would like to know so I can start researching the subjects and make proper keep arguments for those who deserve to be kept.

Here is the list: User:Dalejenkins/AmericanIdol

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I closed a few of the more obvious ones earlier today, but many of the remaining ones have now garnered good-faith arguments for deletion. As such I think it can't hurt to let them run their course. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool

User:Mcjakeqcool was first brought to the community's attention through a thread in WP:VG where someone raised a concern about the number of articles he was creating. We then proceeded to deal with some of these articles, turning them to redirects of deleting them. Taking a look at the user's talk page quite well demonstrates the amount of controversy they has caused.

The user has been warned, but has vowed to continue, stating about "my project" and warning editors that he will challenge deletions (despite the fact that there has been few, if any, opposition to any deletion). User adoption was also suggested, but this idea was also refuted (or should I say "DENIED") by the user, stating that they would instead continue editing by their own accord.

Basically, this user has been a pain in the neck. They refuse to stop their editing, despite it breaching key policies, and have repeatedly stated what rights they have granted us editors. A block seems harsh, as the editor still seems to be acting in good faith, but as they evidently don't want to accept the rules, it may be the only way to get them to listen. What view do the community and administrators have on this situation, and what do they suggest we do to help this editor recognise the rules?

Apologies if this isn't the correct theatre for a discussion that doesn't immediately require an administrator's action. If so, please move this to the correct place and notify me on my talk page. Cheers. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at what you've written here (I haven't viewed any of the links or background info), it might be more appropriate to seek out some dispute resolution, especially if you feel he is acting in good faith. If he's not open to this, and his editing continues to be disruptive, then administrative action could probably be considered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Mcjake of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My bottom line is that is appears this user does not care what advice, suggestions, helpful hints, or outright warnings they receive. They will continue to do what they want. For more than a month they've been creating articles with one or two sentences. These articles have repeatedly been redirected or deleted. Yet the user continues to create more articles in the same vein. Several times, suggestions on how to create good articles has been posted to their talk page, yet there is no change. As noted above, the user has refused possible adoption so that they can be a better contributor to Wikipedia. Something needs to be done so that people aren't wasting their time with the articles they continue to create and expect others to cleanup, add content to, or otherwise deal with. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

McJakeQCool has been active since late 2008. He seems unable to comprehend advice given and equally unable to string together a sensical sentence. His article creations are copy-pastes, a sentence or two stating that it's a game for X system which at the bottom features the actual text displayed by stub templates and categories entered while editing normally (see this from a couple of days ago for example). Virtually all of them are on games which any editor would struggle to locate reliable sourcing on (a good reason for them not being here in the first place). Dispute resolution or anything involving.. y'know, communication, is going to be as effective as fighting a fire with petrol, since inability to communicate and respond to communication is the issue. I don't think there is any malice or intention to disrupt anything, but the result is the same. If the result of months of being here has not even instilled the knowledge of how to add categories, discern a reliable source or even write a proper stub then I fail to see who is gaining what from this. Please take another look at this, the problem isn't going to suddenly correct itself. Someoneanother 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My present statement is that I try my uttermost best to contibute postively to wikipedia, however I do comprehend all advice given to myself, I agree to colabarate with fellow wikipedians if nesersery as I already have with user Otumbu. mcjakeqcool 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs)

You were offered adoption by one of the video game project's friendliest and most helpful members, despite him not having much time, and you turned it down. Just over a week ago you received a friendly note pointing you to Wikipedia:Starting an article. That guide contains pointers such as "Things to avoid - A single sentence or only a website link". Today you created this, which is now listed as an AFD in a note at the bottom of your talk page after a string of deletion notices and requests for you to edit more contructively. You aren't getting it, at all, repeated assurances that you are will not allow you to carry on like this forever and a day. I really really don't want to focus on you (or any other editor), make you feel bad or anything like that, but you're just creating messes for others to clean up and are point-blank refusing to do anything about it. Someoneanother 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to mention the possibility of an WP:RFC/U, but if admin action is not necessary at this point with other venues having been tried to salvage something useful from this user, (I have mentioned the idea of adoption or mentorship, but both were thrown back in the offerers' faces.) then I think we may have to do up one. MuZemike 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing disruption has already been observed and commented on by multiple contributors, yet there has been no sanctions brought or change in behaviour. Rather than tie up what is a simple case of obliviousness or ignorance in red tape there needs to be some kind of boundary. Either that or we forget the whole thing, nominate further abortive 'stubs' for speedy and revert unhelpful article additions on sight, there is no more point in trying to reason with McJakeQCool than having a slanging match with a bookcase. Someoneanother 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe admin action is necessary. The user has received friendly advice on creating and developing articles ([196] [197]), been offered to be adopted ([198]), and has received numerous pending deletion notices ([199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] this from just this month) on articles the user has created. The user's response is to deny adoption ([206]), states they will carry on and will challenge deletions on the article's talk page ([207]), incorrectly instructs Wikipedians on how to "wikify" an article ([208]), created articles with the edit summary of "DO NOT DELETE OR MERGE ARTICLE AS IT HAS BEEN WIKIFIED", and makes statements that appears they believe they are doing things correctly ([209]). All the while, the user continues to create new articles in the same unconstructive manner.

This is disruptive editing practices, in my opinion, and something should be done about it. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must point out I did not refuse to collaborate with Guyinblack25, I simply refused to have him adopt my account, my ambition is to continue on with my project, until it is done, then I will think of another way to contribute to wikipeida, altough I accept my project is controversial, it is a landmark event not only for myself, but for wikipedia as a whole. mcjakeqcool 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarification of the unenlightened, what is your project? And whilst you say it is a "landmark event" for Wikipedia, does it follow policy? Because if not, it has no place on Wikipedia. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: mcjakeqcool has been blocked by an admin uninvolved in this discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Mcjakeqcool will now recognize that the path he was taking wasn't so much controversial as plain wrong, and will reconsider the advice that has been given. Someoneanother 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging from their response to the block ([210]) I have my doubts that there will be much change. I suppose we'll find out next time Mcjakeqcool edits now that their block has expired. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User seems to imply they've changed, though I haven't a clue what they plan now. The post seems to be saying "I'll stop creating new articles and start creating stubs." 'Tis probably worth waiting to see what they do before we can make any assumptions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're saying that, instead of going through "List of whatever games" articles and creating stub articles for all the unlinked ones, they're going to add their little stub articles *next* to the titles of the unlinked ones. I don't think that constitutes a significant improvement... rdfox 76 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@User:Greg Tyler

My project is a attempt to vastly brodern the campisity of video game articles with-in wikipeida, however I have adopted which I will hope will be a less controversial approach, in which instead of createing new articles and 'stubs' I will but a 'stub' sized description of each game beside each game, hopefully this will be a non-controversial answer to user mcjakeqcool's original project. mcjakeqcool 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's tried adding a paragraph to the redlinks in List of Atari 5200 games, and promptly been reverted. I've recommended that he tries constructing an article in his sandbox that has a para on each of the redlinked games, together with a lede on how games for this piece of kit are generally notable. It'll keep him busy, and he might turn out something that can be used - I can see his point about wanting complete info, and although the individual games are not notable enough to warrant articles, I think you could group them to make one article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I don't know if this thread has actually been helping. Try taking it to a less dramatic venue.--Wikipedia AN/I Administrator please sort out this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bank Lady On A Large Scale (talk • contribs)

Disruptive editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Many of you might be aware, recently there were several editors banned from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. One of these editors, Wdford, had his ban lifted today. Almost immediately, he started editing the article; As I looked at his edits roughly one hour ago, I objected to them; I was about to explain my objection with more detail on the article talk page, by Wdford has already reverted me and I fear that this is about to escalate into another edit war. It might turn out in the discussion that my objection is unjustified, but in any case, Wdford would have to allow the time for a discussion before he reverts again. Otherwise he is not trying to find a consensus, and I think it is justified to call that disruptive editing. Zara1709 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara is right about one thing – her objection is unjustified. As I explained very clearly already, I have not changed the scope. I deleted unreferenced material, for which no consensus it required, and nothing I added is original research or fringe – it was all clearly substantiated. As the scope has stayed the same I have not been disruptive, and I don’t need to first obtain Zara’s permission. Zara’s blind reverts are an attempt to establish article ownership, which I believe is not appropriate. I am participating in discussions on this as we speak, but I see no justification to reinstate an article full of unsubstantiated OR while we seek Zara’s personal permission to go ahead and fix it. Wdford (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record. You added a section on Ancient Egyptian Art, and I doubt that such a section is relevant for the article. We can discuss this, but you are not even attempting a discussion. My objection at this point certainly is justified. Zara1709 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara along with other editors on the article talk page are currently trying to work out some sort direction for this article before proceeding with adding content(which is a wise idea),this is a very contentious and highly controversial subject ,i would suggest a full and indefinate article protect until consensus can be met and before full blown edit wars break out,the article is on probation--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdford made major changes, ie. bold edits. Zara reverted them. Now a discussion should take place. Wdford should not continue to revert but seek a consensus if he wants his changes to stand. And I should note that I undid a change by Wdford here whereby he changed his user name to Zara's in the section's title. That's not on. U-Mos (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for 48 hours as there was real edit-warring occurring. Please reach a consensus on the talk page - WP:BOLD does have its place, but needs to be used sparingly on such a controversial article. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen is Wdford adding material that does not relate so much to the history of the controversy, which is what the article was meant to be about and even at least some of the still-banned editors seemed to agree on that, but to the controversy itself. This is not promising. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all the material I added is directly related to the controversy, and was substantiated. Most of it was expansions of existing sections, to which nobody has objected for months. The new headings I added are themselves relevant to the title of the article, and are mostly just brief references to existing wiki articles. And I don't consider that deleting unsubstantiated material that has been flagged for ages to be BOLD Edits at all. So what we have now is a huge amount of protected OR, and a demand to seek consensus before adding referenced and relevant material. Why the double standard - why was Zara not required to seek consensus from me before imposing her own POV of what the scope should be? Finally, the title of the article does not say anything about it being limited to the history of the controversy only, but Dougweller you are imposing an interpretation that has not been supported by consensus, and which has been recently objected to by a number of active editors. Again, why the double standard - surely the title of the article denotes the scope, and you should be required to seek consensus before limiting the scope in contradiction with the title? Wdford (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, the edits by Wdford were very large. Doing such large edits to an article with such a fraught history, without any prior talk page discussion, ought to be grounds for reimposing the article ban. If editors won't make any effort to work cooperatively, they must be kept away from articles like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please at least review the edits in question before making accusations? Where in Wiki Policy does it say that the size of edits constitutes unco-operativeness? If any single edit I made today is inappropriate then please point it out specifically, but please don't threaten bans based on size of edits. And where does it require that consensus be achieved on the talk page first before deleting unsubstantiated material? Please could you be helpful here, rather than just threatening. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. A couple of abusive actions reverted the whole article to its months old state and blocked editors who were working cooperatively and collegially on editing it. It's no surprise that restoring a consensus version after this massive disruption has been choppy. Until something is done about admins like William Connolley, we'll continue to experience this kind of disruption. In the meantime, the usual dispute resolution mechanisms should be used. There's no set limit on the size of an edit and Wdford's work shows every indication of being reasonable. Admin enforcement is not an appropriate venue to try to win a content dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, this is a content dispute and thus not within the remit of ANI. Second, I have a great idea: delete the freaking article and invite all the SPAs who are DEFENDING THE TRUTH! to enjoy the wide Internet beyond Wikipedia. This stupid article has been the subject of approximately one AN/I post per week for ages, and it's beyond tiresome at this point. Alternatively, perhaps an admin with some balls could simply topicban everyone who has edited the article more than once in the last 90 days, instantly ban any brand new accounts that show up to it, and generally remove the utterly stupid editwarring that has been going on here since Tutankhamun was a small child. Let some neutral people work on it without the intense POV-pushing of the regulars. Then again, that would probably be far too logical a response. I mean seriously; the kids can't play well together, so take away their damn toys already. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed - it's a hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis. The Liancourt Rocks method of stubbing it to clearly sourceable statements may work, but I'd have to say that Wikipedia wouldn't be any worse off if it didn't exist. At the moment, it's just a time sink for editors who've got better things to do. Black Kite 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite, which is why I spent half a day deleting all the unsourced statements and original research. However Zara got upset because I ignored her right of veto, so she blanket-reinstated the whole hideous mess of unsourced statements and original research. It would help enormously if some admin who is actually themselves neutral could simply read the various contributions, and identify who is contributing constructively and who is breaking policy, and then administer the article correctly, instead of just protecting and blocking and banning. For some reason its always the most damaged version of the article that gets protected.

And just to help ROUX along, banning is not a logical response, its a lazy response, and it solves nothing. Children who suffer such abuse don't learn to "play nice"; they instead learn that parents can't be trusted, that the system isn't fair and that power is meant to be abused. Behind every aggrieved child who takes a machine gun to school, stands a lazy parent who thought the easiest way was to take away their damn toys already. Wdford (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time should... be allowed to continue abusing their editing privileges and wasting other peoples' time? I think not. So, two proposals. Draconian? Sure. Ends the disruptive bullshit once and for all? Absolutely, and necessary in a wide number of areas across Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There seems to be some confusion amongst recently arrived editors to AErc about what the title of the article means. As Dougweller has already said, it is about the historically recorded debate about the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians and those who have taken part in it. It is not a forum for wikipedian editors to provide fresh material to debate. In addition, there are already plenty of articles on Ancient Egypt and egyptology: this is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the title of the article suggests that the article is about the entire controversy, not just the history thereof. Allowing certain people to limit the content of the article to address only a small portion of the scope suggested by the title is thus confusing to readers - it certainly was inexplicable to me. If its necessary to limit the scope to just the history, then please would you change the title to "History of the ancient Egyptian race controversy", so that this discrepancy is cleared up, and we can edit the article accordingly. However as the title stands, the scope restriction is inappropriate as well as somewhat furtive. Thanks Wdford (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, assuming that the archaeological record of Egyptain artwork hasn't been included in the controversy over Egyptian origins (which seems far fetched to me) and assuming that the notable and sourced content discussing those issues doesn't belong in this article, where does it belong? If given an article outlet to cover this topic, it seems to me the problem would largely be resolved. But if the issue is not whether the art is related to the controversy and whether it's notable, but a question of some editors thinking that no matter how well sourced it is fringe nonsense that shouldn't be included on Wikipedia at all, then that's another issue and explains why there is such a gap between the disputants. Isn't it untenable, given the number of sources and the historical record of notable discussions various soruces addressing the art in relation to the society, to attempt to exclude it all together? Certainly one of the primary ways of understanding who the Egyptians were and where they came from is to look at their depictions of themselves, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In principle the matter is fairly straightforward: find the secondary sources which discuss the debate and use them to write the article. If what you're mentioning has not been discussed, it can't be written about because it would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive section collapsed Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

AERC Proposal 1 Proposed: delete and salt the article, ban the SPAs. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Support As proposer, first choice. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose AERC Proposal 2 Proposed: topicban all users who have edited the article more than once in the last 90 days (barring clear vandalism cleanup), and instantly ban any new account that shows up to edit the article. Support As proposer, second choice. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose Roux I'm sure you mean well, but I find your proposals disruptive and not in line with the spirit of collaborative editing and cooperation that Wikipedia requires. What is the appropriate way to work out a content disptue? One of the issues is whether images of Ancient Egyptian art are relevant and notable to include in the article. Are they related to covering the controversy over who the Egyptians were and have they been discussed in reliable sources? Should outside perspectives be sought at the Article Content noticeboard? Let's work towards resolving the content dispute instead of punishing disputants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) And I find just about everything you do disruptive. So your point is..? This sort of disruption does not end until either one side blinks (not going to happen), or the people pushing POVs are banned. They are unwilling to give any ground--see also the various nationalistic disputes, the recent ArbCom ruling regarding Scientology, etc. NPOV is a foundational issue and is non-negotiable. It's time to recognise that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Topic ban to all of editors working on the article in the last 90 days? What a ridiculous proposal. This kind of abusive community ban proposal is indeed disruptive. Since the matter is within the ArbCom ruling, take it to AE instead.--Caspian blue 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I am breaking my self-imposed ban on responding to you in order to address your usual hyperbole. Nothing about this proposal is abusive, and calling it such is merely your usual reduction to offensive comments in order to discredit someone you don't happen to like, as opposed to actually engaging with what people say. This is the usual pattern from you, and is--depressingly--to be expected. One has hopes that at some point you will learn to respond to what is said and not to who said it, but such hope as is left is a small and lonely thing. And now to expand on what I have proposed above. The proposal is, in fact, made in good faith in order to start ending the mindbogglingly stupid POV wars that engulf massive tracts of articles on the site. Unless and until we start taking a hard line against that bullshit it will simply continue, fester, and grow worse. The "hey everybody let's talk nice" thing has not scaled to the size of (so-called) community that Wikipedia is now. Blocs of editors routinely line up on one side or the other of nationalistic or other disputes and simply refuse to budge their positions. The only thing that works is ArbCom stepping in and summarily removing people from those articles (and then, intriguingly, hamstringing those admins who actually try to do anything about enforcing such decisions). It is no longer possible to settle these disputes without a long and drawn-out ArbCom case which inevitably results in bans and/or topicbans anyway. So let's cut out the middleman and remove all of the SPAs from the article, as well as those continuing to feed the fire. 90 days was proposed in order to weed out any maturing socks, and the bans for new accounts proposed for the same reason. There is nothing here that is abusive, merely a hardline response to the sort of ridiculous warring that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock in the academic world and inherently untrustworthy by anyone's standards, not merely ours. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Roux, I've found your recent editing mostly pretty responsible, but you're going way off the deep end here. How about leaving this alone for a few hours so that you can get some perspective? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) It is an attempt to do something about these sorts of recurring and insolvable issues. Well, I say insolvable; what I actually mean is that nobody has the gumption to do anything about it because they cling to AGF in the face of all evidence to the contrary that people involved in highly-POV nonsense like this will ever back off, even the smallest amount. The thing is, for people involved in such disputes, the dispute is intensely personal. They are upholding TRUTH, and no amount of argument is going to sway them otherwise. So, treat them like the squalling teenagers that they are, and ground them for the duration. These disputes are a major problem for Wikipedia, and the general unwillingness to deal with them is a result of the AGF-as-suicide-pact mentioned above, the inevitable pileons that result when someone does anything to upset the status quo (and seriously, the status quo is broken; innovate or die), or fear of being subjected to the bizarre attitude of ArbCom as recently exemplified by its desysopping of FutPerf who made some intemperate remarks after ages of being one of the very few administrators with the interest and expertise to deal with a specific locus of nationalistic dispute, from which this AERC dispute is semantically indistinguishable. Believe it or not, this proposal--extreme though it may be--comes after much thought about how to handle such disputes. Whatever else you may think, it is apparent that our current method of handling these issues is laughably insufficient, and pretty much anything would be an improvement. What it boils down to is a simple question: are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate (amongst other things that assail the reliability of the project) POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice. If the answer is no, then we're all just wanking anyway and we may as well just transwiki everything to Encyclopedia Dramatica and call it a day. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Roux, your right above comment is almost WP:TLDR. I commented about the proposal not about you, so do not steer the topic to your self-imposing ban that none cares about, and please stay "focused" and be "WP:Civil". Do you already forget about your catch-praise? "Comment about edits, not about editor". I really want you to keep your own word if you do not want to make yourself hypocritical and rude. I'm also very tired of your typically disruptive personal attacks. I do not consider your ban proposal productive because the matter is in fact currently being dealt by ArbCom, so my suggestion for you to take it to AE is reasonable one from good faith. The issue went to ArbCom because it was beyond just content issues and the community (narrowly AN/I) could not afford it. I do also feel your ban proposals are unhelpful to solve disputes brought to ANI because you do not study complainers or complained people's edit history in detail. I do not agree with any sort of community ban, rather suggest them to take it to ArbCom. I'm entitled to stand by my disagreement of your ban proposal that I consider "abusive". I do not think that sort of community bans would do good for the community because that generally ignores one side of story. All people except trolls and vandals should have an equal opportunity to voice their concerns. --Caspian blue 23:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) There are many things you are wrong about above, but the most offensive is your assertion that I don't study what's going on before speaking my mind. Again, Caspian, this is your usual pattern and I am disinclined to indulge it any further. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) You don't in my observation. Your personal attacks to me speak for themselves. Roux, I really want you to refrain from perpetuating such the typical behaviors to people. You should face that your proposals are not always welcome to people. Instead of personal attacks, you need to focus on the topic. Will you?--Caspian blue 23:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I have made no personal attacks. I was focusing on the topic; you decided to throw around words like abuse, for God's sake. → ROUX ₪ 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I suggest this section be collapsed. The disruption and incivility shown by Roux is unacceptable. More mature and respectful parties should be given an opportunity to address the issues raised and to help steer the disputants in a direction that will allow them to work through their differences over article content issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Incivility? Where? Oh right, when I stated facts.. yeah, that's incivil. Nor, indeed, was this disruptive. If you would actually read what I wrote and try to understand where I am coming from you would see that. → ROUX ₪ 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving my posts at talkpage

User Arab Cowboy have now several times moved my posts at talkpage although I have told him not to.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304974112&oldid=304970678 Here I ask him not to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304974701&oldid=304974112

2.Again he does it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304975240&oldid=304974701 comment here was not added in the middle of conversation but at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304968550&oldid=304968218

3.Third time he changes position to my response to his claims to a section where my post does not belong: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304978955&oldid=304978391

Please make him stop--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You two need to stop battling each other at AN/I and elsewhere. Perhaps if you two left each other alone and edited different areas from the millions of different pages on Wikipedia, none of this nonsense would be continuing.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to say. How about both of you stay away from that article until September, hmm? And away from each other until, oh I don't know, the heat death of the Universe? → ROUX ₪ 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He have also changed position of another guys quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=304989578&oldid=304985583 can someone just tell him to stop this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bahopwet.

Creating hoax articles by copying other articles without attribution, and changing names to harass. See The Blossoming of Warren Pineda, Ang Lihim ni Vicente Gacola, Niño Libre, and commons:File:Vicentegacola.jpg.

Probably sock of User:Lyle123. Please block and prevent account creation. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-30t09:53z

Anyone know why an account created on 2009-07-29t06:37:38z was allowed to start creating new articles 21 minutes later? Isn't there a 4 day waiting period? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-30t10:00z

No, there isn't. Autoconfirmation only applies to moves and so forth. Accounts can create pages immediately. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 10:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Numerous problems caused by User:Pedro thy master

Relevant links

• Pedro thy master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedro thy master/Archive
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pedro thy master

User talk page before deletions with all the warnings (notice TOC and all the redlinks)

• Note that user NEVER discusses, only blanks his talk page.

• [211]
• [212]
• [213]
• [214]
• [215]
• [216]

AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Lemuel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puss in Boots: Story of an Ogre Killer

We need MANY eyes to follow this editor closely:

• His English is terrible, so nearly all his edits need copy editing.
• He's used socks to preserve his work, been blocked for it, and then threatened that he'd do anything to protect his edits.
• He should be followed by CU clerks, since he's likely used many socks that haven't been discovered.
• He has created an article about an unnotable chiropractor just because he thought he was great.[217]
• He then created a list of chiropractors for the purpose of promoting them.[218]
• Some of his work has already been deleted and/or nominated for deletion, but more should likely get AFDed.
• Instead of heeding the many warnings he has received, he deletes them from his talk page. His talk page history is a story in itself.
• He doesn't understand the need for consensus.
• He uses terrible sources, including Wikipedia itself.
• He engages in OR and crystal ball.
• He removes redirects without discussion, and those redirects sometimes actually point to sourced content. He then replaces them with stubs with no sources, and they are about future events whose notability has obviously not been established.
• He rarely discusses his edits on talk pages.
• He even made some very weird vandalism of the subpage that controls my user page after I had complained about him.
• He doesn't understand our policies much at all.
• I suspect he is very young, very immature, and/or is incapable of adapting to our environment as a useful editor.

I first noticed his problematic edits about July 22, but he likely has a long history before that. Just since July 22 he's caused enough problems to keep a cleanup crew busy full time.

His edit history is a rich mine of problems, so please start following his work. You will be quickly and richly rewarded with many finds. Maybe he'd manage better if he edited his own language Wikipedia, but I suspect he'd cause problems there as well. To stop the disruption, he needs a whole gaggle of mentors as nannys to hold his hands 6" ABOVE HIS KEYBOARD. He needs their advice and permission before he touches it! Right now he's a big liability for the project. Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have any diffs to back up all those accusations? I would like ti see some evidence of this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the need for diffs, but this case is so consistent and all pervasive that a 5 minute check of his edit history since July 22 will quickly reveal the problems I'm mentioning. Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Still, it would be helpful to provide, say, 3 to 5 diffs of specific things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thy Master... isn't that the product Suzanne Somers used to advertise? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• LMAO! (Or perhaps I am laughing my thighs off? :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just look at his talk page history. The many warnings there will give you an obvious clue to the problems. Just fix the ones you discover. Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• A vage handwave isn't enough. Since the account's editing privileges were suspended in April 2009 there have been 19 edits to User talk:Pedro thy master. (I get more than 19 edits in 3 months on my talk page.) 11 of those are simple courtesy notices of deletion nominations, created automatically by Twinkle, sometimes multiple notices about the same article. A further 1 is a notice of this very discussion. And 1 is a notice of a editing privileges being revoked for using sockpuppetry in an attempt to defraud. Please provide specific diffs of edits by this account that are cause for action and that haven't, moreover, already been addressed with administrator action. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He blanks his talkpage regularly, so you may not be seeing a full view [219]. Having said that, his behaviour does seem more like juvenile over-enthusiasm than maliciousness.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not implying maliciousness, but a disruption nonetheless. Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, ok - I can see that a lot of edits are problematic - but they appear to be mostly good faith mistakes more than a deliberate attempt to vandalize or disrupt. Perhaps English isn't the native language, perhaps the age is young, perhaps they just need to learn the ropes. The last time I looked, we don't over-react to things like that here (or at least we're not supposed to). If the editor makes mistakes, talk to him/her - if they continue without heeding advice - warn. Removing edits from one's own talk pages is perfectly acceptable. (See: WP:BLANKING) I suspect that someone good at the "mentor" thing could work wonders here. I just don't see anything actionable at this point. — Ched :  ?  18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not implied any lack of good faith or deliberate vandalism or such like. I am not even asking for a block or ban. I'm just asking for more eyes on the situation. I thought this was the place to go for that. Unfortunately many warnings have been given, deleted, and obviously ignored. Mistakes are things that just happen and get corrected when pointed out, but these are continuous problems caused by ignoring direct warnings and advice.

Sysop ESkog is probably the admin who knows this user's problematic behaviors best. He has issued numerous warnings with little if any effect. Normally I would provide diffs with each point I have mentioned. If this had been a situation with very specific and limited problems, I would have done so. In this case the problems are so all-pervasive that the user's edit history and talk page history are very adequate as diffs. Seriously, just close your eyes and click. You will likely find some form of policy or guideline violation, or other problem that has been created for others to fix, or very often totally delete. Just try it for two minutes. You'll be surprised. Then come back and tell what you find. Very little of what this user does exists very long, but it often involves various deletion processes and formalities involving many users and much wasted time. I just want more eyes on this situation. That's all. I hope that's okay. Brangifer (talk)

Fair enough - and I agree that ESkog is doing an exceptional job in watching this. I'll look in when I have the chance, and if communication and improvements are not forthcoming, then we'll have to pursue alternate measures. I just noticed some Tina Fey edits, so I won't be surprised if ESkog isn't forced to do something here before too long. — Ched :  ?  06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• At this time, I don't support any kind of long-term block, but might apply more short-term blocks as necessary. In general, "Pedro" doesn't seem malicious, and he doesn't tend to make the same mistake multiple times. Take, for instance, his correct uploading today of a non-free image, complete with licensing tag and rationale. Yes, it's frustrating to deal with folks who don't get our policies and practices right away, and yes, it's better when people look around to see how things are done before just diving in, but I don't think we're close to ban territory on this one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have never demanded a ban or block. Of course the use of short-term blocks, as you suggest, is an option when the user refuses to comply with warnings. Warnings aren't working, so something else needs to be done. What about enforced mentorship? Otherwise we'll need someone using most of their time preventing his blunders from causing AfDs, which then waste lots of other user's time. More eyes are needed, IOW place this user on your watchlists. Brangifer (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ChrisG's block of BullRangifer

I've blocked BullRangifer for 12 hours for spamming me (via email) about this. It would be understandable if the email was something like "Please help, blablabla is being disruptive he did x to article [[Foo]] (diff) and is now breaking civil (diff2,diff3)". However this is not an urgent situation in need of a block and I personally think he was spamming to try and influence the outcome of the discussion. --Chris 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're known to be biased or that the email asked you to do something inappropriate? I'm a bit confused about why a block was called for here. Shell ^babelfish 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Strike that, I'm completely confused - above Brangifer clearly states there is no need for a block but that the editor doesn't appear to be learning from warnings. This leaves open avenues for mentorship or other interventions. Perhaps this didn't need urgent admin attention, but where else would you put this kind of request? I guess the question that I feel needs explained here is what could have possibly been in a single email that would deserve a 12 hour block? Shell ^babelfish 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that my block has expired, and my honor permanently besmirched, here's the (highly offensive and obviously improper canvassing - NOT) content:

• "Please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_caused_by_User:Pedro_thy_master"

That's ALL of it. I only wanted more eyes on the situation. I had no idea if he would do anything, and no way of knowing what type of advice he might provide. He might have agreed with me or scolded me. I couldn't know. I just hoped that an experienced admin like him might provide some words of wisdom. I guess I assumed he would AGF, but I was sadly disapointed. He shot first, without knowing what was going on, and hasn't even asked later.

I have asked Chris G to explain on my talk page. That is a subsection and the whole section should be read. I invite anyone to comment there. I hope that this invitation isn't considered a blockable offense. I'm really unsure what to do now for fear of getting blocked without warning for common practices here. I have never been warned that this or the type of email I sent might be improper. Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor who came here via seeing the cited AfD's (and who rarely visits and has never before commented at WP:AN/I) I have to say that IMHO blocking Brangifer for that seemed awfully previous, Chris. The bloke was only looking for help. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to see some further discussion of the 12-hour block on Brangifer, even though an unblock request was denied and the block has expired by time. Unless I am missing an aspect of the situation, which certainly is quite possible, I do not see a good basis for this block. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm commenting here as one editor and not in any other kind of capacity whatsoever. This I hope is obvious, but the question has come up before when I chime in on ANI.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. I would like to understand the situation. For one thing my honor has been besmirched, and that means a lot to me. The first and only semi-legitimate block I've ever had (before now) was also on a very questionable basis which the blocking admin never did satisfactorily explain. The second was an April Fool's joke and nothing happened to that admin. This one is also of a questionable nature. I'd like to understand the current situation so as to avoid having this happen again. I try to follow policy and have been acting in good faith. If I screwed up, I'd like to understand in what way I did so. Then I can do better in the future. It's all about our learning curve here, and I try to have a positive one. Yes, a discussion would be enlightening for everyone. Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a subsection heading for this discussion? Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• per NYB - Yes, I agree - that one did kind of catch me off-guard. I'm not familiar with what the email contained, obviously. It just did seem to be overly harsh however. I'll freely admit that I may be missing some background, history, or another thread somewhere - but at this point, I don't understand the reasoning for it.

BullRangifer, I do commend you for asking for extra eyes on this, as well as not over-reacting in the "He needs to be blocked" sense in this thread. — Ched :  ?  06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• A quick look at the Dana Ullman discussion above should convince everybody that I am not exactly a friend of BullRangifer. But I also suspect that this block was a mistake. I notice that Chris G stopped editing after blocking BullRangifer and leaving a message here (but not on BullRangifer's talk page). This looks a bit like a typical late night or just before going home from work block. And Chris G hasn't edited in the more than 24 hours since the event. So it looks like the typical bad judgement when someone is tired and feels under time pressure. Perhaps we shouldn't start dramatising this before Chris is back and has had a chance to make up his mind. Hans Adler 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I suspect you're right. We can all make mistakes, and that's what I suspect here. I'm just interested in clearing my name and block log. I'm also interested in learning, so as not to make mistakes in the future. I know we don't always agree, so I very much appreciate your fairness and obvious sense of justice in this situation. Thanks again. Brangifer (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I too would really like to see a fuller explanation of why BullRangifer needed to be blocked; he posted above the content of the e-mail, is that really all there was? Did he send it more than once? I'm at a loss to understand, given the lack of a detailed rationale, why sending a one line e-mail one time to one person merits any sort of block. Chris_G really needs to explain this action, and it does not reflect well that he hasn't done so yet either here or on the blocked editors talkpage. I'm also disappointed in the review of the unblock request - "canvassing is naughty." Honestly? Is this the level of "review" we should expect on unblock requests? Nathan ^T 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the reason why both the block and the review happened as they did may have to do with the messages posted by J Milburn and Sandstein in the 18 hours preceding it. Each came from an admin who was irritated to get an email from BullRangifer, and each was immediately deleted by him. So the block seems to have happened after irritating, though probably good faith, emails to at least three admins. As it seems they were not all about the same topic and since there wasn't a clear warning, I am just trying to explain, not justify, what happened. Hans Adler 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't recall that there was actual irritation, so much as wonderment, as I hadn't required an answer or action in those messages which were on other topics. They were just FYI-type emails. Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• On re-reading the relevant thread, together with subsequent comments, I will concede that it would have been better had I not declined the unblock request. I would like to apologise to Brangifer. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. Thanks Anthony. You are a gentleman. Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have emailed Chris and hope for a response soon. Brangifer (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is worrying as it could have an effect on other editors considering emailing an administrator. I think it needs to be made clear that this was not a sufficient reason for a block. And BullRangifer's block log should be cleared as this is an exceptional case. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, his rapid response to a one line email - how is that spamming? - seems to show a lack of understanding of the role of an administrator. His continued failure to respond here is as worrying. Administrators should not make blocks if they know that they're going to be away from a computer for a few days, if that is indeed the case here. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. My block was out of line and I am sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused you Brangifer. At the time I felt like it was the correct thing to do but after sleeping on it and reviewing my actions it was a poor choice. --Chris 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Chris, this just shows that I need to welcome you to the club....of human beings. We all make mistakes. ;-) Now is there someone who will clear my block log? Brangifer (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have written some of my thoughts here:

• My block log parsed

Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearing a blocklog requires a developer and is generally not done; more likely that you will find someone able to issue a 1 second block/unblock with a message about the prior block. Thanks, ChrisG, for your response. Nathan ^T 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would gladly do this, but I think the appropriate person here is the Admin who blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seanharger and his personal attacks

Hi. I would like to inform you of a user who has lately used bad language and has insulted me. The user Seanharger has left me some insults I would like to share. His first one he left in the edit summary at Logan International Airport at 5:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC). It states I swear I am not bullshitting you. This is plain and simple: it is just inappropriate language. I let it slide.

I would not have reported if I didn't find the message he left me (it was unsigned and undated, so I have no idea when he left me it) on my Personal Use page (yes, not my talk page, but my personal page. (I moved it to the talk page so other users can see)). The letter says: You need to stop removing my edits and being an idiot. My source clearly states that JetBlue Airways will begin nonstop HOU/BOS service on July 25, 2013. If you actually took the time to look to the bottom of the page, you would have realized this. This is such a stupid thing for you to be complaining over, and you need to take the time to examine my source citations. I understand that I mistakenly forgot to cite my source, but I'm not lying to you. Please do not remove my edits; I'm not trying to fool the world; when I make an edit, I'm damn sure it's right. Now this is where it not only contains more profanity, but it also gets personal.

If I would request anything, I would like for him/her to receive a warning and have the chance to discuss it on this thread. Thanks. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs)