Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive581

Request closure of the Thierry henry handball Afd

It's overdue now, and the place is starting to stink of socks. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was closed as a 'Keep' about a half hour after the previous statement... Honestly I think 'No Consensus' would be a better because it'd leave future options far more open for other actions instead of forcing a fight uphill to even get a discussion going. Consensus? On text volume and majority vote, yes. Weighted result based on Wikipedia policy? Iffy. Most Keeps using "it's obviously notable" as a reason doesn't address any actual Wikipedia policy. Really would have to suggest a result change to No Consensus in respect to the strong case made for delete with Wikipedia policy guiding them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the decision. That the article would not be deleted was obvious, but it looked like a rather obvious "no consensus" or "strong" based on the opinions expressed. I would agree with daTheisen about a review of the decision.Jeppiz (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Go through a deletion review just to say "no consensus" if you wish, but my reading of many of those arguing for deletion was that they favoured retaining the content either through a merge or renaming, which amounts to keep. Those citing WP:NOTNEWS give a certain reading of Wikipedia policy, but others disagreed with them; we have no policy that prohibits writing articles about recent events. Fences&Windows 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More stalking and AFD shenanigans from User:IP69.226.103.13

Resolved. sock blocked by gwh ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted an "article for deletion" on a rather dubious, probable urban legend known as the "Shotgun Man." see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shotgun_Man. Within minutes, User:IP69.226.103.13 jumps out of nowhere to disrupt the process -- accusing me of being "bogus" more than once and generally employing a snarky, nasty, uncivil tone. This IP has made such comments two days in a row now and is making my wikipedia experience unpleasant. I did some checking up on this fellow and I notice that he has been in trouble for this before. see this ANI report from 2 Nov. 2009. This user, User:IP69.226.103.13 had even been permanently banned for such conduct. Apparently he has learned nothing from his experiences, having been banned and re-admitted into Wikipedia and already engaging in the same antisocial nasty behavior already even less than a month later. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IP69.226.103.13 has been notified of this discussion. Crafty (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Notified by User:Crafty, User:Gerbelzodude99, on the other hand, notified User:Betacommand for some reason. Think about that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my post on the AfD page. The AfD is nonsense posted by a single purpose account that joined for the sole purpose, it appears, of nominating this article for deletion for no apparent purpose (no deletion purpose). Impressive that it took this user one edit to find the article and nominate it for deletion. Then, in less than a dozen edits on wikipedia he posts an AN/I, notifies, not me, but User:Betacommand. I suspect sock puppetry. ANd, this is boring, please someone with sanity just close it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sirs, that is because User:Betacommand knows more about the unwelcome antics and stalking propensities of the user in question than any other citizen of Wikipedia. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I too suspect sockpuppetry. Crafty (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspect is too weak a word. A brand new account created yesterday, whose first edit was to (properly formatted) nominate an article for deletion, and then launch an ANI complaint against a user, is clearly a sockpuppet of one form or another.

From WP:ILLEGIT (illegitimate uses of sockpuppet accounts, under WP:SOCK) -

• Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.
• Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
• "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.

Gerbelzodude99 - If you would like to come clean as to your other account, and agree to abide by WP:SOCK in the future and not act disruptively, we can wrap this up without further sanction. Please cooperate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Awww, but I love the Plaxico effect :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just see the best in folks. ;) Crafty (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Noming an article for deletion isn't a usual first edit. Aw crap Crafty's here, I gotta get outta here. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you better run punk. ;) Crafty (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have applied an indefinite block (not permanent) on User:Gerbelzodude99 as they went quiet rather than explain themselves in a timely fashion. If they identify themselves and their other account and pick one as their permanent account going forwards, the block is not intended to be permanent on all participation on Wikipedia. The abuse here was so blatant as to require attention, but not so deep as to require long term sanction on the master account, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am too new in Wikipedia to say a word, but I am very frustrated with this nonsense raised by Gerbelzodude99. I want to stand to support User:IP69.226.103.13 I've seen him investing his precious time doing outstanding editing and working hard on complete verification of facts. To my experience User:IP69.226.103.13 is very dedicated editor who helps Wikipedia to be the decent place and the reliable source. I would suggest you, dear Gerbelzodude99, to stop attacking dedicated editors but rather collaborate if appropriate. I have no idea what the real user ID is in fact related to your new one but the matter you have raised here should be resolved by cutting this irrelevant disturbance. Please step back and do not attack editors like User:IP69.226.103.13, please let them execute their noble and outstanding service to Wikipedia. I beg a pardon if I was too emotional. Thanks in advance. --3ont~☺~ (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Restore broken WP:RS page move, please?

Resolved

 – Please discuss on the talk page

Wikipedia:Reliable sources was moved to Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources without discussion. WP:RS gets a lot of traffic, linking and auto-management by bots and archivers. These are now broken and will require a ton of manual intervention to fix. Can this page be put back please? In the future, if important and long-standing resource pages are going to be moved, it should require notification, discussion and time just to make sure nothing breaks. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

People have been discussing doing this for years, with no objections. I've posted on the page to see if there are objections. If there are, we can hold a poll, but I'd be surprised if there are, because the point of RS is to expand on V. WP:RS directs to the same page it did before; nothing is broken, and its guideline status remains unchanged, obviously. Having it as a subpage will help to avoid the guideline being inconsistent with the policy. SlimVirgin 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to contradict you as I'm sure your action was meant in good faith but the discussion did not start until after the page move. As for "people talking about it for years", there has been no discussion on the talk page and the oldest, non archived thread on the page is nearly 2 months old. I would say the page should be restored to its original location and a discussion held as to whether or not it should be a subpage of WP:V. HJMitchell You rang? 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this can be discussed on the talk page. Thank you! Majorly talk 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now. Juliancolton moved it back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Astonishing: Verifiability for contentious material is non-negotiable. Reliable sources are the means by which verification is achieved. This is Wikipedia 101 and the two stand together, or not at all. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock claiming a different sockmaster?

I had recently blocked User:Highenergypulses as a sock of User:Chrislipthorpe, as it was a used to continue an edit war at AIDS denialism, and blocked the sockmaster 72 hours for this as well as misleading edit summaries/minor edit use. [1], [2]. Chrislipthorpe has not contested the block. However, things have taken a bit of a bizarre twist, as Highenergypulses is claiming to be someone else's sock: [3], and has apparently brought along a new sock to make sure I knew it: [4]. To me it looks like an interesting way of claiming not to be a sock (especially given Chrislipthorpe's early misuse of edit summaries and minor edits, indicating more experience), but does anyone else recognize this type of behavior? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like he has a touch of Evil Genius Syndrome. You know there was an anon posting something about being Teh Unstoppable 1337 Puppet-Mastah on Ten of All Trades talk page earlier today. I'll see if I can sniff up the diff. Crafty (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok [5] that's from a named editor (User:UranusMoons) and this [6] is under the IP he was using. I don't know if these are any help. Crafty (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like the same editing pattern, and attitude. But, the question still remains—was Chrislipthorpe the victim of this would-be evil genius, or yet another sock of his? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That I cannot say. Perhaps consult the Sacred Chickens?. Crafty (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the original editor contests, may do that. Otherwise, going to block the obvious second sock and call it done for now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article nominated for deletion by thrice-banned user (vandalism and self-promotion)

Hello, administrators.

The user currently known as Beetleguice [sic] has been cyberharassing me via Wikipedia for several months now. He started out as Azayas4reel. Since then, he has adopted various sock puppets, including HarabianNights, Harabiannights1, Tainotalisman2 and now Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice [sic]. He was banned for vandalism and for self-promotion (he created an article for himself).

All of the above stated users write in the same inflammatory style and misspell the same words (most notably "playwrite" instead of "playwright"). Please ban him again (as both Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice) and prevent him from vandalizing again on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the article on Banjee . It should not have been nominated for deletion. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

Hello, administrators.

Since I wrote the above letter to you, there have been two comments asking for the article to be removed, one by Penumbraborealis and one by someone named Overdarainbow. I firmly believe these are by the same person and that would be the user originally known as Azayas4reel. When this person was harassing me via e-mail, he once quoted The Wizard of Oz. (He wrote me, "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" after calling my boss in an attempt to get me fired.) He is not respecting Wikipedia's guidelines at all. Overdarainbow has no previous history editing Wikipedia so why would Overdarainbow know to delete an article? He is upset that his article was deleted and is now trying to exact some sort of cybervengeance, I suppose.

For the record, the paragraph regarding the stage play Banjee include several reviews including one from the Village Voice which is annotated in the Wikipedia article itself. He is trying to make a mockery of Wikipedia and its guidelines. Please ban him (and his varying sockpuppets) from editing on Wikipedia. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

The current AfD is, in my view, a train wreck waiting to happen--the nominator and all of the voters have practically no edits to their credit. I'm tempted to speedy keep and block the whole lot, but wanted to seek other opinions before doing so. Blueboy96 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that's a very good idea. @Kate (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kate and Blueboy. Close it down and clean 'em up. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support speedy keep and block the socks, but why not also asking for CheckUser (can be done speedily because of the obviousness of the case)? Perhaps other socks and masters come out. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna do that too ... it's pretty obvious that these are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 03:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the master is indeed blocked already. Who knows (except for CheckUser :-)? Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD speedily kept, and SPI case started--in the process of blocking the lot. Blueboy96 03:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of talk pages

The account Stars4change (talk · contribs) has been used for general discussion about topics, rather than improving articles. Despite numerous notices on the editor's page, no action has been taken. Could an administrator please look at this. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion here. You should have notified him, I'll do that now. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article nominated for deletion by thrice-banned user (vandalism and self-promotion)

Hello, administrators.

The user currently known as Beetleguice [sic] has been cyberharassing me via Wikipedia for several months now. He started out as Azayas4reel. Since then, he has adopted various sock puppets, including HarabianNights, Harabiannights1, Tainotalisman2 and now Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice [sic]. He was banned for vandalism and for self-promotion (he created an article for himself).

All of the above stated users write in the same inflammatory style and misspell the same words (most notably "playwrite" instead of "playwright"). Please ban him again (as both Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice) and prevent him from vandalizing again on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the article on Banjee . It should not have been nominated for deletion. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

Hello, administrators.

Since I wrote the above letter to you, there have been two comments asking for the article to be removed, one by Penumbraborealis and one by someone named Overdarainbow. I firmly believe these are by the same person and that would be the user originally known as Azayas4reel. When this person was harassing me via e-mail, he once quoted The Wizard of Oz. (He wrote me, "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" after calling my boss in an attempt to get me fired.) He is not respecting Wikipedia's guidelines at all. Overdarainbow has no previous history editing Wikipedia so why would Overdarainbow know to delete an article? He is upset that his article was deleted and is now trying to exact some sort of cybervengeance, I suppose.

For the record, the paragraph regarding the stage play Banjee include several reviews including one from the Village Voice which is annotated in the Wikipedia article itself. He is trying to make a mockery of Wikipedia and its guidelines. Please ban him (and his varying sockpuppets) from editing on Wikipedia. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

The current AfD is, in my view, a train wreck waiting to happen--the nominator and all of the voters have practically no edits to their credit. I'm tempted to speedy keep and block the whole lot, but wanted to seek other opinions before doing so. Blueboy96 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that's a very good idea. @Kate (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kate and Blueboy. Close it down and clean 'em up. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support speedy keep and block the socks, but why not also asking for CheckUser (can be done speedily because of the obviousness of the case)? Perhaps other socks and masters come out. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna do that too ... it's pretty obvious that these are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 03:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the master is indeed blocked already. Who knows (except for CheckUser :-)? Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD speedily kept, and SPI case started--in the process of blocking the lot. Blueboy96 03:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of talk pages

The account Stars4change (talk · contribs) has been used for general discussion about topics, rather than improving articles. Despite numerous notices on the editor's page, no action has been taken. Could an administrator please look at this. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion here. You should have notified him, I'll do that now. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on my user and talk page

I seem to have picked up a wikistalker. :-) Someone who dislikes me has been vandalizing my talk and user pages. Today I logged in to find this [7]. Yesterday, I had this [8] on my talk page. Oddly enough, this post [9] appeared quite some time after discussion at that forum had ended, and not long after the vandalism to my talk page. It's actually kind of funny. But it would be nice if someone could investigate as I'm quite sure this is not some random person who jetted in from Slashdot [10] and "isn't familiar", but is probably someone who hates me for my contributions to the WP:NEWT stuff. The comment on my userpage about "100% defense" seems familiar somehow. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see... <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One IP was blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack. If attacks persist, report it back here. Fences&Windows 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The wikistalking continues with one of the IPs now threatening that if my "real name is leaked it could become a significant issue for me". [11] Again, I'm quite sure this is not a random IP but a regular Wikipedia editor. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The threat of outing should be taken very seriously as an attempt to intimidate an editor. I suggest a CU be performed immediately to ascertain which, if any, registered user(s) are involved and then block them. This is serious business. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate your taking this seriously. I did file a request at SPI; if someone wants to run a quick checkuser we should make a note there as well so folks don't step on each-others toes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I have to run now. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To whomever responds: here is the link to the SPI report if needed [12]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Untangling multiple redirs around Visalia and related articles

Resolved

 – Heavily related matter posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Visaliaguy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is weaving a tangled web of multiple redirects and moves around Visalia, Visalia (disambiguation) and related articles. I can't see enough of the histories to sort it out, would appreciate assistance. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yikes. I thought this was going to be a case of bulk redirect or category toying this is a mess. Just massive numbers of small edits continuously is one thing, but moving/redirecting and working heavily on very superfluous child articles is another. Sock case! Or at least a need to consolidate accounts. Reported user sure knew how to handle things from day 1 of the account 2 weeks ago. For all intents and purposes this "started" at this edit on 11 September 2009; when below users made all edits, edit summaries disappeared and talk pages were never touched. Keep in mind these are entirely unproven tidbits put together with logic and subjective evidence available like behavior/edit patterns. SPI deals with this, but giving it here since I have no idea if this is 100% worth looking into or not. Anyway, this group as a whole covers literally 98% of all edits on the main article in the last 500 edits, and most all edits on child articles. (Links are to contribution pages; most don't have a user page or a talk page...)

Extremely suspicious:

• User:Visaliaguy [13], established contributors to related articles for some time. Has had zero disagreements with or changed edits from VISALIAso559 nor used user or article talk pages for anything. Lead candidate for parent account.
• User:VISALIAso559 [14], created 2 weeks ago and was doing larger-scale full-blown Wikipedia edits in less than an hour after creation on the exact same things all the other users on this list were doing.
• User:Parisian415 [15],
• 71.195.164.51 [16],
• 67.182.122.147 [17],
• 204.155.47.45 [18], with the 3 IPs Geolocating there. Not true evidence but still incriminating.

Only a tiny bit less suspicious than the above, but still way up there

• User:Gemini818 [19], and
• User:Ilovevtown [20], seemed to perform the editing tasks that WISALIAso559 does now, ever since that account was created. The two ceased edits around 8-9 November never to return, but typical "work" replaced with and done on the new account.

Common calling card of all the named accounts seems to be copyvio image problems, uploaded repeatedly. This second set far less, however, suggesting at least some duality in identities. Still, zero chat with, disagreements or edits against any of the others listed here.

Very unlikely compared to the rest, compared via Geolocate / behavior / edit histories around Wikipedia:

• 173.14.201.214
• 67.114.8.56
• 96.10.243.132
• 71.133.11.78
• There are other editors with perhaps 1 or 2 entries, but seem to be related to random vandalism. This is mainly on 7-8 October and didn't actually change the article content at all.
• User:Ohnoitsjamie is noted as being quite diligent in RCP work in what looked to be a rather odd situation a few days ago.

Duck Test: Fails. Common Wikipedia logic says that it would be impossible for 10 'different' users to get along and never need to communicate on any matters whatsoever either personally or relating to an article. Not just one article, but the whole set of them worked on interdependently. At the very least, a few should have objected to the massive canvassing.

I also see... 5-6 pages that'll probably end up in AfD over notability and long-established precedent on Wikipedia municipality articles, and one category doing the same. A few article examples would be Divisadero, Visalia and Encina Street. Wikipedia is not a fast food shop directory for anywhere to sit down for a burger at the mall, and not the white pages directory for posh neighborhoods in your city, contrary to what the articles created under the city would lead your to believe. Actually, I'd love to take up a discussion on how Hot dog on a stick in the mall is notable. However it's worth noting that Visalia Mall sneaks in for notability and survived an AfD a year ago. The fast food places? Not so much notable. Good grief. Um. So yea, there's my research(?). This should be fun to clean up. Plenty of the content added is quite fine from the "gang" but yea, a lot of entirely unnecessary stuff. It appears that PRODs were put in some of the articles I'm scratching my head over, but were just blanked without explanation or contact to the placing editor despite these being experienced editors working on the articles. Lastly, there's the whole issue of the inherent POV push from users openly willing to take usernames showing their relation to their article of choice. Right! Opinions? And is there any way to write up this stuff so that doesn't take a few hours? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) -- Edits: ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to file at WP:SPI; a quick look shows intense but obvious socking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you. I actually feel better that it wasn't all in vain. I started that all as comparison between the two usernames mentioned and for an hour straight kept looking backwards and realizing how ridiculous it was. Really, it looks like it could have started in 2006 but hardly matters now. To original poster-- feel free to use my info to post at SPI (it would mostly be copy-paste I think), or if you're not around now I'll have at it later today when I have some more time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Original poster replies: Many thanks Datheisen. This one gave me a headache just trying to understand what had been done. I've never posted to SPI and I'm sure I'd screw it up, if you would be so kind I'll watch and learn. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Now posted at SPI, as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Visaliaguy. Marked above as resolved, though pending results of that there's probably article cleanup in bulk to work on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User Syjytg requesting unblock

Syjytg (talk · contribs), indef blocked in March 2009, has requested a review of his block at my talk page. You may recall him as a tendentious editor who spent most of his time focusing on having his edits remain on pages, with little regard for consensus, policy, or just plain collegiality. I created this thread on his talk page, outlining a tendentious editing pattern. Later, after being blocked for edit warring, he pointed fingers at others and rarely took responsibility for his own actions. He then started socking, for which he was indef blocked. There's more; a review of his talk page will show others' points of view along the way, not just mine.

Syjytg has decided he wants to return to editing. I see no evidence of socking, and I do see evidence of reading policies associated with returning, including the "standard offer" and the idea that an admin can open a thread here at AN/I to discuss unblocking the user. He requested (as an IP) that I do so, and I requested he place a statement on his talk page, under his own account, acknowledging past behavior. He has done so, and while I can't say I think it's an overwhelming attempt, I do feel there is some sincerity behind it. I also note that he does not appear to have resorted to continued socking in the intervening months, which is a positive sign (if true).

I think any unblock must include a tight watch, which I would participate in but not want to take full responsibility for. Other thoughts solicited.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

....Was posting on your talkpage as an IP not itself socking? Just asking. Or do you feel it was justified as a way of attracting someone's attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable means of opening communication on the subject. He apparently wanted to contact an admin first, for the purpose of opening this thread.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why not? They seemed to have requested an appropriate unblock request, evidencing they have reviewed and understood policy. On that basis any further problems with editing means that they have chosen to disregard policy, and the block can be re-instated. If everyone understands that, then they should be allowed to prove they can contribute to the project in the correct manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense moves

Fakus_Edition_2008 has moved a number of pages and I'm not sure if it's vandalism or good intended but completely misguided edits. The most bizarre is moving Rioplatense Spanish to the nonsense name of Argentine Castellane. People in Uruguay would certainly protest against being called "Argentine" and while Spanish may sometimes be called Castillian in English, it is never called "Castellane". The user has also performed other, similar moves but they have been reverted. I would suggest that the article is moved back to Rioplatense Spanish and that the user is cautioned against moving pages. It is obvious from the user's user page that his English is not very good, so he may not be the ideal person to invent new article names. As "Argentine Castellane" goes to show.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what is Argentine Castellane? I would move the page back, but the previous page is currently a redirect, so I can't move it to that title. We need an admin to do this for us. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and something should be done to prevent similar oddities. A user moving a page to a nonsense title, and ordinary users cannot move it back. The system is made for trolling and vandalism. Wikipedia has had the fantastic article on this little known language called Argentine Castellane for quite a while now.Jeppiz (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved it back to the original title. Fences&Windows 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor, who gives his full name on the talk page, is 13 years old. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My instinct is to remove the sensitive information/blank the userpage and request oversight. Too fussy? Crafty (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited his userpage to remove some information and posted an explanation on his talkpage. Crafty (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche abusing Twinkle, harassing IP editor

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday harassed an IP at User talk:98.204.201.79. That IP made six edits to Anwar al-Awlaki. Two of these edits included informative edit summaries that made it clear this was a good-faith objection to content in that article, and not vandalism. The IP's edits began at 16:55 and ended at 17:09, and no one else edited in the meantime, so the IP could not be said to be edit warring.
Beginning at 17:26, Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings on the IP's talk page, v1, v2, v3, v4, and v4im.
The IP editor asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki what was the problem with these edits and how they constituted vandalism. Epeefleche did not reply. I responded to the IP's question by informing the IP that these edits were not vandalism, and I recommended the editor register an account. Epeefleche responded on the IP's talk page by calling my comment to the IP "wikihounding."
Epeefleche also abused Twinkle rollback by calling a different IP's edits "vandalism." That IP did not use an edit summary, but that does not make a content dispute into vandalism.
I raised these issues at WP:AN3, but as I familiarized myself with the purpose of that board, I decided it was not the correct venue. I have tried to discuss the harassment of the IP editors with Epeefleche there, but Epeefleche sees nothing wrong with the harassment.
I understand that Twinkle use can be revoked for misuse, and harassment of new users can require a block. I ask that admins take both possibilities into consideration. ~YellowFives 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if someone else could please welcome the IP at User talk:98.204.201.79 and make clear that the Wikipedia community understands these edits were not vandalism, and the IP really is welcome to make an account, that would be lovely. I am afraid that Epeefleche's newbie-biting and ownership of the article is going to drive away good-faith editors. The article itself is a huge WP:UNDUE problem at the moment and would benefit from others' involvement. ~YellowFives 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This sequence does seem pretty odd. 98.204.201.79 made six consecutive edits to the article. Epeefleche apparently reverted them all one-by-one and left a separate warning for each. In general, there is not enough discussion on the talk page to match the revert warring in the article. Wknight94 ^talk 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a plain old edit war. Epeefleche should not get to label his content opponents as vandals just because they are IPs. Triplestop x3 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Epeefleche of this thread. Basket of Puppies 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Looks like several editors including the IP disagreeing with Epeefleche. There's a political element here also. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The worst thing is leaving five consecutive warnings; I'm absolutely baffled - as well as disheartened - by Epeefleche's actions! GiantSnowman 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I cannot cite chapter and verse of examples, Epeefleche has been doing this repeatedly for a long time. It's not a new behavior. Is this the first time it's been reported? Editors who counter Epeefleche's edits or comments are also followed and their edits, comments, or articles are then disrupted. This really needs to stop. I cringed before writing this, knowing the possible consequences, but it's the right thing to do. --Sift&Winnow 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Stepped out of a meeting that will tie me up most of the day, but here's the lay of the land. 1) Most of what YF raises, he already raised--and is already addressed in depth here.

2) As to using Twinkle, I just got it and used it for the first time ever a day or two ago, so if I'm hitting the wrong button let me know. I thought it just did exactly what reverts would do before Twinkle.

3) The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits. He reversed the black and white population percentages for an area. I checked census.gov, and confirmed it was vandalism. That's no "first time user mistake". That's blatant, intentional vandalism. In his next edit he inserted unsourced text, so that the Wikpedia article says the Nation of Islam worshipped a false prophet. I then, concerned, without even stopping to revert those, rushed to see each of his edits to the article I was working on. He: a) inserted unsourced opinion as fact, b) inserted snarky commentary as article text, c) deleted a reference that did mention 100 ... saying it didn't ( that lie YF refers to above as "informative edit summary"); d) inserted unsourced opinion ("exposing a propoganda war of neocons") as fact, and e) deleted a sourced statement and its ref saying (with wp terminology, even though he is "new") "if that doesn't define POV, I don't know what does" (YF's second example of "informative edit summary").

And yes, after having determined from the pre-Alawki edits that he was given to non-good-faith vandalism, I took each of those as vandalism (understanding v to include blanking as well as insertions). And as I looked at each in turn, I reverted him. And I believe that each time I reverted him, I left a warning. He didn't reply to me on his page, or on my page, and I didn't see his comments on the article talkpage, which I now see were the last comment in a thread. I'll be happy to get back to him. Jumping back into the meeting in a moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who's getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate... am I?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. :) Crafty (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: 66.177.73.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now on a short vacation at the wikipedia comedy club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the IP's action at Montgomery Village, Maryland. Look at the version right before the IP's edit. It says something very strange.

• The racial makeup of the area was 29.24% [[African American (U.S. Census)|White]], 61.90% [[white (U.S. Census)|African American]],

White and African American have been switched already in the wikilinks. This was done earlier by a different IP. It looks to me like 98.204.201.79 saw that there was a problem, but wasn't sure how to fix it, and did the best they could to make sense of it. That appears to be the action of a good-faith contributor. ~YellowFives 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the edits to Islam in the United States and Anwar al-Awlaki, you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Or let me quote it for you. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism". ~YellowFives 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And a person doesn't have to be very experienced to have heard of POV and NPOV, even including those acronyms. Every time you edit Wikipedia, it says "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." The talk page at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki says "POV" 11 times. And even the mainstream print media has discussed Wikipedia's policies. While NPOV might be rare outside of Wikipedia, POV is not. If that is how you make your claim that this editor is a vandal, I might suggest a read of WP:AGF. ~YellowFives 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What you call unsourced opinion appears to be a summary of Awlaki's publications. It would be better to make clear that these are summaries and not Wikipedia's own opinion, but again this is obviously a content dispute and not vandalism. ~YellowFives 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, even ignoring therest of this, you certainly made one very basic error. "The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits." Very good, apart from the fact that these edits were more than two weeks (for the most recent) and more than a month (for the older one) before the current incident. What evidence do you have that the IP who made the edits on Nov. 23 is the same person that made edits on Nov. 7 or Oct. 16? Fram (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epee left a long explanation on the IP's talkpage. It appears that none of the edits that were labeled (and the IP warned) were vandalism, as per the definition. They may not all have been according to policy, but they were not vandalism.

Twinkle is a useful tool - it allows you to do valid things quickly and easily. However, it also allows you to make mistakes quickly and easily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who just saw this controversy for the first time just now, it appears to me that Epeefleche was responding to the same problem I have seen, namely people growing instant Wikipedia muscles. It appears he was trying to reverse the negative effects. It appears he may have been slightly heavy handed, given the multiple warnings left. This on one page regarding one person. On another page, I coincidentally just awarded him a barnstar for his excellent work. It appears from his talk page that he has garnered quite a few barnstars for his excellent work on quite a few other pages. Given all that, I think what is going on here regarding Epeefleche is also slightly heavy handed. If Epeefleche needs guidance, that's one thing. To call it abuse is another. Do I sense a double standard? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "people growing instant Wikipedia muscles"? This discussion was necessary because Epeefleche dismissed even a friendly welcome to the IP as "wikihounding" and still can not admit any wrongdoing. On the IP's talk page, he is currently insisting upon an act of contrition from the IP editor before he will extend good faith. The IP has nothing to apologize for. Some honest mistakes made, followed by a civil question of "what did I do wrong," meet the highest expectations we should have from inexperienced editors. Epeefleche chose to ignore the evidence against vandalism at Montgomery Village, Maryland, and went to the IP's page demanding an explanation. That article was so tremendously screwed up when the IP encountered it, it is unreasonable to hound the editor for some explanation of what should have been done differently.

Epeefleche did act abusively. This might not be a cause for ongoing concern if there was now some expressed self-awareness of wrongdoing. We're still waiting for that. ~YellowFives 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I don't know what "wikihounding" is, but I do like Seamus. Is it possible simply withdrawing the wikihounding statement may defuse tensions? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some editors already indicated above their view that this thread is ridiculous. But as I've received a request on my talkpage to keep it going, so as not to be disrespectful I'll add a few items. 1) I've left the IP this message. YF's above comments suggest that perhaps he misconstrued the message. 2) The IP edits were disruptive, over more than one article. If he did not intend to be disruptive, but was simply accidentally in a series of edits deleting material backed by RSs, making a misstatement, inserting false information, inserting opinion as fact, and inserting text accusing a group of living people as following a false prophet (which I gather YF and BW believe), I apologize for misconstruing his motives. And have so indicated on his page. 3) Others on the Montgomery Village page have referred to similar revisions by IPs on that page this year as vandalism--see here, here, and here, and a glance through edits on that page show many (the bulk?) are IP vandal edits. 4) I don't have any evidence that this IP was only one person. But there is no indication that this is a shared IP, or school or the like. It is of course possible that disruptive edits were made by different people, consecutively, on the same IP address. 5) BWilkins and YF have asserted more than once that the disruptive edits were not vandalism. If he intended them to be disruptive, it would appear they were vandalism. Happy T day to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't have any evidence that this IP was only one person. But there is no indication that this is a shared IP, or school or the like." Epeefleche, you are aware that many, many IP adresses are dynamic? Have you any evidence, besides the fact that in your view, both the older edits and the new ones were vandalism, that they were made by the same person? Same or closely related articles, same style of posting, whatever? If you don't, then it is totally unacceptable to judge the actions of the current editor of that IP address by the actions of previous editors on that address. Barring evidence to the contrary, one has to assume that an IP editor is not the same person as a previous user of the same IP address. Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The 2nd disruptive edit (on Nov. 7) was to "Islam in America". The more recent disruptive edits (Nov. 23) were all to an article on an Islamic religious leader who was the Imam at a US mosque (and his connections to three of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter). I'm uncertain why you see disruptive edits to articles on such a narrow subject matter as proof that we have two different editors here. 2. By analogy--if IP edits are disruptive over time, its not my understanding that we give them a pass, and fail to warn or (if appropriate) block the IP just because it may be a dynamic IP. 3. I'm not even sure what harm you are protesting here. I didn't revert the first two edits. Or even raise them to the IP's attention. All that happened was that they raised my level of concern about his later edits, and led me to review them carefully.

Are you complaining that my level of concern was raised--because you feel I shouldn't have had those concerns (and not done anything about them), because we may have two different people here who happen to be making disruptive edits to Islam-in-America related articles from the same dynamic IP? Frankly, I'm puzzled.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I have proof that they are different editors, I asked for evidence that they were not. The subject matter may indicate that, bt is not enough to convince me. Whether the subject matter is specific or not depends also on the origin of the IP address (if it the address of e.g. an Islamic institution or an predominantly Islamic country, then interest in these subject matters may be logical for different editors). I have not said that we shouldn't warn or block IP's, I indicated that we have to assume that an IP editor is not the same as the one that edited two or four weeks ago, just like it is not necessarily the same as the constructive editor of the four edits before that (e.g. on Ali al-Tamimi, an article you edited as well). Fram (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is in Maryland. Where 99.8 percent of the population is not Muslim.[21] I stand by my other points, and still have no idea where your comments are going. Unless there is reason for me to respond further, I'll deprive those who are "getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate" of further pleasure, and leave this as my last comment. Happy Thanksgiving to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You still maintain that his edits previous to Nov. 23 were disruptive, where in actual fact one was clearly helpful (even though it didn't fix all the earlier vandalism by other editors), and the other was perhaps not helpful, but largely correct and not disruptive. So even if it was the same editor, his previous editing should have earned him good faith instead of working against him. Fram (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fram, if as I suspect you're referring to this helpful edit, that was in October. Never mind, I misread "previous to Nov. 23." ~YellowFives 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already discussed why I had thought that edits such as the Nation of Islam worshipped a "false prophet" were disruptive, and I've already as you know apologized twice to the IP for making the wrong assumption at the time and leaving warnings if those edits were in fact good faith and not vandalism. I'll add that I now understand that it would have been better to not leave any warnings or to at most leave one if it was in fact vandalism. I apologize for that as well, and will be more careful in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You've told the IP that you believe they were acting in bad faith, but you apologize if you're wrong. That's still assuming bad faith, and that's not an apology, because you aren't accepting any responsibility for your mistake, shifting all the responsibility to the IP editor. What you are calling "disruptive" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, WP:VAND is clear: "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism." It is not vandalism say just once that Wallace Fard Muhammad was a false prophet, and if the IP could be educated about what we mean by NPOV and RS, there's a potentially useful edit in there, saying that he is widely viewed by other Muslims as being a false prophet. Yes, it would have been better to leave no warnings. It would also be helpful to read the vandalism policy and understand what disruption actually means. ~YellowFives 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowFives, I think the horse is well-beaten here. Let's try and leave him a way to quietly nibble some crow and get back to being the long-term editor that he is. We're not trying to beat Epeeflech into submission. Although apologies are nice, they're not forceable. As per my most recent addition to the bottom of the thread, there's a way for everyone to move forward - so let's move forward :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• BWilkins, Wknight94, Triplestop, Dougweller, and GiantSnowman are all trying to tell you that your behavior here has been disruptive. Why are you ignoring the substance of their communication?
• You still have not acknowledged that you made a mistake in interpreting the edit at Montgomery Village, Maryland, which was not vandalism. Even now that you know it was not vandalism, you are still using it to assume bad faith of this IP editor.
• This IP has never disrupted Wikipedia. Not once. The IP has made edits which were not useful, and edits which you disagreed with. These were all objections to content, and the IP should be counseled to read our policies so that objections to content can be implemented in a useful way. (You still have not explained why you objected to me offering such counsel.)
• Now on the IP's talk page, you are accusing the IP of bad faith, and demanding an explanation before you will assume good faith. You say here "If he intended them to be disruptive, it would appear they were vandalism." That is exactly the problem. You have no evidence that these content objections were intended to be disruptive. You have assumed bad faith. The only edit you ever offered as evidence of possible vandalism was that to Montgomery Village, Maryland, and now that you know that wasn't vandalism, you're still assuming bad faith anyway.
• You offer a dishonest false dichotomy: either the IP made edits completely accidentally, or the IP was disrupting Wikipedia. The more likely truth is that the IP made every edit deliberately, in a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, without full knowledge of how our policies work. It is clear that none of the edits constitute vandalism, as it is clear that you will not read and try to understand WP:VAND, yet you continue to portray the IP as a vandal.
• You still have not acknowledged that leaving 5 escalating vandalism warnings in 8 minutes, when the editor had already stopped editing 17 minutes ago, is unreasonable and intimidating behavior.
• You have now possibly intimidated a good-faith editor who had made constructive edits away from contributing to Wikipedia further. If you can not admit any problem with your actions here, even now that the problem has been explained to you, then there is no assurance you will not do it again, and you should be blocked to prevent you from further disrupting Wikipedia. ~YellowFives 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocking seems unnecessary, but removing Twinkle may be a good idea, as it would force him or her to slow down and pay more attention to the edits. 12:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree, except if Twinkle is removed, it should only be for the shortest time period possible. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep looking for the following from Epeefleche:

• a correct understanding of WP:VAND
• an understanding of WP:BITE
• an understanding of WP:WARN, especially as to purpose and method
• maybe even a look at User:Bwilkins/Essays/SMART - realizing that a warning is a "sanction" in some ways and to some users (especially new editors.

At this point, removal of Twinkle may be WP:PUNISH (something else they should also read). However, I say that only if I see that there is an understanding of the above, and no further incidents. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Eppefleche has already apologized for the mistake about the Maryland town. It wasnt't due to using twinkle, but from not looking far enough back in the history--a common error--I';ve made the same mistake myself a few times. As for overuse of the word vandal, we tend to be prone to that collectively. I 'd suggest the first step is finding a way to reword templates and the like to use it much much less. It is often misused the way he did. I'd suggest a warning where it appears to not use it if some lesser term would do. . However, I think Yellow Fives is overusing a term also: failure to AGF. This is a strong accusation also, and it is also overused. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies again to all concerned.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This all seems excessive. Perhaps it was OTT to say that these IP edits were vandalism, but they do look odd and this is a highly sensitive subject. There is also reason to suspect that the IP may be another Editor in disguise. But please can we reduce the level of wikilawyering it has become disproportionate. I'd recommend that Anwar al-Awlaki be semi-protected to reduce the likelihood of such incidents in the future. NBeale (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have specific evidence that this IP is another editor in disguise, that's a rather over-the-top accusation, NBeale. What is your evidence, and have you opened a sock puppet investigation? It's ironic that you denounce this thread as "excessive" while you take it to the furthest excesses yet. ~YellowFives 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I do not believe I am overusing the term, and I think you would be hard-pressed to explain how this could have happened were Epeefleche assuming good faith. Had a welcome template to the IP not been interpreted as a personal insult, no further disussion would have been necessary. If we're now going to discuss my behavior, I'm OK with that, either here or at my talk page. But I will need diffs or quotes, and much more specific explanations of just what I've done wrong, because this vague criticism illuminates nothing. ~YellowFives 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: This makes for curiously interesting background reading to the above, as it relates to the article to which the edits were made.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Steel2009

This editor has made a series (of the same) bizarre edits to the Battle of Kursk page. Despite the illogical revisions, which have been reverted by two editors, he proceeds without common sense to edit war. I am asking for someone to have a word, or necessary, prevent him from editing this page. Dapi89 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Giant, thanks for leaving the message on my page. The issue is rather straightforward. My opinion is that the Battle of Kursk was primarily a land battle, and is famous for tank battles etc. Hence the land battles should be mentioned first. The opposite opinion is that the air battles chronologically came prior to the land battles and hence should be mentioned earlier. As for the user Dapi, I have been abused by him enough times, and hence am starting the thread below to complain about his lack of civility. Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it, My opinion. This individual fails to understand the most basic premise of wikipedia. You have been reverted by two editors. Cease and desist. Dapi89 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009, this won't need admin attention if you stop reverting and discuss your opinion on the talk page of the article. Read WP:BRD for more informaion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I can discuss on the discussion page. I did leave short messages with the edits but if discussion page is better, I can do that. Steel2009 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As per my entries to the discussion page of Battle_of_Kursk I have accepted the last version of the article created by editor Hohum after he/she reverted me, so this one can now be closed. As for the other article Blitzkrieg I have left a message on the discussion of the issue started by Hohum. Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editor at Barnard College

I'm not going to go through the bureaucratic nonsense that one is typically advised to go through so I hope that someone can step in and block SPA Wkiwoman for her blatantly tendentious and consensus-violating edit warring at Barnard College. Her editing history and the article's Talk page make the situation clear. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very clear that this user is edit-warring and unwilling to compromise or even try to reach consensus. Basket of Puppies 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely. Invite review of this action here. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef seems a bit harsh given recent editing patterns, but I note that she has never edited on another subject and has a habit of posting the same thing over and over again on talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support block. There could be some nuances to the exact relationship between Barnard College and Columbia University. An open-minded exploration of that relationship would be fine, but steady month-after-month reverting, going on since September 30, is not fine. The term 'SPA' is correct in this case, since this editor's only interest on Wikipedia is in showing that Barnard students are somehow disenfranchised in the relationship with Columbia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. While I'm not entirely convinced that an indef block is the way to go, it's clear that something had to be done. I, too, am saddened that these events have overshadowed what probably should be nuanced and careful language and content in the article and I hope that we can constructively figure out how best to handle that now. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

given that this editor has not edited any other article, I do not see that the block is excessive. It's not that we are inhibiting useful work from her in other areas. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

Not sure if anyone noticed this since it's way up on the page [22]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the SPI report. If there is a positive response that needs sysop action then I can do the necessary. Any further instances of vandalism/harassment in the meantime can be reported to AIV for quick(ish) action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, may thanks! Apologies for our earlier misunderstanding. :-/ I blame it on the Asperger syndrome. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol Queen / IP using 145.18.242.63, 146.50.79.95

Resolved

Warned user, take arguments to the talk page and always assume good faith

Yesterday, this anon editor made several edits to Carol Queen which were flagged by abuse filters as possible BLP violations and/or vandalism. I reviewed the edits, which amount to moderately argumentative, clearly unbalanced discussions of the article subject's sociopolitical writings, with significant sourcing problems and removed them, mentioning WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP in my edit summaries. The anon is repeatedly reinserting the edits, posting personal attacks on me on my talk page and on the article talk page; the most recent talk page edits includes an announcement of intent/threat to harass me over the dispute ("If you think those editors "hounded" you before, you ain't seen nothing yet"). The anon certainly appears to be an at least moderately experienced editor editing out of an IP to avoid scrutiny. I believe the Carol Queen article should be at least temporarily semiprotected and the IP should be blocked for socking, incivility, and refusal to comply with BLP and related policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll warn the IP to AGF for starters.. and then review the history A8UDI 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Ask for semi-protection to clear the ring and then do a nice cleanup, maybe? I'd argue that you're still almost being too generous with what's left! You're at 3RR, do you need someone to watch it while waiting for protection? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Everyme

• Everyme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 78.34.233.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.55.65.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.55.78.239 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Self-admitted in this edit summary: [23]. Less than helpful "contributions" so far, so perhaps someone wants to issue a block.--Atlan (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some context need to connect those IP edits to an account. Fences&Windows 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

F&W--if you look at the edit summary, "Dorftrottel" is the previous name of banned User:Everyme.GJC 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what Gladys said. I have no reason to believe the IP is making that up. Anyway, I don't think this situation requires immediate action, but if no action is taken at all, I do wonder what the point is of keeping Everyme blocked.--Atlan (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That was precisely the context needed! Why is Everyme blocked? Block evasion as a reason to block indefinitely seems a bit, well, circular. Fences&Windows 17:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for harassment and personal attacks. After that, the block was extended a few times for block evasion, eventually extended to indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked the IP for two weeks. Fences&Windows 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See also User_talk:MuZemike#Another_case for another IP. For more background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

possible bad image: File:Babypamper.jpg

Resolved

 – blocked and blacklisted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Babypamper.jpg has been used as an unpleasant image in the nuisance page I Fucking Hate You, With a Smile. Is it a candidate for {{Badimage}}? Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. What article is it for? A8UDI 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lord yes. And being used for vandalism. No encylopedic advantage for it. (Also almost put me off my lunch when I first saw it, which is a good reason in itself for deletion.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to nominate it for deletion from the commons. See commons:Commons:Project_scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and scroll down to Examples to see how this image might not qualify for being on the Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose block for User Vcrmaster

Resolved

 – Obvious vandalism only account. ^Chillum 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that User Vcrmaster should be blocked preferably for 24 hours for general incompetence , trolling, vandalism and breach of wikipeida guidelines. Please discuss this matter further with me and other users. 81.132.107.82 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an admin issue atm, two test edits and two warnings. If it continues then it goes to vandal noticeboard. RaseaC (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Vcrmaster (talk · contribs) about this discussion. Incidentally, 81.132.107.82, why do you feel Vcrmaster deserves a block? What evidence do you have for "general incompetence, trolling, vandalism and breach of wikipdia guidelines"? GiantSnowman 15:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No one noticed the total humor in this? See this post where someone is objecting to a block on their that had expired 6 days earlier, stating they are said that IP and not a sock of someone else. They then sign it. Apparently forgetting they're at a different IP, it's signed with this 81.132 fellow, thus 100% solving their own case against themselves that never needed to be objected to in the first place. Hmm. So Mr/Mrs 81.132.107.82 = 86.136.78.170 that was used to revert edits of the indef block of one Mcjakeqcool a week ago. Chillum kind of had a no-brainer, but the user isn't the source of what's almost surely to continue in some form. It's just ironic that IPs lived even while looking as suspicious as the user. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this user before seeing this ANI report, I followed a note on the users page to here. I don't by default investigate every person I see making a report of vandalism, particular when that report was not involved in my decision to make the block. ^Chillum 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted and Speedy Deletion tags

I really hate to bring this up, since the user is generally doing a lot of positive work on vandalism and new page patrols and I don't want to drive a hard-working volunteer away, but the issue below is starting to become a problem.

Darrenhusted (talk · contribs) seems to over-tagging new articles for speedy deletion. Mostly with A7 and G11. With A7, the user is tagging articles that are outside the scope of subjects, tagging article with clear claims of importance, and tagging articles that have been kept after AfD. With G11, the user is tagging articles that are clearly not spam.

Darrenhusted has recieved numerous messages about the use of speedy deletion tags, including this message. Yet Darrenhusted continues to inappropriately tag articles for SD.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we all have to be perfect with how we tag articles for SD. Even I have made a mistake or two in that area. But the idea is that we learn from our mistakes, and we avoid being disruptive (either intentionally or unintentionally). Given the high number of inapproriate tags and the continuation after recieving numerous talk page messages about the problem (which Darrenhusted never replied to, other than removing them from his talk page manually archiving the messages), this is something the community needs to deal with.

The problem is that it discourages new members from continuing to participate in Wikipedia when their articles are tagged for speedy deletion. This can especially be a problem when new users are told their articles will be quickly deleted for reasons that don't seem to apply to their article.

I would propose the following temporary editing restriction:

Darrenhusted is restricted for three months from personally tagging a Wikipedia page for speedy deletion, except for the editor's own user pages. I've revised the proposal slightly - see below. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreicate hearing if anyone has any better solutions... Singularity42 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal:

Darrenhusted is restricted for three months from personally tagging a Wikipedia page for speedy deletion, except for Darrenhusted's own user pages and pages where Darrenhusted was the only substantial contributer. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: A form of mentorship is probably more appropriate. How about creating Darrenhusted/CSDs and letting him fill it with recommendations and rationales, then you, me, and anyone else who wants to can use his recommendations as suggestions to tag. Here's the important part: Over time he'll see the ones that we accept, the ones we reject, the ones we accept with changes, and the ones someone else already tagged and he'll be able to get good enough we can restore his tagging privileges. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better idea, provided Darrenhusted is willing to go along with it as well. If so, I would be happy to be involved. Singularity42 (talk)

Yeah, I'm not going to be mentored, nor create a sub page where people vet my CSD tagging. Here is a different solution, I won't bother. In my last 500 edits I have tagged 50 articles under CSD which have been deleted, and some which have been turned down. Some of which I PROD-ed. If an admin does not view an article I have tagged as a CSD then I'm fine with that, the process is CSD-PROD-AfD. CSDs get applied then either the article is deleted, or they get turned down and the editor can pursue the other avenues. If my CSD tags are judged as disruptive then I will skip that step, it's not worth the hassle. And I didn't reply to Singularity42 'cause there was nothing to say. I read it, I archived it, and given that the notice was on my talk page there is nothing out of the ordinary, there are plenty of notices on my talk page that I don't bother responding to. But now, Singularity42, you have your response. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(BTW - I did not start this thread because my message had not been responded to - I assume the message was read when it was manually archived. The issue is that the problems raised in the message were still continuing, which combined with the lack of a direct reply, was an issue. Singularity42 (talk))

What helps most is sending each article to the proper channel in the first place, according to WP:Deletion policy. Articles that meet the CSD criteria should be nominated for speedy. Articles which uncontroversially should be deleted but do not meet those criteria should be nominated for PROD. Articles about which there will be an argument or that need discussion go to AfD. It is not helpful to nominate obvious speedy candidates for AfD--it adds to the already excessive workload there. Nominating articles that do not fit the CSD for speedy is even less helpful, because they might accidentally get deleted--admins are not perfect. If in doubt, Prod is often a good choice,because I and the others who patrol there will move things to where they belong if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Darrenhusted continued making bad speedy nominations after this response (e.g., tagging Omega gamma delta as a G2 test page), I have temporarily disabled WP:TWINKLE for him, until this issue is resolved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Darrenhusted's comments). I think right there is the heart of the problem. As pointed out by DGG, it is not CSD --> PROD --> AfD. Each one serves a different function. It is possible (and, in fact, usually normal) for something to meet normal deletion policy (and would therefore fall under PROD or AfD) and not meet the very narrow scope of CSD. There may also be something that seems to meet deletion policy, but the deletion is obviously not going to uncontroversial. Therefore, PROD would not apply. Basically, each of the three deletion methods serve very different purposes and have very different scopes. One is not an escalation of the other. They should be treated differently as very seperate processes. Singularity42 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Xenos2008-racism, accusations of illegal acts

• user has been blocked for vandalism and incivility 1

• user has (following the block) made racist comments to the effect that Greek people are assholes and peasants

2

• user has been warned on at least three occasions by an administrator user:Henrik

3 4 and by myself user:Anothroskon 5

• user then proceeded to make further racist comments to the effect that Greek people are nationalists and racists

5

• User has finally accused me of belonging to a far-right, semi-legal group and of having threatened him in public, the latter of which would be illegal in my jurisdiction. 6

• I had taken the user to WP:AE but the case was deemed to be unimportant since the user was at the time for a long time inactive. This is no longer the case and in any event the user has commited what would appear to be further breaches of WP policy in the mean time. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• User has been notified. 7--Anothroskon (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not active on WP: I am responding to allegations of racism by Greek nationalists. I have given up trying to remove the biases and falsified history on WP. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude... if you want us to take you seriously as a troll, you're gonna have to try harder than that.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the first time I think I've laughed in the Administrator's Noticeboard /Incident section! --Rockstone (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is a constant source of comedy for me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He called them peasants? Next thing you know, he'll be calling them upstarts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always partial to varlets. --NellieBly (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not entirely funny. I have left the user a warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually something weird was going on with this editor the time he was active: personal attacks & rascist comments [[24]], talking always about a fictious Greek propaganda scenario and his personal problems with the academic community in Greece [[25]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of you are serious (and you can be sure that the Greek editors are not) to understand what this is about, I suggest you ask any foreigner living in Greece. Personally, I have fewer problems than most, so the last allegation by Alexikoua is malicious and indeed typical of how Greeks deal with foreigners. I do not have a personal agenda and am being attacked for not supporting Greek propaganda: this also is typical of Greek behaviour on the internet and generally. If you do not know anything about Greece, then do not be so foolish as to think it resembles the USA or Europe. It is a Balkan country. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please mind that user:Xenos2008 means this last part to be a slur and not as a simple geographical fact. In his mind being Balkan probably amounts to some sort of personal defect, never mind about being Greek as well. As I said on the talk page I could produce evidence to the effect that Greeks are neither more nor less nationalist, racist, peasant or assholes than any other group of people but that would imply crediting his position as something other than a racist rant. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Anothroskon is a Greek and his opinions and so-called evidence are part of the problem, not the solution. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles, and a great deal of leeway should be given to such editors, given the inevitable hostility they will come up against. However, I know that administrators seem to prefer articles to be wrong and quiet, rather than right but busy with edit wars, reverts, and controversy. Meowy 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meowy, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by the "inevitable hostility" statement and whether this is tied to one particular nationality as you phrased it? I am asking for a clarification to avoid a potential misinterpretation as a simple ethnic insult. Thanks. Antipastor (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your own reply might be an example of that "inevitable hostility", since I wrote nothing that suggested it is "tied to one particular nationality". It is a fact that most Greek related articles, especially ones dealing with contemporary Greece, are going to be edited by persons with some sort of Greek background, and that many of them are going to consider such articles "internal matters" for Greeks only, and are going to edit those articles to remove anything that they consider to be "anti-Greek". Meowy 03:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Your predictions about hypothetical situations are not "a fact" though. But, anyway, I see what you mean, and from what you said in your first sentence, I take it that you mean this could happen for articles about any country. So this does not seem to warrant a special justification of a kind of problematic behavior discussed in this thread. I think that on the contrary, in sensitive and potentially controversial situations, the standards for civility should be higher to avoid an obvious degradation of the editing environment, and this must apply equally to all parties of course. Antipastor (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. There is way for non-Greeks to get involved with editing Greek-related articles without having to go and make general stereotypes of Greeks. Are you also saying that in order to encourage non-Jewish people edit Jewish-related articles, we should put up with anti-semitism? Of course not. Same thing here. Xenos2008 has been told to edit without degrading Greek people (and saying all Greek people have a peasant mentality, or that we shouldn't expect rational arguments regarding Greece because it is a balkan country - whatever that means - is degrading, insulting, and not constructive). Xenos2008 has been warned by administrators after this thread started. He chose to ignore that warning and continue making such comments in his posts on this thread. Wikipedia should not have to put up with this behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a person, so has no say in what it should put up with or not put up with. The content of articles is all that should matter, and is all that the users of Wikipedia care about. If Xenos2008 knows enough about Greeks to touch at some sensitive points in their self-identity, he probably knows enough about Greece to make a positive contribution to Greece-related articles. BTW, when the complainant talked about being accused of committing "illegal acts", I was assuming they were sheep-related ones - now that is a general stereotype of Greeks! The comments Xenos2008 has been making are not actually stereotypes, they seem to me more like internal criticisms that I (would hope) Greeks make about fellow Greeks (or that any society might make about its self-perceived negative qualities). OK, they are probably not helpful to the editing process, but to compare them to anti-Semitism is completely OTT. Meowy 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community, and the community can say what it will or will not accept. There are plenty of examples of that. The community can say it will not accept repeated offensive behaviour that ignores warnings, including making broad, offensive stereotypes about Greek people. This includes broadly saying Greeks have no respect for Wikipedia and that Greeks have a peasant mentality, that the entire Greek society is racist, that other editors complain about his/her behaviour solely because they are Greek, that a Greek person cannot follow a reasoned argument, simply because they are Greek, that it is typical of Greek people to attack anyone that does not follow a Greek nationalist agenda, and Greece should not be taken seriously because they are a Balkan country (whatever that means), and that editors should ignore another editor solely because the editor is Greek. Wikipedia as a community does not have to accept this type of behaviour, especially after the editor in question has been warned but still continues. And what is wrong with comparing to prejudice against other enthnical/religious groups? Isn't that what is happening here? Singularity42 (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I gotta back Singularity here. Racism and culture wars are not welcome on Wikipedia. Going down that road leads to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are mostly misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position. I work in a Greek university, publish with Greek colleagues, and never have problems with imposition of conventional nationalistic views on my work. It is with the wider public that the problems arise, for the reasons stated on my Talk page (school education). There is also a real problem on WP because it is not established academics writing the articles on Greece, and the Greek nationalist viewpoint prevails. One or several of the Greeks protesting here know my real name and have had very nasty arguments with me on other websites, where their racist views have been condemned. Their response? to accuse me of racism against an entire society for daring to open my mouth. I have no intention of editing on WP, but I am responding to these allegations to defend my personal reputation (as all of the Greeks here seem to think they know who I am). Xenos2008 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I neither know nor care to know who User:Xenos2008 is irl apart from my objection to his accusation of me having threatened him in public which would be illegal.
2. Who one is irl doesn't and shouldn't matter in WP where we are judged by our edits. And the user's edits have been presented above so people can draw their own conclusions.
3. I have neither exchanged nor wish to exchange any communication via the internet with the user and this includes other websites, emails etc.
4. My accusations of racism against the user however stand and he has but his own outbursts to thank for that. I point the reader to the list I prepared above as well as the one presented by User:Singularity42 and finally to two warnings the user has received from as many admins (Georgewilliamherbert and User:Henrik) and despite which he persists undettered. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And the incidents which led to my comments, such as false historical "facts" which I deleted and were persistently replaced by Greeks, are all ignored. The arguments presented for such behaviour include "you have to prove that such and such did not happen" simply because all Greeks believe that such and such occurred. There are no sources, and no evidence for such beliefs. When there are sources used, they are highly selective and almost always supporting the Greek nationalist point of view.

It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. Furthermore, the issue of IRL is relevant, because it is well known (even from my nickname) that I am not a Greek: the outright hostility expressed to me here has been very clear, and is racially motivated. Again: ask any foreigner living in Greece...Xenos2008 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:NPOV before editing further articles. We are not hostile because of who you are, but rather because of your edits. We do not know, nor do we care to know, who you are in real life. We don't even care what nation you are from.--Rockstonetalk to me! 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008, I wonder, can you cite some examples (on Wikipedia) of that hostility which you think is racially motivated? However, making comments about editors and their motives and their society isn't going to lead to your content-related edits being more likely to survive - so in the long run, what is the point of making such comments? I think you should give an assurance that, in the future, all edit summaries you make will be restricted to descriptions of the changes you have made, and all article talk-page comments you make will be restricted to the content of the articles. As I said earlier, there is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles. I hope that giving that assurance would be enough to allow you to continue to edit Greece-related articles. Meowy 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, thank you for your open-minded approach. Since this is my second ID on WP (a few years previously I edited under my real name) and it has proved equally impossible to deal with the nationalism of all Balkan nationalities, but especially Greek) I have no intention of editing anything on WP. When adult and university educated Greeks spout schoolbook propaganda as the truth, and simply refuse to deal with facts, there is no possibility of compromise or decent quality historical articles on WP. One person, however expert, cannot fight off another 20 who know little of their own country or the basic principles of academic research.Xenos2008 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by the user is borderline incivility and personal attack but considering the other much more serious infractions of his (racism) I believe it can be safely ignored. And to answer your question Meowy, the point behind his making such comments is simply that he has to vent. I agree with the need to have more Greek editors edit Greek related material which is why some time before this discussion I had invited on several occastions PMAnderson 12 to help edit the Greeks article. You too of course are invited. I have also recently placed the article Byzantine Greeks on peer review and I would thank anyone reading this to take a look. By the way PMAnderson has very strong opinions on the Greeks article's failings but manages, for some unfathomable reason, to avoid calling Greeks assholes and peasants or shouting "fuck you" at other editors. The reason of course is that he is not a racist.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do please check your statements for Freudian slips! So revealing, this subconscious nationalism that eats away at people's brains. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't an academic institution - it is a medium for the dissemination of propaganda. It disseminates a lot of other things as well - useful things, and mostly true things - but its distinguishing feature, its unique selling point, is propaganda dissemination. It is about time the academic world gets a bit of backbone and begins to confront the evil that is at the core of the Wikipedia concept. Because of the scale of the problem I don't think this can be done internally by just editing Wikipedia articles. Meowy 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, for those who choose to ignore it: It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. I should also mention that revisions I have tried to make taking sources away from student unpublished materials and towards published articles (including my own) and Greek nationalists systematically revert to the student material out of spite. This is not beneficial to WP: it is a typical Greek cabal approach, making sure that "outsiders" cannot participate except on the Greek terms. So, Anothroskon can bleat as much as he likes, but his protests are either deluded or false. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Consider this a warning. You can repeat "it's not racist" as much as you want but, when many people here are telling you it is, you should listen. We don't care what your personal experience or opinion is. Your comments are offensive and derogatory towards an entire ethnic/racial group. Stop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. NOT ENOUGH! Who are you to tell me what is racist? Do you publish on racism? I do. Do you have any expertise in this area? I don't think so. So cut the WP crap that you think a lot of people saying something makes it the truth. Try living in the real world, for once. Xenos2008 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dial back the attitude, Xenos. That response just lost you a vital amount of good will. Like with yours truly, who does live in the real world. -- llywrch (talk)

I will echo the calls for Xenos to tone down his language, but I will also call into question the labelling of his comments as "racist". Attributing a particular set of actions or prejudices to the citizens of a particular nation is by no means racist. It may be wrong, it may be inflammatory, and it may be unhelpful, but it is not racist. Please show how his comments denegrated a "race" of people. They may be nationalistic, but racist they are not. I would caution Xenos to be more considerate in the future, but I would also chastise Anosthroskon for his hyperbolic wielding of the "racist" tag. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

While Greeks do not constitute a race they do constitute an ethnic group and it was at this group as a whole that comments were directed and not to the individual editors the user had issues with. Hence the application of the term racism. The term was used to imply ethnic and not racial discrimination as indeed it is often used (e.g. according to the UN conventions further there is no distinction between ethnic and racial discrimination). The former is what Xenos2008 engaged in and for lack of a better term (I have never heard of the word ethnicism used) I used racism. If you are still not happy we can compromise and call him a Greek-baiter. Doesn't change what he wrote.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since both race and nation are arbitrary distinctions that we humans make to distinguish us from not-us, I think it is moot what you call it. Bloody-rude-characterisation-by-ethnographic-stereotype is a bit of a mouthful for me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately the user is inactive the last weeks, that's the only good thing in this situation. At Sept. 6, I received a short e-mail from him, written in the usual style he is used to. I didn't paid much attention since his activity died down the following days. The e mail is forwarded to Georgewilliamherbert. Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're more than likely right about the word "racism" here Throwaway85 but had Xenos responded in the dispassionate, rational manner you just did, there wouldn't be half the drama & nastiness we've seen so far in this incident. amazing that someone who claims to be an academic could not keep his cool & be rational. :-/ llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, right, academics are not allowed to get angry about fraudulent history, propaganda or general intolerance of racial and ethnic difference. Do any of you non-Greeks live in Greece or a Balkan country? do you have any idea of what goes on here? Xenos2008 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if academics get angry about whatever. However, if you get angry at someone on Wikipedia & rant on at them, even if they deserve it the best that will happen to you is that you'll be ignored. The worst is that you get banned. You have the training, & I would expect the brains to channel that emotion into persuading us to see your point. So far, I wouldn't grant you tenure on what you've posted here. -- llywrch (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a talkpage turning into one persons blog opinionating about problems in genetics literature "generally"

The Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) page itself is the best evidence of what the headers says. I was criticized for long postings on earlier attempts to get help on this problem. It has since developed further. I think the following diffs are plenty. They are simply the several edits made so far by User:Pdeitiker to create the current version of his latest creation on that talkpage: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Although I have written a response and tried to treat it as if there is a discussion going on [32], past form shows that this user will probably continue editing what he has written, partly in order to make the response look wrong. If this is not disruptive editing, what is? Genetics articles with popular interest are hard enough at the best of times to get balanced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hurrgghhh. This is a clear series of WP:TALK violations. Anti-Kurgan-hypothesis ranting has a long and ignoble history, from the Hindutva fanboys at Out of India theory (who want the PIE urheimat to be India), to Rokus01 (talk · contribs), who, from memory, wanted it to be in the Netherlands. Some unholy alliances resulted. No one is denying the theory has its problems: at the same time, it is the most widely accepted and fluent explanation available: certainly "academic mainstream". Where this guy is coming from is not clear but he's certainly not offering anything constructive. Thoughts on what to do? Moreschi (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi asks about the background to "this guy". Examination of the talk page will show that this is not the only blog-like subject taking up space there, and heading towards OR, SYNTH, etc. User:Pdeitiker's background is in genetics, and he has explained his interest here as being trying to show that a genetics article can be brought up to GA level. Articles he works on such as Mitochondrial Eve have been heavily criticised for jargon. Therefore he became interested R1a while it was recently being brought from a very poor standard to a much better standard (according to all other editors following this article). Therefore, the basic theme of most of his digressions is to try to argue that the article is actually "crap", despite what everyone thinks, and needs his urgent large-scale re-writing. I have tried to keep this short.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)::

Oww, my eyes. My gut reaction? User:Pdeitiker and you could both use a day off. The text blob there (247k!) is just so huge that, though you diffs are entirely reasonable, it would take hours to pick out counterpoints or anything close to neutral out of it. Looks to be mostly rambling to try to take the last poke at a hideous pile of horse meat, and you both likely are looking at it as gaming or an attempt at mass POV pushing via the bulk posts. This is going to look like the cheap way out of giving an answer, but since you're about to tear your hair out, just message the other user and admit that it's not worth the stress and you think a weekend away would be helpful. Oh, and don't take the bait on anything, jeesh. Reading some lines of your user talk page comments looked like a game of macho intellectual thumb-biting on the hope that maybe one of you will go way out of line on more direct civility somewhere. Try to think of it that way. Don't let someone trick you into doing or saying something extremely dumb when you're confident policy and guidelines are with you. Nothing is looking terribly productive.

For simplicity on what would probably be a result of looking over chat, just say everyone has had a ... "frustrated tone" to this point? Look back, relax, talk through and get multiple opinions from the other editors of where consensus stands so there's a starting point to work off of. Those in opposition might not end up caring, but it does matter if there have been discussions done on what a current status is so that it's easier to see where disruption is from. Consider this your first advice on backlash and dispute resolution that people like to draw out for no reason; don't shop forums or specifically write to any editors about it, even if it's just to get a starting consensus. WP:RC. Crafty disruptive editors will spot all of it and gladly post a list of diffs a mile long about how you'd trying to pile-on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The record shows that I have tried leaving the article, and that Pdeitiker did as he says he will. Pdeitiker's stated aim is to treat what has been achieved there recently as crap and re-write it. In the words of another editor: "Left to his own devices, Pdeitiker would convert this article into Einstein's theory of general relativity as he has done with Mitochondrial Eve"[33]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW I know what you mean about "crafty disruptive editors" and I know at first sight it might look like such a case. But it is not. Pdeitiker really seems to have confused himself about what Wikipedia rules are, and in this state he has shown now several times that he will make major unilateral changes to the article when given a chance. I am concerned not to let that happen. Other editors have expressed a quite clear consensus that recent editing direction has been a major improvement. This article was an edit war minefield for a long time. We should really try to avoid a bull in a china shop messing that up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not totally convinced. Should the page be about the gene flow only, or should it give a general discussion on the spread of languages and cultures? They do not necessarily correlate close with genotype. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we can seriously propose that Wikipedia can treat the whole enormous field of interdisciplinary speculation (linguistic, genetic, archaeological) about ancient population movements as "fringe"? If the literature is full of it, in all three fields, and it is notable and mainstream, what are the options? Pdeitiker's proposal is clear: we make our own judgments. Let me by the way point out that the subject of "ancient population movements" is touchy. There is always some group or another watching for any slight sign of bias against, Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Indians, Africans, whatever. These articles are increasingly being read by a wider public. But I have now managed to damp down massive edit warring in two articles like this, E1b1b and R1a by compromising and trying to see the good in all sides, and I know that Deitiker's approach is simply not possible or desirable, and that Wikipedia's guidelines actually work: let every reasonable opinion be mentioned, in context, with alternatives mentioned, etc etc. WP:UNDUE. Please also do not forget the reality of the context: the problems of the Kurgan hypothesis have only now been raised after a new editor mentioned them, and good on him, this section does need work. For Deitiker this is only the latest in quite a number of desperate attempts to argue that the article is "crap" and "disturbingly badly" written, and people need to start giving way to Deitiker "or else" because only he knows how to make the article "encyclopedic". (The quotes are real. Diffs available.) Strange thing is that he also openly says that his interest in the article is because it has been brought to a relatively good level for a Y haplogroup article, and he wants (he literally says) to try to be part of getting it to GA level, both as an example to other Wikipedians, and also and in particular to put me personally through a "painful" experience of "self improvement". Just read the talk page. I have seriously tossed up making a case for Wiki-hounding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make one thing clear before admins switch off: yes, the whole enormous field of interdisciplinary speculation (linguistic, genetic, archaeological) about ancient population movements is very speculative. Nearly everyone who complains about how speculative it is really has a valid point. But this valid point helps no one when it comes to deciding how to edit on Wikipedia. It is simply a challenge to be solved without too much wikidrama if possible. If we have massive and obvious violations of wikipedia talkpage violations this job becomes quite difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the primary problem as talk page violations, but rather Ownership. He is not the only person to have expressed this attitude, but his attitude towards this is indeed quite extreme, and does seem to need some considerable adjustment. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you make the insinuation about WP:OWN. I've tried stopping editing, and that did not work. We've had other editors agree with me and get hounded off the page [34], or asked to post elsewhere [35], etc. The guy seriously will make the page more like Mitochondrial Eve. If saying that this is not good is "biased" then OK, I'm biased. But I think you can not have looked at Mitochondrial Eve and its record then. It is chalk and cheese. Sometimes saying one article is better than another is not biased.

Simple enforcement of wikipedia talkpage guidelines, or even just a couple of people saying what they are in particular real cases, would probably do a lot. In some ways this is a weird case. In some ways it really is a no brainer. One basic point is that while Pdeitiker thinks he can say things like "you are not arguing me, but with Wikipedia" over something like for example, bullet points, or the number of paragraphs in the lead; while he thinks he can review the article and then cite himself in third person as a critic, or call for a GA review during a content debate, and then tell everyone he just did so in order to ensure they give way and work to a deadline, thinks he can rewrite his posts after replied to or even edit replies, etc etc etc...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR Obviously there are deeper issues here. I will answer one critique from DGG. Language and genes do not often flow together. For example the Irish speak and IE tongue but are genetically more closer to the Basque than they are to any anatolians. There is neither a cultural, linguistic, metal age or any other cultural association with the genetics. It is quite common examining HLA haplotypes to find finger print haplotypes shared by two different peoples that have no known historical or paleocultural link what-so-ever other than common Eurasian origins. It is also not too uncommon to see papers show certain links, which are soon followed by archaeological studies that support those links. I have a nose for speculation, and that material that has been on this page for quite some time reeks of speculation. The bottom line, and Andrew will probably agree with this, using either shallow SNPs (surface phylogenetic variation) or STR diversity (the clocking of which is highly questionable) the range of migrations times from or to Eastern Europe extends over 1000s of years. The problem is the the Kurgan culture existed for only 1500 years, and the bigger problem is that cultural flow from eastern Europe into other parts of Europe have been suggested in many studies. Here are two studies that go into great deal about the late paleolithic Mesolithic and Early Neolithic and are online.

• Late Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in Lower Alpine Reoing between the Riveris Iller and Lech (South West Bavaria).-Birgit gehlen
• Review- Final Paloelithic and Mesolithic Research in a Unified Germany- Street et al., Journal of world prehistory:15 (4) 2001
• An example of Gene-Language study gone wrong: The correlation between Languages and genes:The Usko-Mediterranean peoples. Human Immunology 62:1052-1061 (2001).

As per Andrew_Lancaster and his clearly WP:OWN attitude concerning my edits to the page. Eventually you will need to deal with this issue in Arbitration. Final comments on this page, yall have fun.PB666 ^yap 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

daTheisen, you hit the nail on the Head, I purposefully took a timeout yesterday to do some gardening, just as today. I got a Biskmark palm waiting outside to be planted. The problem, Andrew is like the guy at the hotdog stand that elbows you in the gut whenever you try to Make an order, or look at what's available, he's got major Own Issues. He took up most of my morning yesterday because he, although he says I known nothing about Y-DNA stuff, did not apparently understand the difference between a Haplogroup and a Haplotype or Patrilineality. He finally did figure it out, but he really botched up the lead sentence in the Article and everytime I replace that lead paragraph with my version he reverts it, no matter how poorly matched his material is or no matter it if follows the wikiguidelines or not. He just elbows me in the gut.PB666 ^yap 22:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PD, honestly, your guesses about my intentions and opinions are so amazingly wrong sometimes, even when I think they are perfectly clear to everyone else. For example your whole story about us arguing about a term, and me finally understanding, is nonsense. We simply never discussed it in any two way conversation. I simply said it was irrelevant, and you were not looking at the wording being proposed but just off writing on another tangent. I still say it is irrelevant. All these events in the discussion which you remember never happened. They were between the lines for you and you alone. Anyone reading the talk page will not see them. I can say exactly the same thing about how you recall all the debates you think you've had since you tried to split the article a few weeks back and then got nasty because no one liked it. You've come up with all kinds of theories about why no one agreed, all except the reasons that people clearly explained to you. I do not know how to try harder than I have to communicate with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nike iD, a WikiProject Homework production

I offer the following, related to article NikeiD-- About 24 hours ago I put a PROD on under self-advert reasoning. One of the editors saying to be involved was actually awesomely kind enough to contact me on my talk page, very politely, where I got a very interesting reason that explains why something is amiss: I'll even admit, just for full disclosure, I was a little strong in the PROD text. The histories of the editors off the list were longer-standing and I wouldn't have deliberately bitten anyone if I saw only new users as contributors.

This is in response to the recent article deletion proposition, you made on the article NikeId. (sorry if I'm typing this in the wrong place!) But it's Just to let you know that we're a group of students who have been assigned the task of creating a wikipedia page, we're totally new to wikipedia and have been trying our best to find a topic not already covered on wikipedia to make. We never intended for the page to come across as a blatant advert, and maybe some of our points need to be changed. We were given a checklist of things we must include in the article- for example demonstrating that we can use italics, which is possibly the reason they seem misplaced. We'll continue working on the page to improve it.

I've left the new user cookies to start a talk page and will be leaving a link to this discussion here. Before I get mushy, my official view must of course be to state the obvious, that Wikipedia is not a homework assignment.

Having never run into this before-- especially it being said openly and not assumed-- I'm at a total loss. I'm loving the positive attitude and good faith being shown, so I'm going to put in writing that I'm begging policy purists (including my normal persona) to give a pass on the self-admitted account garble or puppetry matters. Take what would normally be a comedic and juicy bit of text resulting in lawlings, snowballing XfDs, etc., and please see if it's alright to try to help a bit. I'm not sure which users specifically are doing the homework project, but none of the users who have ever edited this article engage in vandalism or other bad faith editing. Just, please don't go out with a hammer and try to injure anyone. Since the assignment is not completed an we cannot accurately predict the future status or letter grade of Wikipedia articles. That said, it could well be taken out of the mainspace based on the admission. It also shouldn't stay out there since it could be hacked up by anyone and their good faith blown away by any random editor.
Can I get an admin to Userify this? Please. Likely to User:All.watson, the one who contacted me. A copy perhaps, since there have been other contributors to the existing article. After this revelation, I'd be soulless to do nothing to try to help. A one-off good faith case, perhaps, since I never again want to learn about Wikipedia as a school project. Ever. My Wikisenses are twitching at the thought of debating the destruction of something like this, as well, but good faith wins.

Searches aren't finding any kind of precedent on this for me, so this is an attempted bolt-on to WP:AGF and WP:IAR, I guess? Userify it with a noindex... just look away for a few days until they're supposed to be finished or pretend it was a requested article. Who knows, maybe they'll come up with an great article. I don't mind watching over that to make sure nothing interacts with the mainspace. When they say the assignment is done content can either be a new article all together (I'm not taking the PROD off the current version), merged with an article that lives, or just CSD-G7'd and allowed to scatter into the night. I know it'd most always be bad to just blindly give free editing space like this, but I'd say valid this one time at least because we might get a good article. ...Thoughts? I can entirely record all their actions and, well. I don't know what I can really offer as collateral versus any unmentionable horrors resulting from granting an odd request. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Userficiation with deletion or merging if appropriate at the end of the project sounds like a winner. A longer-term general solution would be to have a 3rd party site or possibly Wikimedia to have a wiki specifically aimed at the student crowd for such projects, with an import/export functionality to Wikipedia so anything good that came out of it can be imported after review and some mechanism to preserve GFDL and CC-BY-SA compliance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Shhhhh! Per WP:BEANS, we're doomed if these things are ever mentioned in public! That's a really thin line to work on, though, where theoretically it triples the size and results in 10x better quality within Wikipedia, but wow. Such awful mess if things weren't perfect. For now I'll just evade your import/export matter by saying "I think volunteers have enough to do already". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why people write articles: if it conforms to the policies, its fine. In fact, if you take a look at WP:SUP you can see we are more than happy to assist schools in giving students instruction about Wikipedia. Every person who tries editing once has the potential to become a long term editor. I'll ask the user if there is an email address for the instructor of the class that we can use to contact him or her, and monitor the project more easily, as well as making sure it is productive for them, and us. Prodego ^talk 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blah, I think I'm being misunderstood. Well, this isn't a forum on global educational philosophy so I'll avoid that again. I certainly never said the "why?" was a reason it shouldn't be here, it's that I was blindly taking good faith on this with no evidence because my gut reaction was that there nothing "bad" going on and that an unknown list of users with unknown edit histories were all going to be okay. As someone very often worried their head will be chopped off if certain people fly by, I figured it proper to report that someone was openly admitting to things that that would be mostly unacceptable unless it were for school, and was openly saying "I can't say how many of us there are, who they are or what they've done" in terms of accounts controlled or articles followed. I do hope the user gives a list of anything you want, because it'd be a lot better for us to know where this was happening. As a non-admin it's not my place to nor considered appropriate to solicit contact from any user, which is why I left the note saying they should listen listen to whatever pops up. Sorry... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was fine, and bringing it up here was a good thing to do, nothing wrong there. If you would like, you should feel free to ask them to contact you, and work out something with them yourself, but you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to either. Nothing to be sorry about, thanks for bringing it up! Prodego ^talk 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Students experimenting with Wikipedia must experiment in accordance with our normal rules. It is perfectly appropriate to expect them to follow editing conventions. Nobody owns an article in mainspace, even for a class project. It is perfectly appropriate to correct style changes given as requirements by a teacher if they are not according to our MOS. Datheisen, any non admin can deal with it, unless it requires admin powers. But do familiarize yourself with the practices on those school guideline pages. Myself, I think it might be possible for it to become a proper article. A prod tag had been placed on it as an advertisement. I do not think it was, at least in the form I found it, and so I removed it. If sourced properly,it might even pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Students experimenting with Wikipedia must experiment in accordance with our normal rules. It is perfectly appropriate to expect them to follow editing conventions. Nobody owns an article in mainspace, even for a class project. It is perfectly appropriate to correct style changes given as requirements by a teacher if they are not according to our MOS. Datheisen, any non admin can deal with it, unless it requires admin powers. But do familiarize yourself with the practices on those school guideline pages. Myself, I think it might be possible for it to become a proper article. A prod tag had been placed on it as an advertisement. I do not think it was, at least in the form I found it, and so I removed it. If sourced properly,it might even pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. I never thought it wasn't salvageable. I also didn't really think it wasn't notable, but that there was nothing to say it was past what it said it's name it and even then the pictures demonstrating it was Nike kept getting copyvio-yanked if I recall. I don't doubt this can turn into a good small article, Nike-related stub or merged in for a few paragraphs. I still find the statement about "awards for internet marketing" to be adorably ironic, actually moreso now since it's there as a legitimate point in part of a comprehensive article instead of it possibly being just a street team bragging about what they're supposedly pulled off. AfD I'd say is 40/60 as-is, to 70/30 wouldn't be that hard I hope, and even 1-2 mentions out of big pop culture somethings would be almost a 100%, but mean trimming it back down a bit to whatever its scope is. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with topic bans

Resolved

 – This is an WP:AE issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an AfD on a British journalist, Jonathan Cook. Cook has been writing for newspapers such as The Guardian and Le Monde, often with a critical view of Israel. Some pro-Israeli users are currently trying to have the article deleted, and a situation has arisen in which I'm not sure about the proper procedure. One heavily pro-Israeli editor, Gilabrand, has been removing many comments by two other editors [36], [37], [38]. I don't know any of the users and don't know what kind of topic bans they have or if their comments (both abstained from voting) violated their topic bans. If they did, appropriate action should be taken. I am concerned that Gilabrand is so eager to removed comments not supporting his own POV. I'm particularly concerned as he waited a long time, after which a long discussion had taken place between one of the editors and another. By removing every second comment in a long discussion, Gilabrand's edits render it almost impossible to understand the page. I doubt this is the way to enforce a topic ban, but I might be wrong so I bring it here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE is thataway, if Gila feels that the edits are in violation of the topic she should go there instead of repeatedly removing others comments. nableezy - 21:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing not complete

Resolved

 – AfD template has been removed from the article. Singularity42 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Committee_for_the_Propagation_of_Virtue_and_the_Prevention_of_Vice_(Gaza_Strip)
The discussion is closed but the article (page) still has the "under AfD" template. Cleanup needed there? -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be done by Nuclear Warfare. TNXMan 21:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously something was wrong with my AfD closure script......Tim Song (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Lapneth quacks...

Lapneth (talk · contribs) had their account created at 00:39 UTC. At 00:41 UTC they deleted a section on this very sacred page, and at 00:43 UTC they then blanked the La Salle Extension University page, which is, interestingly the topic of another ANI discussion. Those are the only edits to date. To my humble non-admin eyes this looks like a vandalism-only WP:SOCK, and it certainly seems to meet WP:DUCK. Thoughts please? GiantSnowman 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am watching this user, they are very close to a vandalism only account block, however when it comes to blanking I think a full set of warnings are important as intent can be unclear. I don't really know anything about potential socking regarding this user, it looks like the sort of thing we get about 25 times a day. ^Chillum 01:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely vandalising two ANI-related pages isn't the behaviour of a normal vandal? GiantSnowman 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Normal may be a bit generous, common would be a better term. ^Chillum 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Still strikes me as very odd behaviour for a 'new' editor...GiantSnowman 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a vandalism-only account, but could well be unrelated to the topic. One of my old "friends" turned up today, so it could be him, following my edits to see what he could get into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo article probation 1 RR per week?

Resolved

 – Cinema C has recognized their error, and pledged to be more careful in the future. Since blocks are not punitive, so long as he keeps his word, there is no need for further action at this time.--Jayron32 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In this edit administrator Nishkid put the article on 1RR per week I propose a discussion of this to determine if this restriction still applies. Recently user:Sulmues and user:Cinema C both violated this restriction both making two reverts within a week in a dispute about info boxes. Sulmues [39] [40], Cinema C [41] (also calling the opposing edit 'vandalism'), [42]. However only Sulmues was blocked for the violation, which suggest that the 1RR per week was lifted, as under 1RR per day there would be no violation on the part of Cinema C. Were the terms of the probation modified, is it 1RR per day or 1RR per week??? Any input is welcome. Hobartimus (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this article is under the purview of WP:ARBMAC restrictions; administrators are given a broad leeway of placing reasonable restrictions on articles and editors as needed to slow down particularly virulent edit wars. I see nothing to indicate that Nishikid's restrictions have been lifted. You may want to contact him directly with any concerns. --Jayron32 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, however his editing pattern (4 edits in November) does not suggest that he is available for queries. He seems quite busy IRL with not much time for on wiki activities. Hobartimus (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I have broken the 1RR rule. I completely forgot about it and am glad to have been reminded. Although I'll accept any measure undertaken by administrators in this case, I would like to express the fact that I reverted a user who was acting as a vandal, and he has been blocked for 96 hours, banned from Kosovo related articles for 6 months. Still, if the administrators decide to punish me, I'll respect it. I apologize for breaking the rule. --Cinéma C 06:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As Cinéma C has recognised their error, I suggest no further admin action is warranted here subject to no further breach of the rule while it remains in place. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Keegscee's inappropriate warnings

Resolved

User:Keegscee has continued to encourage vandalism to another Wiki after being warned two days ago. Although it is nice to have someone reverting vandalism, a quick scroll through his/her user contributions make me wonder if the user's true intentions is to reroute Wikipedia vandals to another Wiki rather than help this encyclopedia project. He came to my attention asking a question about abuse reports on my talk page. I immediately noticed his user talk page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion, but was asked to take it to MfD) instructing vistors to vandalize this wiki instead of Wikipedia. I also noticed in this person's user contributions that (s)he had been providing links to the site in warnings posted to vandals. This is disgraceful and gives Wikipedia a bad name; people encouraging such behavior fuels pages like this and I can imagine what would happen if someone at the site read his/her immature comments. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified Keegscee of this discussion. @Kate (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So your issue is that he is using Wikipedia to encourage people to vandalise Conservapedia? Crafty (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mainly, and he's doing it after being warned too. That gives us a bad name, especially to the newbies that he's encouraging to do this. We don't need to end up in somebody's email to The Oreilly Factor saying "Wikipedia is a bunch of biased liberals" over one user. Thank you for notifying the user Katerenka, I forgot to do that. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with being a "biased liberal"? @Kate (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So what administrative action do you think should be taken? Crafty (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ec: Not sure if a block is appropriate or not because that has a tendancy to make matters worse. Topic bans have to be done by ArbCom. I personally think the user page meets WP:CSD as an attack page; what he's doing is not far from telling people to vandalize any particular page which would result in a deletion of the comments along with a 4IM warning at the very least. Wikipedia is not 4chan; we cannot allow people to instruct others to inflict damage at other sites. What's next, will the user tell people to bash videos at YouTube or write bad reviews for products at Best Buy's website? And it has nothing to do with the site in question or his political views, it's about malice and immaturity. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Has User:Keegscee continued to use those nonstandard warnings since he said "Yeah, I understand. I'll just warn normally, as boring as that is. Thanks." If he hasn't I see no purpose to this thread. ϢereSpielChequers 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) His userpage has been deleted. If he's not persisting with this conduct, I don't see what more there is to do. Crafty (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have delete the userpage as a clear attack page and have left the admin who declined it a note explaining myself. We don't let pages that exist solely to encourage others to attack another website sit around for 7 days, we delete them on site. As for the user, I have left a firm warning for the user and will block them if they continue to encourage others to vandalize websites. ^Chillum 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My biggest problem is with his user page which has not been deleted. I figured this would be a better option for reaching consensus than MfD which could take several days. MfD is not for attack pages, which is basically what this was. And dang these edit conflicts PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if the behavior does not continue that the issue is resolved. ^Chillum 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is resolved for now. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to GO-PCHS-NJROTC (do you have a nickname? please?): "Topic bans have to be done by ArbCom." Nope. We could do it right here, if it was at all germane to the (now not really existent) problem. Tan | 39 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can call me "PCHS" if you'd like; I've long since changed my name from GO-PCHS-NJROTC because of claims of it being promotional (it was, really), and yes, I know that. I was "thinking out loud" with that. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What does the "PCHS" stand for? Is that a New Jersey high school? Port Charlotte High School, as per User:PCHS-NJROTC. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films - WP:OWN issues

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.

---

• Closed. If you two haven't noticed it's essentially you two having a back and forth. This is because this is not an ANI issue as there's no need for immediate admin intervention. Use the WP:DR process through and seek community input from the appropriate noticeboards, not here. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I may as well start this here, since it will undoutedly end up here anyway (see the completely unnecessary [43]). I have attempted to make what should be a fairly straightforward change to move an image from the lede section of List of male performers in gay porn films to a more suitable location, as documented in this talk page discussion and in the article's history. I believe Benjiboi is engaging in ownership of the article to prevent me from making any changes.

Allow me to point out that as well as myself, two editors also moved the previous image out of the lede section ([44], [45], & [46]), two editors have agreed that the image is not appropriate in the lede section ([47] & [48]), and now another editor has also changed the caption of the image presently in the lede section ([49]). In each case, Benjiboi has simply reverted to his previous version. Any attempt by me to discuss the issue is met with speculation on my motivation, and comments directed at me personally, but little or no attention paid to the actual arguments made.

Since Benjiboi has now stated that the image currently in the lede section is only a "stop gap image" I have requested that they remove it so that we can avoid a completely unnecessary discussion about the caption of this temporary image, but they have refused even this. There are serious WP:BLP issues yet to be addressed with this article, but if it is impossible to make even a small change, it is unlikely that the necessary changes can be made to stick. Some admin help and more eyes would be appreciated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Benjiboi (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. As I've stated rather unambiguously a few times now I feel Delicious carbuncle is simply WP:Wikihounding me as I have generally stood up for David Shankbone, one of Wikipedia's most prolific image uploaders, in the near past when Delicious carbuncle seemed to be Wikihounding them, which seems to continue against both of us. And the case where I think I first saw this all in play was on Men of Israel, which Shankbone wrote concerning Michael Lucas' latest film. The image Delicious carbuncle wanted removed, or at least moved? The Lucas one from the lede by Shankbone noting he was likely the most accomplished of those we have images available.

The most worthy comment I can pull from their interpretation of events is they feel there is any BLP violation on the list. If there is this seems the absolutely most counter-productive way to mention it. That should have been the very first issue to bring up, IMHO. Instead they suggested that no images should be on list articles and certainly in the lede, then when that was proven as bogus, they insisted that an image of one person on a list of notable people in the lede was in some way wrong that too was undermined by the fact that many featured lists on people do the very same thing, undeterred they keep arguing. I'm awaiting a valid reason besides WP:Idon'tlikeit to remove the stop gap image - which coincidentally is also about Lucas and by Shankbone - and have waiting from NE2 how WP:Undue can be applied to the image discussion whether one actor or one producer. It fails the WP:Duck of WP:Idon'tlikeit. In fact on the stop gap image no one was even cited in the image nor was it explained whose movie it was, so now these two are tag-teaming to remove high-quality images.

As for WP:Ownership issues I can certainly see why I'm accused of such but a quick look at that article before I started clean-up five months ago shows why. It's a night and day difference. I have added, I believe, every on of the 200+ references while maintaining the incoming content to weed out vandalism and source anything usable. Meanwhile Delicious carbuncle seems only interested in deleting gay porn content, images and articles. They are certainly welcome to nom articles for deletion and certainly welcome to question images on articles. But when someone gives you an answer, a reasonable and policy-based one no less, and continues to try to understand your concerns. Then just maybe they have a valid point that it's a style issue that is well supported by the Featured List folks who do this work on a regular basis.

I still feel harassed by Delicious carbuncle and even if they are well within the letter of the policy they certainly seem to be tip-toeing past the spirit of it. Frankly I feel they should likely walk away from the article and focus on some of the 2-3 million other articles that need attention and vigilance, likewise they should probably stay clear of User:David Shankbone who does not need Delicious carbuncle's guidance or suggestions. Delicious carbuncle, who apparently is Carbunkle on Wikipedia Review, also insinuated in a past ANI thread how it was disruptive all the anon's that were harassing me and suggested if I accepted their proposed ban likely the harassment would disappear. And here we are and still they are the only one who seems to be grinding and making editing here quite unpleasant for me. I don't care why they are doing this, I wish Delicious carbuncle would leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I would very much appreciate it if you could stop attempting to further sully my reputation here by trying to link me to Wikipedia Review and tarring me with the same brush as is generally used for it. Please see my request to David Shankbone on the same issue. I am not especially interested in deleting gay porn articles or images except where they are in violation of WP policy and guidelines. I recently nominated two or three BLPs of gay porn performers for AfD, because they had been completely unsourced for many months if not years. Since changes were made to WP:PORNBIO criteria, dozens of BLPs of female porn performers have been deleted, but the gay male porn performer BLPs are long overdue for a clean-up. Enforcing WP policy is not homophobia or prudishness, despite how it might seem to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned homophobia so your motive and reputation are yours to win or lose. And no the image in question did not violate any policy or guideline so your concern here is truly remarkable. What you do offsite generally holds no interest except where it makes editing here stressful. Likewise what you d elsewhere has little interest except when it negatively impacts my editing. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Generally this is not an ANI issue, use WP:DR folks. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but as i said, it will undoubtedly just end up here anyway. Please see the thread I have started about my BLP concerns: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of male performers in gay porn films - the quintessential BLP nightmare. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You devotion to airing what again seems your keen interest in me is noted. I do applaud your addressing your stated BLP concern although it's unfortunate you again chose an admin board when teh article talkpage likely would have been sufficient. No worries, the alarmist BLP flag-waving has resulted in yet another AfD and hopefully the community will make the best decision again. -- Banjeboi 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, the thread at the BLP noticeboard doesn't even mention your name (or reference this ANI thread). Nor did I nominate the article for deletion. I am concerned that you are so dismissive of serious BLP issues. If I had attempted to address any these issues or started the discussion on the talk page, I suspect you would have felt that I was harassing you, since that is how you characterize any interaction we have, regardless of the underlying issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that there are some serious WP:OWN issues here, as is evidenced by the posts by Benjiboi at the deletion discussion in reply to anyone who dares to argue for a delete. I am particulary concerned about the accussation that the deletion nomination is reactionary [50]. Pantherskin (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your interpretation however my answering real concerns is what AfD is for; and I wasn't accusing nom as reactionary but your !vote after all the discussion there. We don't delete lists because there might be a BLP problem, we fix the problems, if somethings needs sourcing ... we find sources, etc. I do stand by my comment that it all seems a bit alarmist. Luckily another editor has started helping disambiguate anything that seems to be pointing to the wrong article. That's regular editing - and per WP:AFD, articles that can be fixed through regular editing are not good candidates for deletion. -- Banjeboi 10:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you think that AfD nominations are the place to ridicule the arguments of other editors by calling them ridiculous or nonsense, or by attacking other editors, then this is incident report has it place here as we need to discuss your editing behavior. Pantherskin (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think other editors trying to delete entire lists because there might be a BLP problem is ridiculous, apparently others feel similar. You may note I didn't mean to imply they themselves were ridiculous but there rationale may have seemed that way. That these are experienced editors doing this is indeed abominable but at least when AfD #6 rolls around we'll have #4 and #5 to look at and compare how this massive list has indeed improved. For those curious, the most egregious problem seems to have been wikilinks going to the wrong person. I hope it's apparent to everyone else that those were not to cause any confusion but done, I presume, in error. I will personally go through them all to ensure we're on target. -- Banjeboi 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the largest single concern I have about the list is the inclusion of red links. Not only is this against policy since the links are referenced (thus making them poorly referenced BLPs), but it is also contrary to the guideline for standalone lists which states "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Aside from the immediate BLP concerns, there is the danger that articles will be created for some of those red links, as you mention. For example, Ben Andrews is a common name - perhaps someone will eventually create an article about this Ben Andrews. Yes, renaming the link to Ben Andrews (porn actor) will solve that problem for now, but it didn't help:

• award-winning screenwriter Christian Taylor
• or tv producer Kevin Kramer (who is still labelled a porn star in another article)
• or football player Kevin Glover
• or born-again Christian actor Ron Pearson

from incorrectly being labelled gay porn performers until just hours ago. You say you have been "cleaning up" this list for 5 months, but you don't seem to have taken even the basic steps required to ensure that it was following BLP policy. I don't expect very many admins are bothering to read this thread (and I fully understand why not) but I hope those who are reading this are taking it as seriously as they should be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, this remains not an ANI issue. Everything you're all hopped-up over seems like regular editing issues. If you are ever so concerned ... why did the BLP aspects of your worries not get mentioned until you engaged an edit war on an image? If you're so concerned why did you not simply disambiguate those entries instead of complaining about it? Frankly your entire tenor in this area - including todays AfD of an article two hours old, including a post here and at BLP when civil talkpage discussion likely should have been the first step - suggests your judgment may be a little cloudy here. Luckily more civil editors have weighed in and several have even started going through to check all the wikilinks. And no, WP:Redlinks are quite useful and every list handles them differently - this list is the middle of a major overhaul and so deleting material is quite premature. And your starting discussion in several places seems rather disruptive to me. And I still see you as simply causing drama where none is needed. I certainly look forward to when that will no longer seem so. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm getting tired of your distortions here. Check the history of the article - you are the one who was reverting several editors, not me. Have you noted the topic of this thread? I didn't discuss the issues on the talkpage because of your ownership of the article, as you amply demonstrated with a relatively minor issue which is still unsettled. The list is now getting some attention because of the issues I raised on the BLP noticeboard. After 5 months of clean-up, you're only now checking the links? You deserve a barnstar for that! Even now you are arguing for inclusion on this list of porn performers whose articles have been deleted at AfD due to lack of notability. One of is pushing a POV here. I don't think my nominations of poorly sourced or completely unsourced BLPs should be misconstrued as a vendetta on gay porn. I suspect that some people have let things slide with regard to gay porn BLPs because they are either afraid to be seen working on them or they are afraid that they may be labelled as a homophobe. I know I am not a homophobe and while I don't enjoy the insinuation that I may be one, it doesn't deter me. The more eyes on this article and related articles the better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is talking about homophobia but you. Really whatever your motivations, I only care as they are causing disruption months after I asked you to leave me alone. And still, you persist raising alarmist concerns and stirring drama, and yes, distorting events to achieve some end which continues to feel like nothing but an interest in deleting content in this subject area. Loads of editors do work on these articles and manage to do so without needless bullying and wikihounding, without crying foul and by actually working with and helping other editors. This just may not be a good match for you if you need to spend so much time arguing. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 29 November 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.

Shiron.net

Resolved

 – Google Translate sucks for proper nouns and titles. References do, in fact, refer to the website in question. Singularity42 (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Could someone please review the sources the creator of this article added? I used google translate and the recently added sources do not even mention the subject. The other refs are discussed on the AfD. I do not want to get into an edit war with this user and I would appreciate someone intervening between us and give a neutral perspective.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Use ctrl+F and look for the word:

שירונט

in the references. You will find it on each and everyone of them. Eddau (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried that. I also used Google translate to convert them to English and looked for Shiro as well. I found several times like Lshirot and Bshirot but nothing like Shiron or Shiron.net. Please understand that I approached and article with neutrality and nominated that article in good faith and I am only looking out for the 'pedia. I checked your sources in and could not verify the sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only things I understand are that you insist talking about things you do not know and to claim that I am a spammer. You do not even recognize the Hebrew alphabet, but you almost deleted an article about a Hebrew website. You deleted sources in a language you do not read. It is about time you start believe in my good faithEddau (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, use Ctrl+F to look for

שירונט

Not for

שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט 

Eddau (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutly believe in your good faith, I just have trouble seeing us working this issue out without help because you don't seem to understand that even though I cannot speak Hebrew, I can still use tools to descern what is said and apply Wikipedia policies. Is there really no one who can help us here?--TParis00ap (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1. On the ref http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/047/978.html, the word שירונט appears on the first line of the subtitle, in double quotes. On the ref http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3256121,00.html that word is underlined on the first line of the first paragraph. I hope you find it now.
2. Claiming I'm a spammer is not a belief in my good faith.
3. Translation machines may do a good job translating from Dutch to English, from Arabic to Hebrew, or from Italian to Spanish. However, the differences between English and Hebrew is way to large for them. If you think you really understand their translation, you are wrong. As you proved, you could not even recognize the main subject of some of those references. Eddau (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, "Shiron" in Hebrew translates to "Songs". So when you run a Google Translate, the website "Shiron" is translated to "Songs". I believe that is the confusion. Both references refer to the website. How relevant they are to the what they are being used for, etc., is really a content issue. However, I don't mind assisting on that front if needed. Singularity42 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, based on Eddau's third point, this is not an English to Hebrew problem. This is a translation program problem, which could occur with any computerized translation from one language to another. Translation programs have major problems with proper nouns and titles. Singularity42 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, guess what happens if you use google translator to translate the Hebrew Wikipedia article about Shiron.net. If you only look for the word "Shiron" you conclude that the Hebrew article about Shiron.net, is not about Shiron.net. That terrible translation is:

"'Sing N T "is a Web site that contains Israeli Hebrew by soundtrack. In addition it also has trivia, ringtones, dates of birthdays of stars & info about them, Oidaoklifim, pictures artists, albums covers pictures and ads on impressions battles.

Songs site currently has the largest legal database on the Internet the latest words of Hebrew songs.

The site was established in late 2002, began in 2003 with the company operates under license Di.ai. Si Acum. Di.ai. company concerned to Si Acum creators royalties for using the works site."Eddau (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So if I can summarize, since I think both parties are misinterpreting each other. TParis00ap reviewed the Hebrew websites through Google Translate, ran into the problem I described above, came to a reasonable conclusion that the references did not refer to the website, and raised the issue with Eddau who supplied the references. Eddau, who is a Hebrew speaker, reviewed the websites in Hebrew, saw that the websites were refered to, and believed TParis00ap was searching for the wrong Hebrew word writing style of the Hebrew word, rather than having a problem with the English translation - which I believe Eddau has now realized based on his comments above. It is a case of simple misunderstanding, and I think is probably solved now. Singularity42 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I never called Eddau a spammer or even suggested he engaged in spamming. Thank you Singularity, if you feel the sources support the article, I'll back off. I still feel that the first 3 sources I started the AfD with did not support the article because 1 was a blog and the other two were summaries, not reviews. I'll leave the article alone and just let the AfD pan out.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jahn Henne suspected sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Forgetting to log in is not sockpuppetry.  Sandstein  08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This post may constitute sockpuppetry. While not being logged on, an IP signature has been left on the talk page and it appears that Jahn Henne has been using this IP for responding (a rather late response, though.)----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look and Jahn Henne doesn't appear to be engaging in abusive behavior, either with his account or the IP. It just looks like he forgot to sign in, which isn't a big deal at all. Do you have any evidence that he has used the IP to evade a block, or votestack, or engage in any other disruptive behavior? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question of this thread. Basket of Puppies 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's happened to me on more than one occasion... Heck, I got logged out in a earlier version of Huggle once. The sock that should not be (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

IP/Sock Concerns

An IP address, Special:Contributions/166.217.214.229, appeared this evening and quickly blanket reverted a number of edits made recently by an established editor, User:Amoruso. The edit summaries it left with each reversion, and its response to my comments on its talk page[51], leave me with a feeling of WP:DUCK. I researched the IP and it resolved to cellphone company. Not sure if and/or how to proceed, since I have been unable to identify a possible "sockmaster". --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 06:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Notice left for IP - [52]

It may well DUCK like blanketing and really... DUCK-like edit summaries, but technically the IP in basically all cases changed the categories back to what they'd been since article creation and Amoruso was the editor changing their existing content. That user's edit summaries making the changes before these reverts aren't exactly truce-seeking. Established or no means nothing, IP or account means nothing, have to treat it all the same unless you have a sock concern somewhere. I also call your 166.217.214.229 and raise it a 99.253.230.182 from a few weeks ago since it even triggered angry flags like rapid reverts from not-confirmed editors... right. No more of that, since literally it balanced itself out despite it being gapped a few weeks. There's also zero point to arguing either side of that further.

The only thing I can think of that would just ignore POVs completely would be to remove Syria and Israel of the categories and place/keep any and all of the Occupied Territories; also create a something along the lines of "Category: Mountains in disputed Syrian territory". Ta-da! You have one side, the other side, and Golan Heights already there. Originally I was going to say drop all the tags, but realized it'd be a total waste of an argument to trying to play devil's advocate and argue the UN position of claiming they have it all under control, which persons of any persuasion familiar with the matter consider rubbish. Seriously though, that's my suggestion. This is one of the going-to-be-disputed-'til-the-end-of-time matters if the regional situation never changes. Can we say that any and all discussions about locales, landmarks and other misc places in area are moot for the time being; make sure they all have the 4 tags that balance it out. I see that Category:Disputed territories in Asia is also available so how about we add extra dull neutrality onto that so everyone is hopefully bored to death with these mountains and you can work on the major content. Just my thoughts, and if you've tried something similar feel free to disregard this... it's just all I can think of. Good luck to the lot of you. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that the content at issue will not be resolved easily; however my reason for posting here was not about the content issue, but rather my concerns regarding a new IP editor who -- from their edits, edit summaries, personal attacks and talk page conversations -- appears to be an "experienced editor" socking under an IP from a cellphone. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 09:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Groans* I really don't want to think about Wikipedia edits via a cell phone. You've got a point though. So blah, what would you prefer to see to avoid mutually assured destruction over some small mountains? Include... all 6 categories on all of them (ownership/counter-ownership/heights/asia disputed)? It would look really silly but we could add notes in the category pages about why it's been done that way... I can't see anyone objecting to some bonus canvassing with categories if it even remotely helped a top-10 general controversy area. Really, just spit out ideas on what you think is fair, what you'd like, what you'd think would be generous, etc etc. There has to be a way to sort out ... mountains. Are there any named mole hills to pick up? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous comments stricken as new information came to light and makes the statements quite foolish ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that above, since it took more reading for my lazy self to see the detail on that existing RfC partially related to this. Okay, the puppet issue makes a lot more sense now since it would have been in the period after the RfC started, making it particularly open to scrutiny. ... That talk page diff is strange, sigh. If it really is only this instance I don't know if much can be done within reason now. I do hate saying that since I wish it just never happened at all, but blah. That didn't destroy the articles at least, and you're now well within your rights to adjust/add categories to whatever you what you think is fair-looking while the RfC is open. Any pattern-following IP would then be obviously blatant "disruption" (I won't say the V- word on a POV issue like this). Really, if it's the same IP, an old one you recognize and has even a small edit history, things reaching a Geolocate, ISP, timing continuity of edits, anything. One in the group wouldn't be enough but get 2 or 3 "what if's" and I'm sure you know you could get some official help on that.Since the timing on this would show a fresh interest in disrupting the process, that's makes the complete difference between a quick run of category changes ex post facto if a user were to script a larger plan. Aah, theory that is indeed founded on the mighty WP:DUCK test. Because those edits all came in at the time they did, it might be the sort of minor incident that starts a string of mistakes, and perhaps a theoretical disruptive editor or puppet user will forget where those came and when and show their full hand? It's happened. Of course the same goes for you, but there isn't exactly a dangerous lack of good faith floating over for give me a chill. It would be a lot easier with your counterpart here, of course I get the feeling something has to give fairly soon..

My apologies for my brain not working at first. Hopefully I'm on top of it now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons sock allegations

There are sock allegations being thrown by both sides of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons debate. I refuse to offer or even form an opinion one way or the other, but intrigued parties may want to drop by and try to sort things out before the AfD closes. And having left you that hand-grenade, my work here is done. Adios. Josh Parris 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? A8UDI 11:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis

Resolved

 – Assume good faith and use the talk page A8UDI 13:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User 123.243.53.233 has been making a constant flow of changes to the page Tim Ellis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Ellis&action=history over the last two weeks.

Some changes have been accepted, but many others are either malicious or incorrect and the user keeps returning and putting them back up again.

Judging by the IP and the history of this user, he appears to be connected to another Australian magician who has personal issues with Tim Ellis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.139.6 (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Best to just assume good faith, and warn when appropriately. You may ask him on his talk page too if the IP is still disruptive. But I'll review the edits.. I don't see anything worthy of a block. Simply discuss the issue on the talk page because it doesn't look like vandalism. A8UDI 11:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia/Herzegovina map dispute

Resolved

 – Hopefully FPAS can sort this out. Let me know if head-cracking is needed at any stage. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

User Laz17 deleted sourced data (maps, censuses) here [53]. The same map can also be seen in "Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. It is an elementary history atlas which was made in the time of ex.Yugoslavia. Discussion with the user is not helping [54]. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha simply has no source. It's as simple as that. We also have no source on the exact borders. (LAz17 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have the census data for 1879, 1885, and 1895. The data indicates different results from what his map shows. Until we get an official referenced thing, we should remove all unofficial fantasy maps. (LAz17 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

[55] is a map which can be found in old yugoslav atlas;"Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. On that map borders of districts are clearly seen. Removing that is considered vandalism.

Second, Laz borders of districts are clearly seen on that map. You also removed part talking about ethnic structure of those districts. If you had the census, try counting it up. It should get the same results. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

harassment by user Ceha

User ceha is haraassing me. Please see , [56] at the end of the talk page. He is insisting that a particular place should be included on yet another one of his fraud maps. No previous map has included this particular town, and maps that we have in high resolution show that the town was not part of what he insists is part of. Upon seeing sources ceha denounces them as false, and claims that his maps that have little detail are still correct. He is very rude and obnoxious. Please can someone help in quieting him? Also, there is the big map problem regarding his 1991 false map... he seems to like to discuss it on multiple talk pages. Could someone educate him as to keep the discussion to only one page? (LAz17 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have made Ceha (talk · contribs) aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 17:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know of these kinds of disgustingly inappropriate personal attacks, though you really didn't need to report yourself. Sigh.

Content dispute; yet personal enough that LAz17 edits Ceha's posts[57], which by itself is generally not so cool. Besides the colors on a map version aren't so great and you like yours more, what makes today worse than any other? Seriously, content dispute. Tone on both sides is pointed for obvious reasons even the word 'please' looks like an insult now, but I'd highly suggest this ANI today be "resolved" and endorsed as-is by the nominator and walk off lucky to not actually have been caught doing things on the abusive side of tedious. Just as the self-report on the abuse, I see you left out signature edits for trying to hide yourself not logged in as being a sock [58] [59] ... and it would be a great sign of extra good faith if you could stop following User:Ceha around to every single place they post and deliberately post about the map even when that's not the topic of the other conversation? Good time to take a few days off. Another round of ANIs bounced off and you'll be getting away with some pretty questionable stuff. Something goes on forever like this and I'm sure it's common knowledge that at least one person ends up blocked. It's a map. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, these two users have been fighting over historical and demographic maps of Croatia for many months. It is extremely confusing, because neither of them are very good at actually explaining to an outsider in a matter-of-fact way what the perceived problems about this or that map are. I'm trying to get them to talk calmly at Talk:Banovina of Croatia now (at least talk to me, separately, if they can't talk calmly to each other); if we fail to sort this out peacefully I am afraid it looks like we will need ARBMAC sanctions for both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Datheisen, I usually have log in automatically. This is good for only 30 days. So, I did not notice that I was not logged in. That is why I changed the stuff back. Accusing me of sock puppetry is really outrageous.

There are more than one map dispute. The map here is involving the Banovina of Croatia. The other, and primary, map dispute is regarding the 1991 ethnic map of Bosnia. FutPerf had deleted ceha's fraud map, which was a reproduction of a 1981 map. Ceha used this source map create another map. This other map is very wrong, and we are arguing about it. Currently the discussion is on hold because Ceha does not accept any criticism on that map and there is no moderator. I do not follow ceha around much. However, the guy is problematic. FutPerf, could you please help mediate in the map problem? User:Rjecina/Bosnian census - it looks nasty, I must admit. Direktor helped gained much ground, as he forced Ceha to stop continueing to take the discussion into circles based on the census. (LAz17 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

LAz, I don't know if you saw my remarks on that article talk page yet. It contained a strong warning to stop making accusatory remarks about each other, and to concentrate exclusively on discussing the facts. This goes for all spaces, not only that page. I see that in the posting just above you again couldn't refrain from accusing your opponent of "fraud" and other such things. This is a final warning, please stop personalising the problem like this, immediately. – On another issue, I do not think you can be blamed for attempted sockpuppetry, don't worry about that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll do my best, but I do hope that there will be some mediator, as that is the most useful way for anything regarding disputes between ceha and me to move forwards. (LAz17 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks, DaTheisen and Future:), I hope that with help of a mediator we'll finally have a civilized discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lesser

I wrote the Louis Lesser article, and I was notified that there was a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report on this. But I can not find the incident. Is it over? Also, I do not understand the allegations that still are up calling the article a "hoax" that are here [[60]]. Is this the right place to ask these questions? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean this discussion which has been archived. GiantSnowman 00:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there more response I need to make? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to respond to anything? GiantSnowman 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, since I was wrong and others were right.

I did try to fix the article, and I understand the initial criticism. And I actually enjoyed spending all those days trying to add sources (I missed Thanksgiving with all my friends doing so). But when people are still calling it a "hoax", or "not notable", so my articles will probably all get deleted, I dont feel like working on any articles anymore. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be disheartened when one of your articles is deleted, I've lost count (probably well over two dozen) of how many articles I created when I first began editing and didn't understand the notability rules properly that have been deleted. But it just encouraged me to be a better editor in the long run! :) GiantSnowman 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And please do not assume it will be deleted--it may not be. I cannot at this time predict how the AfD will end. The accusations of hoax, at least, seem to have been withdrawn. What you need to do is the same whether it is deleted or it isn't. If it is, you need to write a better one , following the suggestions made there. If it is kept, you need to improve it similarly. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I offered to help the OP improve the article. This person does seem (at least to me) to satisfy Notability. If the AFD results in a delete, could someone move the article to either HkFnsNGA's or my userspace so it can be improved sufficiently? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if that's needed. MuZemike 17:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wanted: masochist

Resolved

 – Doesn't take a masochist to close this. Might take one to edit the page.

Durova³⁷¹ 17:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone (who has a high tolerance for boredom) be willing to take a look at this RfC, which has been open for nearly 30 days, and write some sort of closing statement? I realize that WP:RFC says that the opener of an RfC (me, in this case) can close it, but I'd really prefer to have an uninvolved interpretation of the consensus. Deor (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect your problem would not be with the closing summary (additions are original research and should be removed from the article forthwith) but with the fact that one of the editors involved has no intention of taking any notice of the outcome. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Er... agreed. Also, I have serious doubts whether an editor who inserts a huge unintelligible OR mess into an article, then writes novel-length talk page threads defending it, consistently referring to himself in the third person, is an asset to the project.  Sandstein  17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Lapsed Pacifist

Requesting a closer look at actions of user Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user is the subject to 2 separate RfARs:-

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which resulted in them being banned from editing articles related to the conflict in Northern Ireland
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2 which resulted in them being banned from editing article relating to Corrib gas controversy and placed them under an editing restriction of 1RR and required to discuss and content reversions as well as encouragint them to use edit summaries.

These RfARs found that Lapsed Pacifist had engaged in habitual POV editing, edit warring and other negative behaviour.

LP is currently the subject of a RfE.

Since their last RfAR, LPs behaviour has carried on barely modified.

• They have failed to make correct use of edit summaries eg.here. and have continued to make reversions without discussion.
• They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [61], [62]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR.
• The Irish section of this diff contains edits which push the bounds of what is acceptable under the 1st RfAR as does this edit.
• During recent WP processes, LP has failed to engage in any meaningful way, not making a statement at the RfAR or RfE or responding to communication attempts by admins.
• LP returned from their first block this week to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.
• The block log shows they have been sanctioned from violation of terms of remedies multiple times and twice in the last week. inc. an unambiguous violation of their topic ban here. Despite this they have failed to recognise it as a problem.

Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system. The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies from RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunctions and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour. They continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability.

In the interests of conciseness, I have kept this here as short as possible but a closer look at Lapsed Pacifists activity will show a long history of troublesome behaviour. Examples here do not even scratch the surface. Just their talk page alone shows poor interaction with the community.

I realise that LP and I have a bad history but this is aside to their problematic behaviour. I'm requesting a review of the user as suggested by another admin here. GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Lapsed Pacifist aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the correct place for this? The user is still blocked, so will be unable to comment here, block expires in a couple of hours, wouldn't a RFC User be a better place? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

probably the ideal place is to continue the discussion at WP:Arbitration Enforcement, where it seems to have been essentially ignored. Since the discussion seems to be here instead, I note Arb Com originally said: "If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. " The current short block is for the sixth violation. Given the information there, and here, I suggest we follow their advice & extend the block to one year ard log in at AE. . If this is regarded as too much of a jump from the previous ones, then 6 months. I would agree to pausing this, though, until LP can comment--which will be tomorrow.. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, I think that RFC/U is the correct place for this manner of discussion. Basket of Puppies 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How so? If this is a violation of the topic ban, then WP:AE and either a block (a long one as DGG recommends) or not. RFC/U sounds like a step backwards for someone twice banned by arbitration. Wknight94 ^talk 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the topic bans must certainly be dealt with by the appropriate board of the ArbCom. However, a more broad community review should be filed at RFC/U. That's what I meant. Sorry for being so vague! Basket of Puppies 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I KNOW I have heard this guy's name before. Idk where. I do know that wp:banned users doesn't have him listed, but I could have sworn that is where I learned is name. Anyway, yeah, if he is violating his restrictions he ought to be banned. --Rockstone (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Lapsed Pacifist two of the examples quoted above by Gainline couldnt be seen as connected to the Corrib Gas Controversy. I first came across Afri when they were erecting plaques on Famine graveyards in Ireland.{There's one in Kells eside the Wellington?)lighthouse) monument Their primary interest is raising awareness in Ireland in the third world hunger. They are a small advocacy NGO, any involvement in Corrib isonly one of their anti MNC activities. It is not their reason for existance, The Centre for Pulic Inquiry issued many reports and was attacked by the Irish Government not about Corrib but because they were initiating a report into Dublin Port and Docks which would have further impigned the then Govt. leader/(OR). He didnt edit anything to with the Corrib reports. Just my 2 cents.Cathar11 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cathar. What are being described as violations are not as clear cut as some are making out. A discussion on this has been initiated on my talk page. Certainly, more clarity is necessary here. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2:-

• Remedy 3.1) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined.

Centre for Public Inquiry is part of the Corrib gas controversy category.

• Remedy 5) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

There have been a number of reversions without any discussion, in fact there was only one input into a talk change that vaguely resembled a discussion before being blocked including a direct request from an admin to explain a reversion being ignored.

How much more clarity is necessary? Perhaps some constructive input into the RfE or here would help. GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist is already "banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland." On 16:45, 24 November 2009 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) m (4,250 bytes) (moved List of terrorist incidents, 1992 to List of non-state terrorist incidents, 1992. [63] This move was made with no discussion, but the article contains two IRA bombings in its list. This is a breach of the Northern Ireland topic ban. Snappy (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

restored after checking with DGG GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked if it would be a good idea, and suggested doing it this way to keep the discussion together. If anyone has a preference how to do it otherwise, just change it.

As for the point under discussion, I think that repeated change was a clear violation of the restrictions--and not very sensible in addition, for it was one page out of the entire group of such pages, and the only practical way to deal with something like this consistently is to discuss it in a general discussion. (I have no personal opinion about the merits of the change itself.) I regretfully conclude that Lp is unable by himself to keep away from the topic. Yet, the small amount of other editing that has been done in the last few days is not the least problematic. It was earlier suggested that a one year block would be appropriate, with 6 months as an alternate. I am prepared personally to do either one, or to endorse whatever other time someone might suggest. But I think we need to do something now. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Something certainly needs to be done. The main problem with LP is that they have a history of consistently failing to recognise or even listen to others about problematic behaviour. This is evidenced in failing to respond to COI, edit warring concerns, failing to see why editing an article they are topic banned from are problems etc. A more recent development has been lack of engagement with any problem solving processes and admins. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've recommended a ban for Lapsed Pacifist. I hate to say "I told you so", but yeah. A one year ban would probably be the best option in this case, as they have failed to heed and abide by their sanctions. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse either of DGG's suggestions. Just let's make sure this doesn't fall off the radar again? :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the thrust of my argument has gotten across. I've often edited parts of articles that contained references to the Ulster conflict in other parts of the article. That ban has been in place for almost four years, and this has never been an issue until now. Why on earth would I consider those edits violations of the ban when nothing was said for years? Don't you think you're moving the goalposts on me? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

<= On the contrary, there has been 4 blocks on this ban with possibly more violations, including one during a RfAR where a clear warning was ignored. There has been a clear violation of the second topic ban with no real appreciation for the fact there was a violation. In a lot of case the goalposts were simply ignored. When given the choice of erring on the side of caution or pushing the bounds of acceptability, LP frequently chooses the former. GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war developing over EL at Chiropractic controversy and criticism

The article Chiropractic controversy and criticism is obviously unpopular with chiropractors who edit Wikipedia, and whitewashing has been a problem. When I noticed that there was no External links section, I remembered that the chiropractic article had previously had a very nicely developed section with links that were perfectly on-topic for this article. The selection and wording had been developed after long and intense discussions, negotiations, compromises, and collaborations between editors on both sides of the issues, and the two strongest editors at the time had found a Solomonic solution by following the EL guidelines to an extreme degree, with detailed descriptions of each source.

I took that list and copied it to the article.[64] Since User:Levine2112 is topic banned from the subject, I hadn't expected another chiropractic editor to take up his whitewashing crusades, but unfortunately chiropractic editor DigitalC decided that they weren't appropriate and started deleting them, and finally made a mass deletion of all the "Internal criticism" links. When he kept at it and was reverted by two other editors, he turned to something that was legitimate - deleting dead links. (Even then, the proper thing to do would be to seek to find active links, not delete.) So far so good, but then he restarted the deletions and I have restored them. I'm not interested in edit warring and would like more eyes on the situation. The links are very much on-topic, pass WP:EL, and have previously been vetted, approved and worded by chiropractic editors, but DigitalC doesn't like them.

Relevant links:

• History

• Mass deletions of EL

Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (Comment restored after being deleted by DigitalC.)

DigitalC notified of this debate. EyeSerene^talk 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps BullRangifer should have participated in the talk page. Both User:2over0 and myself opined on the talk page that Homola (2006) should not normally be used in the article. It is already used as a reference in the article, and as such shouldn't be repeated in the external links section. I also deny any allegations about whitewashing, although I will point out that the article in question is a blatant POV fork. As for the links being previously being vettted, approved, and worked by editors at Chiropractic, you will notice that the links do not occur there, because they were deemed to violate WP:EL. This is again addressed at the talk page of the POV-fork. DigitalC (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not true. ALL the links (both pro-chiropractic and skeptical) were removed in a major overhaul of the whole section at the other article, not because they violated EL. Your removals were reverted by two other editors, showing that they considered your talk page arguments to be faulty and/or your manner of deletion to be disruptive and destructive. The article was made poorer by their lack. Certain deletions were left by myself because they weren't complete violations of policy, although someone who wasn't intent on whitewashing would have chosen a different approach. Dead links should be fixed when possible, rather than just deleted, and integration should occur before deletion.

As a courtesy I have removed your profession from my comment, but you had revealed it before, so it was public knowledge and significant to showing your COI. I was surprised you took up the actions typical for the topic banned editor, and am wondering if you shouldn't suffer the same fate for engaging in similar behavior.

BTW, don't remove my comment again. It is perfectly proper to post here to get more eyes on the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DigitalC - do not remove comments from this board again please. It's a great way to get blocked. Plenty of admins watch this board - if someone posts something that is actually out of order, you can be sure it will be challenged. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Haven't articles about "controversy and criticism of X" been nominated & after discussion deleted in the past? This may be the direction this dispute ultimately takes, & would make the issue of external links to this article moot. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's another discussion that hinges on this being an allowed content fork. In fact, editors are warned to "not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." DigitalC has repeatedly done this, thus assuming bad faith. While it's a legitimate discussion that has occurred over this article, it is indeed another subject, so let's not let it sidetrack this particular thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that DigitalC is referring to the comments of other editors at the time of this articles inception. The article still suffers from rather overt POV issues of the main contributors of the article, as an example, the way that the Gallup poll has been used in the article is somewhat misleading as it fails to note that respondents rated Chiropracty on par with Psychiatry. I haven't been following this article closely but I can see that the talk page edit history has now become fragmented between page moves. Unomi (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, the last time it was up for deletion there seemed to be a number of editors voicing their opinion that it was indeed a POV fork and should be merged or renamed. Unomi (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually he calls it a POV fork in THIS thread, so he isn't talking about other editors. Even though it might be considered off topic for the article (which is an allowed "content fork"), the statistics for psychiatrists is actually included, so there is nothing misleadig going on. The inclusion of those significant statistics is buttressed by commentaries from chiropractic sources, where THEY state that chiropractic came in "dead last" among healthcare professions. The statistics aren't presented in a misleading manner, and their significance is affirmed by chiropractic sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, my eye caught the following (summary?) line "A Gallup Poll and various research studies and commentaries, some by chiropractors, have pointed out unfavorable facts related to the ethical standards,[20] rampant fraud, abuse and quackery,[21] and unsubstantiated claims[22] made by chiropractors". You are correct the Gallup Poll results are clarified in the article text, this was not previously the case and I am happy to see that this has been incorporated. Unomi (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I took a quick look at this article and dispute. I'm not really seeing anything that an administrator needs to do, as this seems to be a pretty straightforward content dispute. The article has POV issues, but it did go to AfD a few months ago, and there is no consensus to delete it. So I would point the participants to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and sort things out. The reliable source noticeboard might be particularly useful to get uninvolved opinions on some of the sources being used. I also wanted to point out that there seems to be an odd discussion about whether or not an external link should be left on the article, even if it's a dead link, with some saying, "Remove" and others saying, "Keep it until it's replaced". That one seems a no-brainer to me: If a link is in External links and it's dead, pull it. Anyone deliberately adding a dead link to an article, just to keep it in the EL section, is out of line. If anyone really wants that link around, move it to the talkpage, but don't deliberately put a dead link on a live article. Other than that, I encourage the parties to work through the steps of dispute resolution, especially in terms of trying to get more uninvolved opinions into the mix. Good luck, --Elonka 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that no one was deliberately adding dead links. I assumed they were still working when I copied the list. Removal of dead links is proper, but to avoid the appearance of whitewashing when one has a COI, it would be best to seek to find a live link. That can often be done, but if that can't be done, then get rid of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User Syjytg requesting unblock

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

---

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked and notified. LessHeardvanU and I have both agreed to monitor user.  Frank  |  talk  19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg (talk · contribs), indef blocked in March 2009, has requested a review of his block at my talk page. You may recall him as a tendentious editor who spent most of his time focusing on having his edits remain on pages, with little regard for consensus, policy, or just plain collegiality. I created this thread on his talk page, outlining a tendentious editing pattern. Later, after being blocked for edit warring, he pointed fingers at others and rarely took responsibility for his own actions. He then started socking, for which he was indef blocked. There's more; a review of his talk page will show others' points of view along the way, not just mine.

Syjytg has decided he wants to return to editing. I see no evidence of socking, and I do see evidence of reading policies associated with returning, including the "standard offer" and the idea that an admin can open a thread here at AN/I to discuss unblocking the user. He requested (as an IP) that I do so, and I requested he place a statement on his talk page, under his own account, acknowledging past behavior. He has done so, and while I can't say I think it's an overwhelming attempt, I do feel there is some sincerity behind it. I also note that he does not appear to have resorted to continued socking in the intervening months, which is a positive sign (if true).

I think any unblock must include a tight watch, which I would participate in but not want to take full responsibility for. Other thoughts solicited.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

....Was posting on your talkpage as an IP not itself socking? Just asking. Or do you feel it was justified as a way of attracting someone's attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable means of opening communication on the subject. He apparently wanted to contact an admin first, for the purpose of opening this thread.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why not? They seemed to have requested an appropriate unblock request, evidencing they have reviewed and understood policy. On that basis any further problems with editing means that they have chosen to disregard policy, and the block can be re-instated. If everyone understands that, then they should be allowed to prove they can contribute to the project in the correct manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Was my opinion not sufficient? I am crushed! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• It may have to be, given the level of interest in the thread...  Frank  |  talk  14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• If there is no more input before it is again archived, and you are minded to unblock per the request also, then I suggest you proceed on the basis there was some support and no opposes. If you are not minded, then you may have to approach a couple of experienced editors directly for their comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC) oh, and I would be prepared to assist in the monitoring of the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Restoring thread for more discussion)  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone needs it, here is validation that a third party agrees with the above opinions and decisions. Unblock with caution. Tan | 39 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm convinced. LHvU and I will watch. Tan, you're (obviously) welcome to help. Anyone know a suitable template to place on his talk page, at least as a basis?  Frank  |  talk  15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, just remove the indef block template and open a new section noting that they are unblocked, that you and I will be watching the page and that we can be contacted if there are any issues that need discussion, and note that they will be expected to initially abide by policy more stringently than would be the case in an editor in long good standing , and end with a wish for a satisfying editing experience from them? Might be best to perform the unblock immediately prior to commenting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:50, 29 November 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.

Canvassing violation by Cookiecaper in order to reach a false consensus

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

Please see here, for the gross WP:CANVASS violation, thank you. I for one believe we should block the editor for such a gross violation. He had before been slow edit-warring on the Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and now that consensus is against him, he is trying to tip the scales in his favor. This is unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had Sean Hannity on my watchlist and I've seen all the b*tching going on back and forth. I should probably post this over on that page, but I support Mr. Hannity on most issues, am a conservative, and yet oppose the inclusion of this info. The guy says tons of stuff on his shows daily. What makes this event notable? As for the the editor, I'd suggest just warning him on it. It's obvious (from the majority of the comments on the reddit) that the post there isn't going to swing the consensus. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a false consensus neither a gross violation. Is a "false consensus" a consensus achieved by more than the regular editors on an article? I posted this to the WIKIPEDIA subreddit, so that people who enjoy this pedantry, ridiculousness, etc., and yet agree that this should be included could contest. I stopped editing WP regularly several years ago because I was sick of this kind of thing happening; anytime someone ventures out of their posse to edit an article with something slightly controversial, the regulars on that article flip out, proclaim their own false consensus, revert, threaten, protect, and ban their afflictors, even though the information added is perfectly notable, viable, and neutral.

I think the number of times this incident specifically with the Hannity waterboarding has cropped up demonstrates that many people, including those who don't constantly troll Hannity's page to make sure only positive things are said about him, feel that Hannity's statement and subsequent promise are indeed notable. The consensus proclaimed by the regulars is the false consensus; Hannity disciples consent as a group to keep things which may reflect negatively on Hannity off of his page, but that's not how the world sees it.

My posting follows all rules outlined in canvassing. Note that I didn't post that to a subreddit about liberalism, Democrats, Olbermann, Anarchists, or outright Hannity-hating, I posted it to /r/wikipedia, where people who care about Wikipedia often visit. Its scope was limited; one only subscribes to /r/wikipedia if they want to know about things that are happening on Wikipedia; this is a thing which is happening on Wikipedia. The post was limited (only posted to /r/wikipedia, the relevant subreddit), neutral (I told it like it is without editorializing regarding this specific issue), nonpartisan (posted in a general forum with patrons of many parties, no incendiary political commentary or anything like that), and transparent (links to the discussion posted). There is therefore no violation here, and Daedalus is just annoyed that someone challenged his gang's territory. He fancies himself the gatekeeper of Hannity's article, and supposes that no information may be added thereto without his consent or that of Hannity's other regular editors. Surely this is not appropriate, and surely it's not appropriate to ban me for following rules and responding calmly to threats while not suffering intimidation. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It falls under the area of inappropriate canvassing, as outlined on the table, as a biased message. You posted, and I quote: Please defend the inclusion of Hannity's promise to be waterboarded "for the troop's families" on his WP page.(title)(message:)I implore all Wikipedians to fight the good fight and keep on Hannity's page mention of his promise to get waterboarded. Oh, and this next part is especially good: But, anyway, I'm trying to tap into reddit to help solidify the mention there and keep it there and outlast the others.

Followed the rules outlined by canvassing? I don't think so. Your message was biased towards your point of view. It did not ask for more eyes on the topic, it asked for support on your side of the topic. It violated WP:CANVASS, and no amount of spinning will change that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It did ask for more eyes on the topic. Of course in my posting I'm going to discuss my favored outcome and solicit its support; you are free to make a posting advocating the other side, or a headline that will be utterly ignored, like "Please view this edit war re: Sean Hannity :)" -- WP is crazy, as we know, and expects people to be robots; people are not robots. No one is going to come defend this just because I posted that, they'll come defend it because they believe in it or not. I gave all of the information necessary for individuals to read and come to their own conclusion, including links to the source material; I'm not veiling my bias behind flowery language as is ingrained in Wikipedia custom, I'm straightforward about it and that's obviously better. I'm sorry if you think that people are so stupid that they'll just come fight for my side because a stranger on the internet told them to do it, but I don't; it's just a way of alerting people in a concise, evident manner that will actually gain traction.

There's no immorality or crime therein. Do I really have to say, "Some people believe this shouldn't be included" to be unbiased? That's self-evident. Give me a break, and maybe listen to people besides Hannity and his fellow propagandists on either side so you can learn how it feels to think for yourself. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do me a favor, and cease assuming shit about me that you don't know. I'm on this article to simply make sure it complies with WP policy. I care not a thing for the individual, nor any show he has. It isn't my forte.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cookiecaper, you are I'm afraid completely mistaken in your reading of WP:CANVASS (assuming you ever read it in the first place). You specifically may not "discuss my favored outcome and solicit its support". It may be straightforward, but it is also a breach of the rules, and makes it likely that the opinion of anyone who posted following your encouragement will be discarded, or may even force an entire process to be run over again.

You ask Do I really have to say, "Some people believe this shouldn't be included" to be unbiased? The answer is - even including that sentence would not save you from a breach of the guidelines on canvassing. The only thing you are allowed to say is along the lines of 'please give your opinion on X here'. I will leave it for the admins to decide what further action, if any, to take on this occasion. If you do it again, the most likely outcome is that you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel any sort of block now would be closing the proverbial barn door after the consensus got out. Anyway, this was a clear breach of WP:CANVASS, regardless of Cookiecaper's defensiveness to the contrary. Do not do this again, Cookiecaper, or you will be blocked. Tan | 39 14:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If the only thing I am allowed to say is "Please look at this dispute and offer your opinion", WP:CANVASS should reflect as much; right now, it doesn't. It defines a biased message as "campaigning", which is defined as "an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." My post does not attempt to sway any people; it asks those interested to support the position, and that's all. There is no argument for or against included, there is no lambasting of my opposers, merely a notice of what's happening, a headline that implores action, and links to the relevant discussion and article.

Since the only thing one is allowed to say is, "Please offer your opinion", I shall update WP:CANVASS to reflect as much shortly, and should not be censured for a failure to adhere to an unwritten extremist take on a WP policy. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find your edits to Wikipedia:Canvassing useful (they looked more like contentless griping), so I have reverted them. You're free to discuss readding a more polished version of this content on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, but I doubt you'll see consensus to include it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC

I see you've now posted on the talk page (see here for those interested); thank you for proceeding that way. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Block the account, probably fake name, two attack articles on same person

Resolved

 – indef'ed by Toddst1. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cydneepatterson User just created second attack article on same person. First one speedied (Timothy Borown), second one, spelling variation, waiting to be speedied (Timothy Bowron). The user name is probably some variant on someone's name. This is a quick fix, block/ban user, speedy attack page, mark this closed. Not interesting in the least. Be done already. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further attack page creation after your warning. Please report to WP:AIV if disruption continues despite the warning.  Sandstein  08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gave the person a "first and only warning" against creating inappropriate attack pages like that, upon threat of a block if repeated. MuZemike 09:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance - deleted page

Resolved

Could an admin help me with a query on a deleted page please. I am the secretary of Wikimedia UK and we're doing a seminar on Wikipedia this Thursday. We want to use Kaizo_(firm) as an example of a deleted page under CSD G11 and would like to get a copy of the page as it stood when it was deleted. Could someone copy the page into my userspace? Just to emphasise, this is not a request for deletion review, nor does this request in any way infer that the deleting admin or CSD nominator were in any way unjustified in deleting this page. Many thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done - User:AndrewRT/Kaizo (firm). Kevin (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing content (report moved from WP:AN)

From Administrator's Noticeboard: Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From Chris Woodrick: "He seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." What should be done about this? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)First, find out who taught him how to spell. Something went terribly wrong there. Then see if the supposed threat has anything resembling facts that could be useful enough to report to any authorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

what should be done was to delete it. Another admin already did so. I do not take it as a credible threat, as it was part of a article full of the typical nonsense for an article from one schoolboy teasing another. If anyone thinks it worth proceeding further, they can do so. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are we to determine what is a credible threat or not? Notifty the authorities with as much info as possible and let them investigate. GiantSnowman 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the threat names a specific school or person, then some followup would be good. Columbine happened because no one took the kids seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with GiantSnowman. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not name a specific school; it does not name a specific person. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I saw of it before it was deleted, it had potentially identifying information in it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus the IP can be traced to find a location. GiantSnowman 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article gave the person's full name, birth date, physical characteristics and family information. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since DGG saw fit to delete it, he now assumes the responsibility of notifying the authorities. If he thinks it's not a credible threat and doesn't want to bother, he should un-delete it and let someone else take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG said "it does not name a specific person" and yet Mandarax said "the article gave the person's full name" - so who's lying?! GiantSnowman 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I thought I said at the beginning, another admin deleted it. I expressed the opinion he was correct in doing so. (I have notified him--nobody else seems to have done that) The person about whom the identifying information is given was the person writing the article, or pretending to write it, not a person about whom a threat is being made. We do not undelete such content--in fact, its the sort of information that really should be oversighted according to our privacy policy. Any of the hundreds of the other admins who wants to do something can do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: I trust admins to act in good faith and I trust that they almost always have good judgment, subject to occasional mistakes or blind spots. If DGG says there was no reason to report, then unless he made an error in judgment there is no reason to report. Given the harm that could happen with undeleting something that should by all rights be oversighted, if anyone has any concerns they should ask DGG to get another admin or functionary to review it. My personal preference would be to send it to someone who can oversight with instructions to review it and to oversight edits that even admins aren't supposed to be able to see, but that may be overkill. It's probably sufficient to have another admin eyeball it in case today is the one day this month that DGG makes a mistake. <-- a little humor there for you davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

what action of mine do you want them to review? I have taken no action at all with respect to the article. I do make mistakes of course, I would say perhaps one a week, not one a month. So undoubtedly does the deleting admin, and all of us. Perhaps you want another admin to review the action of the guy who did do the deletion. I reviewed it, and certainly anyone else can. This page is the place to ask. The normal course if someone does notify is to restore long enough to let the agency see the information, and then delete again. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

← As I read the article, there's no question that the person whose identifying information is provided is absolutely the person who is allegedly plotting to do some big scary thing against the popular kids. There's no indication that this is the same person as the writer, but that may very well be the case. With the full name, birth date, and location information provided by a checkuser, law enforcement authorities should certainly be able to find him. (And, yes, deleting the article was definitely correct.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when can our checkusers provide name, birth date, and location? At best, useragent and IP. ^Chillum 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: With the full name and birth date listed in the article, which should be sufficient, as well as possible approximate location information based on data provided by a checkuser.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Is it possible, right now, without the deleted info, to tell who either the intended perp and the intended victim are? (2) From the deleted info, which you have apparently seen, is it possible to discern that info? If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then one or two admins' gut feeling, that there's nothing to worry about, may not be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that Wikipedia Admins should be deciding whether threats of violence are real or not; we need to inform the relevant authorities and let them take appropiate action. GiantSnowman 22:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In all likelihood, the threat is just a hoax. But, if contacting polices is prefered, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 999/1000 times these kinds of 'threats' are bored kids having fun; but there is always the chance that one of these threats is real, and if we just ignored it it'd be tragic. Ignore the vandal, and report them to the authorities to deal with as they see fit. GiantSnowman 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw it as well, and from the deleted info, you can discern (as said above) a person's full name, description, and birth date. You cannot tell who the intended victim(s) are, other than the mention "the popular kids at his highschool". The person was named as "seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." FWIW, If it was my high school they were talking about, I would want something done about it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that when I say "full name", I mean full first, middle, and last name. In addition to birth date, the article gives his height, weight, and what members of his family are in his household. Although no geographic information or school is mentioned, the data which is present should be quite sufficient for authorities to find him. The chilling note reminded me of the evidence which police and news reporters always dig up after a school massacre, and they always wonder how nobody ever heeded the warnings. I think it would be irresponsible to simply ignore this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please report this to the police and let them handle it. I get a chill just thinking that we may have missed something. Basket of Puppies 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The laissez-faire attitude of a number of editors and admins with regards to threats of violence & suicide on Wikipedia is extremely disheartening, and I feel that this site needs a concrete policy for these matters. I believe that Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm was previously rejected as policy; how can I nominate a new draft for consideration as acceptance as policy? GiantSnowman 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at Wikipedia:Threats of violence, which seems to be a more recent attempt to codify a guideline/policy. It failed, however. What I did see was statements from police officers asking Wikipedia editors to refer all threats to them. I think that's really good advice to follow. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is not rejected policy - it's an essay, describing administrators' best practice and recommendations regarding the problem. (disclaimer - I wrote most of it). It was not proposed as policy, because there are intractable disputes among the community on what "the right thing to do" is. It's an essay, because essays aren't up for community consensus per se.

With that said - administrators as a community do that, and follow that, so it's a good idea.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, however I was referring to something that had been proposed as a policy but rejected. Basket of Puppies 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, don't bring things to AN or AN/I if you are going to complain when admins dismiss it as non-credible. If you are convinced of a threat, email checkusers. They can forward the appropriate information to police and we can skip this whole conversation about 99% hoaxes. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that....the last time this came up, MBizanz specifically said NOT to email checkusers, and more or less came straight out that it was the responsibility of the reporting editor to do anything. I'll find the diff in a mo. This is somewhat of a mess.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is [65] in response to [66]. Mbizanz (who one would think should know) says "No one (meaning a checkuser) has a more direct route (ie a specific email or other contact for the police). And no one like the checkusers has a Wikipedia email. It is all up to individual editors to decide what they will and will not do." (sections in italics are mine). So that settles that then - it would appear there is no point reporting these things at ANI - either do something yourself, or else forget about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How are we supposed to do something without the checkuser information to provide location? For example, say a threat comes from a registered account (User:Fake Account) with an IP adress locating to Chicago. Since us non-checkusers can't see the account's Chicago IP address (all we can see is that they are User:Fake Account), we have no location information to give law enforcement without checkuser assistance. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

a law enforcement agency can get beyond the ip's if they think it necessary--they have much more resources that way than we do. (In any case this is something for which resolving the ip would probably not in fact be necessary). Any one of the almost 800 active administrators can choose to undelete the contents long enough to report. the only way it can remain undeleted is if every one of them declines to act. Any one of the people here who think it worthwhile can ask any admin to step in and do this. The easiest way to find what admins are on-wiki at a a particular time is to log at the deletion log and see who is doing deletions. We all act independently here--the reason for not having a mandatory policy is that if it is at all credible, someone will choose to act. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can';t believe we don't have a hard policy on this. Every bomb threat or threat of public violence involving children in a school should have accounts/IPs immediately checkusered and be reported to local authorities. It is not our remit to determine what is and what is not a credible threat. As someone explained to me very well a while back, we are not mental health experts. We're not trained to deal with these situations. Anything less than reporting to the authorities, who ARE trained to deal with these situations, is playing with fire. If not to potentially save some kid's life, then at least to cover our own asses. I can see the headlines now "ZOMG, Kid issues school threats, Wikipedia deletes, 11 children dead." When these kinds of threats are issued in school, the school always takes it seriously and calls the police, even though 99% of them are bogus. In the case of the bogus ones, the kid learns a serious lesson when his/her parents are paid a visit by the police. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This humble editor's opinion: You have to take online statements much the same as you would offline statements: You have to assess if the level of credibility of the threat times the cost/harm done if the threat is carried out exceeds the cost/harm caused by having the police or other agencies look into it. If someone makes a clearly bogus threat, like "I'm a 12 year old boy and I'm going to blow up the United Nations tomorrow with my atomic ray gun, bwuhahahahaha" it would be a waste of resources to do anything but delete the edit and block the editor for being a twit. If the threat is from editor A to editor B saying "I'm gonna kill you tomorrow asswipe" and the other editor replies "you said that last week and the week before that" and the continuing back-and-forth looks like there is no real threat, it can be handled the same way, per WP:NOTBLOG. It gets much tougher when the level of credibility is much above 1 in a thousand or possibly 1 in a million that something very bad could happen - since the harm from such a threat is so high, it becomes a judgment call on the part of those with access to the information. When the threat level is high enough that it's more than remotely credible, say, a post that passes the WP:DUCK test for a statement indicating someone is in danger, then yes, anyone with good judgment will send that one to checkuser and/or the police directly, in addition to doing any blanking, deleting, or blocking that is appropriate.

Having said that, any editor who does see information that leads them to think anyone is going to harm anyone else is free to contact the authorities if they do so in good faith - what is obviously a twit to someone who has all the facts and takes time to think about it may not be to someone who acts in the heat of the moment or who only sees part of the information available. Even in obvious/twit cases, the law typically protects them from being charged with making a false police report or from being sued by the person who gets a knock on the door from a well-meaning cop, and the police will probably tell them they did the right thing, even if the police internally know they wasted several man-hours of police time when any reasonable person would've seen it wasn't necessary to call the police.

I didn't see the post in question, I have no call on whether it was a twit, a credible threat, or a judgment call. Based on the conversation above, it looks like a judgment call and the judgment was that there was no appreciable risk. I trust those making such calls to act in good faith.

To summarize: Use Common sense and Wikipedia:Common sense and follow your gut when necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock at Jim Bowden

Resolved

 – page semip for three days (oh me of little faith) IP appears to have driven on by

Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jim Bowden article has just been vandalised twice [67][68] by an IP replacing content with information about a different Jim Bowden who is 20 years younger. Current IP is User:71.129.235.170 but these selfsame edits have previously been made by IP User:71.140.64.15 User:69.237.145.140User:12.33.210.66. Could someone block the current IP for a few hours please - on previous form, they will keep reverting until they get brassed off tonight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As he switches IPs, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would be more efficient. Page reported for protection. HalfShadow 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I'm pretty sure this is just one guy, and RPP will just come back and say that there's insufficient vandalism to warrant page protection. Just blocking his IP for 48hrs is better, because on previous form he's likely to go a way for a couple of weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt to list it anyway. HalfShadow 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I just note that Kevin is undertaking a general clean up of the article, so there's some extra eyes on it anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Improper Userpage

Resolved

 – User page deleted and account blocked by Tnxman307. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an Admin please delete this improper User page I've just found, User:JD Gray Associates under guideline advertising or promotion of a business, organization or group unrelated to Wikipedia. This page was created 12th August 2006 and last modified 25th February 2009 with a new phone number. The User talk page has similar content. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there also a username problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by TnXman A8UDI 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying, you can block users just because of their username? God help us!.--Big American Buffalo (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ZOMG there be some rules on an anyone-can-edit project. Tan | 39 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're just here to use Wikipedia as a billboard, yes. Yes we can. HalfShadow 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my username is there? Just wondering.--Big American Buffalo (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Information on appropriate and inappropriate usernames can be found at Wikipedia:Username policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but from bad-mark-in-your-wiki-history standpoint this is much less serious than a behavior-based block. If my first choice of name was "AdamSBot" because my name was Adam S. Botteli but my old 8-character-limited username in college was adamsbot and I'd been using it ever since, it would be blocked at Wikipedia. I would request a rename, but the block log would still show the block. If I ran for administrator a year later, I would hope nobody would count that block against me. On the other hand, if I were blocked for behavior 12 months ago.... I pity the next guy James "Jimbo" Wales who tries to register the name JamesJimboWales, he'll have to change his name too. Hopefully people will believe him when he says he registered in good faith. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not until you start a restaurant that sells buffalo named 'Big American Buffalo'. RaseaC (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

With its limited target audience and high costs, he could soon be buried in buffalo bills. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

disturbing edit condoning suicide bombing for islam

this edit condones suicide bombing within islam, something of this type might have been taken from some radical islamic scholor or a jihadist website. can we report this ip adress to the american CIA or something?Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

by the way, no one has reverted it and it still appears on the article.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ive traced the ip to the state of rhode island in the USA. this editor might post a security threat, i recommend reporting it to the proper authority.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• That edit was made over two months ago and is a dynamic IP, so there's no point. And I doubt very much that "condoning" suicide bombing (if that's what the edit even does) is actually a criminal offence. Black Kite 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit does not appear to condone anything but you're more than welcome to report them to the relevant authorities if you wish. Also, if the future you can suggest that 'questionable' edits be WP:OVERSIGHT straight away, but in this case it would probably have been declined. RaseaC (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• directly taken from the edit-

Therefore, Islam's view regarding Suicide is purely restricted to an act of greed, or sorrow, or any other way that is not in the cause of Jihad. It was very common to go on "suicide missions", to attain martyrdom, which were encouraged by Prophet Muhammad, as a brave way to attain martyrdom. There's no substantial proof that it is haram to conduct operations in which you are sacrificing yourself to destroy enemy infrastructure, moral, and/or men.

if you tell me that this edit was not condoning suicide bombing, i recommend read it AGAIN.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No one said it wasn't condoning it. What was said was that a) it was done a long time ago by a dynamic IP, so any action that might have been applicable is long irrelevant, and b) it's probably not a crime to condone suicide bombings anyway. Tan | 39 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oklay, so RaseaC said it wasn't. My mistake. The bottom line is that there is no applicable action here. Tan | 39 23:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I said it wasn't condoning it and made that ascertion having read it (I do tend to read stuff before I comment on them). As soon as the IP comes back and says 'hey, go blow shit up' or something to that effect he's not condoning anything, I'd say the IP has discussed his view on Islam's take on suicide bombing. RaseaC (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

how about removing it, given the fact that it is totally unsourced and that wikipedia might get listed as a terrorist supporting website.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Tan | 39 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, the only issue to me is that that edit is a case of WP:OR and WP:POV; telling the CIA, "oh em geez, some Americans are Muslim extremists and they use the internet to promote their views" will result in a response of "no shit Sherlock." As said above, no action could or should be taken. GiantSnowman 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted a rather large deletion on the part of carlosiru. I am pretty sure the line isn't 'if thine eye offends thee rip off your face' Unomi (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OP didn't seem happy with that so I went ahead and watered it down abit and added some fact tags without, hopefully, changing the meaning. RaseaC (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

this user supporting the taliban

Resolved

 – Userpage Blanked. --Xdamr^talk 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

by the way, this user page also caught my attention, in which the user openly supports the taliban, this will make wikipedia look real bad if users like this advertise supporting terrorists on their user page. and he lists some personal information too.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOR. GiantSnowman 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia isNOT A SOAPBOX and i believe the not censored part refers to encyclopedic material, and supporting terrorists is definetly not encyclopedic.Carlosiru smith (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't apply to userspace. Viridae^Talk 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the userpage promote terrorism? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not as such. He offers links to learn more about Islam, so he could be said to be promoting Islam, which does not equate to promoting terrorism. And his support for the Taliban is restricted (on that page, anyway), to a normal (small) user box. Note, however, that he has the good sense to live in Australia rather than Afghanistan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Expressing personal opinions on your personal Userpage is fine; letting those views affect your contributions isn't. Do his beliefs affect the validity of his edits? GiantSnowman 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is fairly moot anyway, considering he hasn't edited since April 2007... Black Kite 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

at the bottom of the userpage he encourages you to become muslim and provides links. im pretty sure that wikipedias purpose is not to convert people. and in one of his edits on a talk page he calls people kaffiron- infidels.Carlosiru smith (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Userbox:

* Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.

* Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

This is, in my view, certainly the case of the former, perhaps arguably the latter as well.

Xdamr^talk 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wait untill the media gets a hold of this news...I can see it now. "Wikipedia Users openly support terrorist orginizations" If we had a whole userpage nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The C of E) because the user had a userbox that said "this user is homophobic" then this certainlly should not exist! If not then I have a feeling that wikipedia has a bias (what it is, I dont know)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xdamr. Although the boxes have no affect on his editing (which, as has already been noted, is pretty thin) it certainly doesn't help it at all. Furthermore they do both clearly contravene the two quoted guidelines. The whole userpage is questionable if you ask me. RaseaC (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have deleted the userbox, as it violates WP:SOAP in a rather definitive way. I tend to give a lot of leeway to userspace contents, but that is way out of line, and the entire page appears to be proselytism. Since the user has apparently left Wikipedia, I don't see the need to notify the user about the deletion. Horologium (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob, the userpage was stale for 2 yrs. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was. One has to wonder why and how "Carlosiru smith" is finding supposedly problematic user pages of inactive users and questionable months-old edits of IP editors (a few sections up). Is this really a productive use of time? Tarc (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My question also. How did Carlosiru smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), supposedly a brand-new user, happen across that old page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

i saw it when i was an ip, so i decided to create an account to report it. by the way, that "months old" edits was STILL IN THE ARTICLE WHEN I REMOVED IT!Carlosiru smith (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It keeps the media away form hte site so, yes it is.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

His time, his choice. --Xdamr^talk 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not if he continues to spam WP:ANI with things that don't require admin action (as neither have so far). Black Kite 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

by the way mr. bugs, i found his account on a talk page of an article when i was an ipCarlosiru smith (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Keeps the media away" ? Please, that is not a valid or helpful rationale. Either way though, I am fairly suspicious of any account whose very first edit is to a policy page, esp AN/I. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

if i was an ip, you wouldnt be comlaining. i created this account to hide my ip, which i have every irght to do according to wiki policies, and i have edited under ips before.Carlosiru smith (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as your edits are appropriate, either way works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was interested in Carlosiru smith's edit history also, there is certainly a common theme there. RaseaC (talk) 00:30, 30 November 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.

Possible legal threat by User:Stroker Serpentine

This user has made a large revert to the article Stroker Serpentine with the edit summary: Returned site to original condition prior to griefing. Notified admins and attorneys. Requested lock diff. The entire article is a bit of a mess, but this isn't helping. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(...and no, user did not "notify admins" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

I wonder if "notified attorneys" is really a legal threat. I guess you could argue about a chilling effect, but I think it's too vague. I've warned the user, so let's see how it goes from there. TNXMan 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm usually on the hardass side of NLT, but it seems obvious to me that "notified attorneys" is intended to stifle discussion by invoking fear of legal action, preventing which is one of the two direct objectives of the policy. (In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find another meaning at all). — Coren ^(talk) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that their previous two edits had summaries of "Edit is libelous, No references and griefed by porn site Reported to admins" and "Libelous, irrelevant references, points to dead links of porn website", I'd have to take it as a legal threat. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In conjunction with the "reporting to admins" comment, I took it as a "I'm telling mom and dad!" kind of threat. I've cleaned up the article some and more eyes would probably be useful. I agree with Bugs below, if they keep up the threat, they can be shown the door. TNXMan 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy I made doubly-certain no text had been altered after the reverted edits of the previous user. Not passing judgment on that user, but I did need to remove a bit more unsourced BLP material that was ugly bright red lettering in a version comparisons between current and last edits 2 days ago. Anyway, it's the text as-was after the reverts, as desired. Really wanted to make sure I actually found the correct version that was unofficially requested be locked. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a single-purpose account, making legal threats. My guess is that it won't be back. But if it does come back, and it's first edit isn't a retraction, then it should be indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree and that's what I was assuming a bit ago. I just really, really wanted to make sure cited BLP text from before and after the alleged inappropriate changes and reversions were both the same. There was this strange unreferenced line of gushing praise that had somehow appeared in the version with the lawyering edit summary. Figured it had to be a re-reversion somehow since equal and "locked" was the goal, and with it gone there are zero possible discrepancies that might trip up a legal effort. Yup. Zero. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance towards proper Wikipedia procedure. I did NOT write this article however it WAS accurate until the editor began their campaign with an agenda to promote their porn site as a reference. The editor has no basis in reality citing heresay articles in his singular pay-per-click blog. I am the subject of the article and I have indeed contacted wikipedia directly because frankly the procedure for doing so here is beyond my comprehension. The following responses were given by direct email through the "Report Libel" interface:

I have removed the section, as the only source was unreliable (see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS> for an explanation). If you have any further issues, please feel free to let us know. Yours sincerely, Peter Symonds Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

The two amendments you requested have been made.It is not possible to lock or remove the article, but we will be watching it to ensure, as far as possible, that further issues like this don't arise. Yours sincerely,Joe Daly - http://en.wikipedia.org

A lot of this content appears to have been edited since you wrote to us. Can you please advise whether the article is acceptable in its current form? Yours sincerely, Joe Daly Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

In each incidence the editor replaced the changes made by Mr. Daly. If Mr. Daly is not an administrator then I certainly apologize for not using proper procedure. However, the legal reference was made in my edit because I will have no choice but to petition Wikipedia to remove the article entirely before I will allow this editor to continue to use wikipedia as a pulpit for libelous claims against my person with a commercially motivated agenda. I certainly do not need to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. The article is NOT autobiographical as the original posts will substantiate. I am more than happy to remove the legal comment with cooler composure. I default to the admins here. I appreciate the attention and apologize for the trouble this may have caused. Kevin Alderman/aka/Stroker Serpentine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do in the future is refer to Wikipedia policies (such as WP:Biographies of living persons or WP:Reliable sources) rather then referring to potential legal consequences. Not only is that the best way of not falling into the WP:NLT problem, if a person continues to ignore Wikipedia policies (especially WP:BLP), the community and the administrators will be more appreciative of your concerns. As I said, it's just some useful advice for the future. Singularity42 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Singularity. I did not post the original article and I am a wiki novice. No excuses, but this is all new to me. Wikipedia can be quite intimidating for non-programming types. I will amend the edits post haste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to edit the comment without undoing the revert. Any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what you were trying to do (and please remember to click the signature box at the top of the editing section, or the four tilda symbol at the bottom of same, or just add four tildas ~~~~ at the end of your posts) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the subject of this article. I did not write it. I have not changed anything in the body of the text. I reverted the page (apparently unsuccessfully) one time. The page is continually being changed by a "MartinBane". This editor has an agenda to change the real biography of a living person into an avatar page. I have multiple characters as part of my business model of User Generated Content in virtual worlds. All of the edits by this person are surrounding a current class action lawsuit. This is a game obviously to this person, yet it has significant impact on pending litigation. The article WAS about a living person until the editor was able to convince an admin? to change it to an avatar name and redirect it. My question here to the admins and volunteers, is how do I go about having the article either reverted to what it was before these edits or removed altogether from Wikipedia. I haven't the time nor the inclination to play juvenile "gotcha" games with this individual. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --Stroker Serpentine (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if another editor is introducing incorrect information then it should be reverted and they should be reported if it continues to happen. Otherwise if the article is deemed noteworthy any decent editor will use available reliable resources to write the article. As far as I know it's not up to you whether or not there is a WP article article about you, so the deletion thing isn't really an option. RaseaC (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I created the article, I maintain the article, and I have yet to see a legitimate edit of the article that wasn't griefing. Check the IPs. Smiletenshi (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Everybody maintains the article Smiletenshi. raseaCtalk to me 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cirt

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

Resolved

 – It seems that the original complaint has been evaluated and there is a consensus that warnings that User:Redheylin avoid WP:BATTLE behavior are sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Today I enquired at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea whether the article is correct to assert that such a plea necessarily means that the plaintiff admitted there was evidence enough to convict. I noted that the two pages Alford plea and North Carolina v. Alford (two overlapping articles) fail to agree on this and were unsourced. Unable to find confirmation on the web, I posted to the Law Project[69] to request help and also added tags and talk page notes to the two "Alford" pages.

User:Semitransgenic posted a string of refs to Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea but failed to respond to requests to incorporate these refs into the articles concerned.

However, User:Cirt, who had been involved in discussion on the above page today and is sole author of several pages on related subjects, then moved the page Alford plea (with 32000 Google hits) to Alford guilty plea (11,000 hits). User added several of the references supplied by Semitransgenic to the page with a view to establishing the assertion that an "Alford" plea entails acceptance of likely conviction. (DIFF[70] and following changes), altering tags requesting refs.

I then checked the refs and, at Alford guilty plea#Tags posted links to these (which appear on Google books), pointing out that the refs given do not support the article's statements.

I also checked the same editor's work at Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International and here too found unverifiable and dubious references for certain key statements, which I noted on the talk page. In this case there is apparent violation of BLP standards, which I noted.

In both cases the editor has simply issued flat denials - the references DO say, ARE verifiable, ARE reliable and authoritative etc.

I believe it is apparent that the move of Alford plea was an ill-advised measure undertaken in the course of WP:POINT making and that on this and other articles the editor has used bogus references to shore up inflammatory NNPOV OR. It is the editor's habit to claim that more references are to be added - but this does not excuse the use of inadequate refs.

Further, I have become aware that the editor concerned has been involved in many previous violations of articles on new religious movements and, when applying for adminship, undertook to refrain altogether from editing this class of article. However, the editor appears to remain more or less a single issue activist, originating and linking together articles with a view to discrediting a few such movements. Redheylin (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA focused on the topic of Rajneesh movement-related articles. See earliest contribs, and most recent contribs. He seems to be refusing to accept WP:SOURCEACCESS, and claiming that only sources that are fully available online should be used, where Redheylin says Unacceptable, owing to the complete absence of reference to the article on the web. As for the move, I cited it in the edit summary to the WP:RS source, Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases [71]. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, at Alford guilty plea, I took the article from its previous state of having zero sources when tagged by Redheylin (talk · contribs) [72] - to now having every single sentence in the article cited to WP:RS sources. Please see improved version [73]. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the possibility that this report to ANI is motivated by revenge. Cirt recently reported Off2riorob to this noticeboard, who was in contact just today with Redheylin re: off wiki contact via e-mail. Note this diff: [74] where he urges the comment regarding same be wiped, and the discussion between them on the Redheylin talk page at the bottom. NOTE: Full disclosure, Off2riorob reported me today to WP:WKA, but the matter was speedily resolved with no admin action and archived. Suggest same for this, and investigation/report of the possibility of collusion. Thanks, Jusdafax 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of collusion there is suggestive but not indicative. Redheylin - would you like to comment on the nature of emails you and Off2riorob exchanged? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Cirt asked me to come take a look at this. I've done a review, of the incident and Redheylin's contributions.

Re Redheylin, I don't agree that they are a single purpose account. They are clearly someone involved in and with a conflict of interest regarding the Rajneesh movement, based on contributions, but they're also making significant unrelated content edits.

Re Cirt's sources, Cirt is properly interpreting Reliable source and source verifyability standards. We do not need to have a magazine, book, research paper, etc. online in order to cite it and for it to be a reliable source. Redheylin, your interpretation of policy on that point is wrong.

If someone is found to be fabricating sources, that's a legitimate problem. However, you have not presented any evidence that Cirt is making anything up, or has any underlying bias or reason to do so.

Cirt is a Wikipedia administrator and someone trusted by the community. If you do have evidence of misbehavior you need to bring that up - either dig up a copy of a book or article he cites and show he's fabricating information, or prove that a claimed source does not exist using a reasonable bibliographical search. This may require real-world library research, if you do feel that this is going on. I doubt it, personally, but I want to be open about what standard of evidence and type of research we're talking about here.

We do not consider it appropriate to accuse people of forging references without evidence. You can ask someone for a more detailed cite - which edition of a book, what chapter and page, etc. But you have to then put some effort in and go find the source and verify what it actually does say.

Lacking any evidence presented, there's no case here for administrator action / nothing for us to do on this noticeboard.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• George has asked me to clarify...I don't even understand what that thread is all about, I have not colluded with or encouraged anybody to harrass user cirt. Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading this thread, I do think that user Redhaylin is correct to have issues regarding the moving of the Alford plea, to..the Alford guilty plea, it looks a bit like it was done to affect the discussion regarding the insertion of the Osho mugshot into the Osho aticle, which user cirt is supporting, as there are objection to inserting the booking picture due to the fact that Osho never actually pled or was found guilty, I do think looking at it the this move was ill chosen by user cirt considering he is involved in the discussion that the move would affect, I know that it is not an administrator move but still imo it was ill advised. Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob's non-answer ignores the obvious fact that he and Redhaylin had what appears to be an agreement to talk off-wiki only hours before Redhaylin filed his curious notice here. Off2riorob, could you comment on the timing, the substance of your discussion as requested by George Willian Herbert and your comment regarding being taken to ANI by you know who? Jusdafax 06:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ec. I have answered, it is just up from this, I was more hoping to get a reply regarding this issue of user cirt moving the Alford plea article, which I just discovered after being directed here, to me this is the issue here not fanciful accusations without any evidence of off wiki collusion to harass another user. Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a legitimate content dispute at the heart of this which is best resolved at the appropriate project page, content noticeboard, or other relevant consensus seeking discussion pages. Editors are allowed to e-mail one another, despite my strong support for disallowing all off-wiki communications. And until my investigation of the Admin IRC channel is completed, we won't know exactly how much inappropriate collusion has been going on there, but in the meantime it's probably best to try to lower the temperature of these feuds and to seek common ground and a more amicable approach to interactions (there are probably enough guilty pleas to go around). If there's no admin action required, I suggest marking this resolved and trying to extend goodwill to one another. We're supposed to be all on the same team here. If I can be of any help, I'm happy to weigh in on the dispute itself and to tell you how it should be resolved. :) That's usually enough to bring the opposing parties together. At the very least try discussing it courteously and respectfully with one another without any accusations or suspicions of malintent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A sound comment by ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), thanks :). FWIW, I moved the article back to its original title, per some excellent research by Brumski (talk · contribs). Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very kind of you Cirt. I should probably point out that the word I used (malintent) is not actually a word (yet), although it is included in the Urban Dictionary. Thanks for your good faith efforts to work through the content issues raised. I'm sorry to see so much acrimony.

Malcontent is a word, but doesn't appropriately describe anyone on Wikipedia. We're all well meaning and kind here, if occasionally misguided. Especially GWH. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, per this I have some concerns. Would rather this thread not yet be resolved, and not by one who is not an uninvolved party such as yourself. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problemo. What are your concerns? I had noted on that editor's talk page that they seemed to be doing some good work at the BLP/N noticeboard and I think they were just replying. I think we were just trying to be collegial and all. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully request that Off2riorob and Redheylin answer the relevant concerns re: the timing and content of their private discussion just hours before the filing of this notice at ANI by Redheylin, as was requested by admin Georgewilliamherbert [75] and [76]. (relevant diffs [77] and [78]) Jusdafax 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That line of inquiry seems a little witch hunty. Who are you to ask anyone to disclose their e-mails? Editors are allowed to communicate (again, I have long opposed this and support a ban on all off-wiki discussion) so I don't see the issue. Why not focus on resolving the underlying dispute (which seems actually to be getting worked out?). I haven't seen any diffs of problematic attacks on Cirt or anyone else, just an ANI report that seems reasonable if a bit premature. There's certainly some distrust and assumptions of bad faith on both sides, and I don't think you and GWH are helping with that. Let's try to lessen the drama. There's no way of knowing what anyone is e-mailing anyone else (no legitimate way, anyway). If you're into conspiracy theories I've been hoping for weeks now that someone would restore exopolitics as a stand-alone article and expand its content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin Georgewilliamherbert's requests for elaboration from Off2riorob and Redheylin are appropriate, and relevant to this discussion. I would like to see a clearer response from both users, and/or a comment regarding their lack of same, from Georgewilliamherbert. Thanks to all parties for their consideration, Jusdafax 07:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to be a jerk and mark this as resolved. It was, mostly, with the article moved back as requested. End! Good job, etc. ...Actually, that's not intended to be sarcastic. This was actually a rather simple and civil ANI if all the uninvolved or non-professionally-related stuff is mentally filtered. If you're digging into chit-chat diffs of a non-involved editor and having internal debates between two different parties not in the ANI, asking for the specifics of emails... well, that's no longer the scope of this ANI and I'm pretty sure you know where to go with it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, there. I would like to ask how a non-administrator can close an ANI thread? Can any non-involved editor mark ANI threads as closed, even when questions by an administrator have not had time to be discussed? This is the first I have heard of this. Jusdafax 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite simple for a non-administrator to close an ANI thread: add template and sign. Not to be facetious, but there are experienced non-admins who do it regularly. Best to do so when the issue actually is resolved, though. Durova³⁷¹ 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for giving me a clue! Jusdafax 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• [Support close/resolved by daTheisen] While I, too, was surprised by an non-admin close, the action is good and well-rationale'd (and appropriately deals with some distracting side issues by moving on). Further comment if necessary, but let us all hope not, if for no other reason than it's the holiday season. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 is not really the most uninvolved to interject here. Here is a comment he made to ChildofMidnight about Off2riorob, The kind and beautiful grace you displayed on Off2riorob‎'s talk at a time.... Jusdafax 09:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is not Datheisen's place to close it, and it ought not be closed until both the OP and Cirt are ready. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the close. The situation with the offwiki contact is suspicious but this complaint and the situation don't justify pursuing further action. It was a reasonable question to ask. I don't know that I'm entirely satisfied by the answers, but there's a point at which pushing too hard for further info after a relatively minor possible abuse simply becomes harrassing of the other party. Even if they'd said that they'd colluded it wouldn't have been worth more than a warning and future careful watching.

We have the original issue, the suspicions, and responses on the record. There's no point in making a bigger deal out of this than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I have received notes of "bad faith allegations" from Cirt and George William Herbert on my talk page and note them here. It will be evident from my contributions that I am not a "single-purpose account". I confirm that I have received a request for email contact from user offtoriorob, but there has been no such contact. I similarly invited user Cirt to discuss the issues of-wiki: I feel this is a reasonable extension of good faith in an obviously fraught environment. Yet the above adds up to a very serious allegation of bad faith that requires investigation, and I call upon the editors concerned to institute such an investigation or else to withdraw their allegations. Since these allegations continue[79] the matter cannot sensibly be considered closed.

I note that the above matter has been taken as a reason to close this complaint. Yet the references added at Alford plea do indeed fail to support the assertions made, while this[80], which involves BLO consideration, refers to an article of which I stated there is no NOTICE on the web, no apparent connection with subject and no notice of publication: the editor says "I found it on a database" but cannot identify the database: it is not verifiable. The author, Peter Gillins, is apprently an Oregon lawyer. I am aware, of course, of strong negative POV in Oregon re Rajneesh.

So - I am having slight difficulty here finding a proper investigation of my report in the above and it seems I have to re-open it. It has been said: "We do not need to have a magazine, book, research paper, etc. online in order to cite it and for it to be a reliable source. Redheylin, your interpretation of policy on that point is wrong." I hope I have explained this. A BLP allegation of conspiracy to murder requires sound, verifiable sources: I cannot tell why these allegations are not available in legal proceedings and there is no way to trace the article. "If someone is found to be fabricating sources, that's a legitimate problem. However, you have not presented any evidence that Cirt is making anything up, or has any underlying bias or reason to do so." As I noted, the references added to Alford plea clearly fail to support the statement that such a plea consitutes (in every state) an admission of strong evidence.

I second Cirt's request that this matter be not considered closed: regrettably, Child of Midnight, the hoped for rapprochement is not there, allegations still stand. I beileve it is clearly unacceptable to present unreliable views of legal terms in pursuit of a single purpose unrelated to the law. I must add that there are previous[81] unresolved issues regarding this editor's use of bogud references which, like this, have been met by a counter-attack combined with admin failure to investigate.Redheylin (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin - In case it was not already clear, it is against Wikipedia policy to repeatedly claim that someone is using false sources without specifically naming what sources are false and what evidence that you have that they are false. It is disruptive behavior and a form of personal attack, alleging that someone else is violating policy without substantive evidence.

Please either provide those details or retract the claim.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean (without saying so) that it is not enough to direct your attention to diffs given on the talk page (as I did to begin with) but that you require that they be posted here. Very well. Below cut and paste from Talk:Alford plea.

TRANSCRIPT

I further note the change of article's name by User:Cirt and the addition of refs. However, Google gives 32000 hits for the former title and only 11000 for the new one. I note that the user has made these changes in the course of a dispute at Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) I further note that the cited source[82] fails to back the assertion it references. This is rather serious..... Redheylin (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[83] Second reference also fails Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. And I have given multiple sources. And will continue to add more. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

END TRANSCRIPT

As stated at the beginning (and many times since), requirement is for refs to cover matter of necessity of compelling evidence and to resolve fork with North Carolina v. Alford I have noted below Cirt's action on the latter page and request that these two entries be synthesised. I have received a note from you that you "are not proceeding" with your allegations of bad faith collaboration made above, and request that you confirm this here and withdraw the allegations. Redheylin (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear this is a cut-and-paste by Redheylin from Talk:Alford plea. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. We now have a pair of sources and an article. That's a start. Now please be more specific.

The first source is used in 4 places in the article. The second source is used in 4 different places in the article. Redheylin, you assert that first source (Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases) "fails to back the assertion it references". Please list what assertion is made - which instance of its use, or instances - and how the source does not support the claim. You also say that the second source "fails" - again, which instance of its use, or instances, fails to support what claim in the article.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Cut and paste from para above, for the nth time) "As stated at the beginning (and many times since), requirement is for refs to cover matter of necessity of compelling evidence and to resolve fork with North Carolina v. Alford" Here's the scoop. Editors at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) wish to establish that the subject of the page necessarily admitted there was strong evidence against him of criminal acts on the basis that this is the standard definition of an Alford plea. I checked the pages Alford plea and North Carolina v. Alford and found they were unsourced and not in agreement. I tagged the pages contradictory, left talk page notes and requested help from the Law Project. User Cirt then removed tags from the latter page, annotating that the page was improved, whereas no change was in fact made (diff below). User also added refs to former page purporting to support "necessary admission of strong evidence" but not in fact doing so, as the above refs show, and again removed the tag with the contradiction unresolved. I note:

• 1) That a previous instance of same user's questionable references reported here also resulted in hostile action by admins (see User:Redheylin#Rajneeshee) and that these bad refs still remain in place.
• 2) That you and other people operating this page made immediate allegations of bad faith against me, which you have not yet withdrawn.
• 3) That this matter remains tagged "resolved", which was done prior to my answering your allegations and without your present request for detail - and it clearly is not.
• 4) That user Cirt's application for adminship shows concerns raised about a long history of hostile editing of "new religious movements" articles from which she undertook to desist, but has not.

I contend that alterations were made to pages giving information about US law purely in pursuit of the aim of providing support for allegations about Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), which is clearly a gross violation, as are the the allegations of disruption, (which you appeared to back, see below) when I replaced those tags and requested re-opening of the affair and intervention of further, neutral admins. I am not impressed. Redheylin (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of the page I complained about:

TRANSCRIPT

In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime.

ENDS

I note these refs have now been replaced with others (which must necessarily now also be checked) I can undertake to show that, without ANI action, such modifications do not happen, which is clearly onerous and disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ref

User:Cirt #2

As this diff shows[84] the complaint I made yesterday, which was tagged "resolved" and closed following counter-claims to which I had no chance to respond, is still drawing hostile and unsatisfactory edits on the pages concerned. Since I have now responded to the allegations made, and have sought neutral admin input, I request that the matter be re-opened and examined thoroughly. Redheylin (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not a diff, it is a link to your user talk page history. You started a thread on this board with the exact same name as another one you already started, above. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This diff[85] shows removal of a "contradicts" tag claiming article improved. No change to article was in fact made. Please note subsequent edits. Redheylin (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I had already self-reverted the removal prior to this thread, pending further investigation of recent actions by Redheylin. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The "further investigation" consists of a "final warning" by user GeorgeWilliamHerbert alleging that the above reversion was "disruptive". Cirt did NOT self-revert the above diff. Redheylin (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The diff you cited above [86], actually was self-reverted by me, before you brought this thread. See [87]. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not warned anyone for reversion. I have warned Redheylin for accusing another editor of falsifying sources, without providing specific claims of what source is false and what information is available to indicate that it is false. This grew out of the "first Cirt section" above, and on Redheylin's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this thread be merged with the previous, "resolved" thread? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes please BB - I requested it above but it has not happened> Redheylin (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's stopping you from doing it? Although, first, you should focus on trying to fully answer the questions raised by Cirt and by George. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know enough about procedures for this page or whether I am allowed. There seems at the moment a deathly hush, so perhaps the full answers are already there! Please feel free to comment. Sorry I mistook your question for a kind offer. Redheylin (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You could very easily do it. My comment was more about prematurely closing the issue, trying hard to not quite come out and do the "told you so dance". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Trouble is; the gent who began by making allegations of bad faith, closed the matter as resolved without my reply, issued final warnings for "disruption" when I asled for it to be re-opened and then made repeated demands for more detail has now vanished, leaving the matter still tagged "resolved" (I note this was originally done by a non-admin. It's all very odd). Am I allowed to remove the "resolved" tag, since the editor seems to have conceded that it is not? I do not usually go in for this stuff, since there's so much to do elsewhere. Redheylin (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note this comment by Brumski at Talk:Alford plea, after a careful analysis of my use of sources: there is no falsification or bogus sources and there is no problem, except that someone who's put a lot of good work into very significantly improving this article has had to waste their time defending their improvements. I'm sorry Redheylin, the fact that this article defines the Alford plea in a way that is inconvenient for your dispute elsewhere isn't relevant to this article; what is is relevant is whether it reflects the reliable sources, which it does.. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These remarks refer to citations added after this ANI report, the quoted editor being apparently unaware that these had replaced the unsatisfactory references which are the subject of the present case. Since it is demonstrable that, without such action as this, unsatisfactory references remain in place, Cirt's eventual success in finding references to back her position in this case does not alter her evident willingness to use dud references unless challenged. Redheylin (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way are these references unsatisfactory? You have still not listed the manner in which the provided references were incorrectly used. Specificity is required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Cirt the one who replaced the references? If so, then the above criticism seems more than a bit lopsided. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

False assertion, yet again, by Redheylin. See [88] where I commented before this ANI thread was filed, that I was already in the process of adding more sources to the article. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, I understand you're frustrated. It seems that you've rasied some legitimate content concerns. They seem to be getting addressed, but the level of acrimony on both sides isn't helping. All parties need to refocus on the content and sources, and to let go of the animosity and bad faith assumptions.

Wikipedia can be quite frustrating and baffling. The way things work (and sometimes don't) takes getting used to. The ANI board is to get investigation into editor misconduct. So when a thread is marked resolved, that doesn't mean the dispute is over, but that no further admin intervention is required. While there are allegations on both sides, there is no demonstrable editor misconduct that requires admin intervention. That's why the thread has been marked resolved (repeatedly).

The appropriate venues to continue the discussion include the Law project discussion page, the WP:content noticeboard, collegial talk page discussion, and/ or a Request for Comment. Patience is required.

I agree that some very antagonistic and bad faith allegations have been made against you (and you have made some in return). This is very unfortunate and unconstructive, and it would be extremely helpful if GWH stopped inflaming the situation by launching these threats and attacks.

Cirt is not your enemy. If you slow down, take a deep breath, and try to work with him and others to resolve your concerns I think you will have a lot more success. Try not to make and accusations that can be construed as attacks. Editors are sensitive about having their work called "bogus" "misleading" etc. And please let me know if I can be of any assistance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, Redheylin (talk · contribs) has been warned at his talk page and here in this very thread multiple times to stop making unsupported claims about other editors that amount to violations of WP:NPA when not backed up by anything. And yet, in his most recent postings, he continues to do so. Further admin actions is needed. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Thread not resolved, as Redheylin (talk · contribs) refuses to stop making and retract his unsupported claims, allegations I have used "bogus" sources, etc, even in the face of above-linked comment by Brumski at Talk:Alford plea, warnings by admin, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert writes: "In what way are these references unsatisfactory? You have still not listed the manner in which the provided references were incorrectly used. Specificity is required." Bearing in mind that the cited article does not support the text, it would be helpful if you would define the missing detail. It is not clear what you mean. Do you mean that you still allege that the matter is an unprovoked collaborative attack, or that you still allege a disruptive complaint without merit, or are you simply asking for a more exact description of the way the material in the text quoted above is not in the source quoted above? Redheylin (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way, exactly and precisely, is the material not in the source quoted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And here yet again, we have more false claims not supported by anything to back them up, made by Redheylin after he was warned against doing this. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of Order Sorry to jump in again, but since when is an editor allowed to edit/censor another users comments? This is another thing in this bizarre thread that I have never seen before: Child of Midnight is cleaning up after Redheylin's admittedly inflammitory statement re: Cirt. In other words Child of Midnight is acting as some kind of watchdog over Redheylin's commentary. What's going on here? Jusdafax 01:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax is talking about this edit I believe. GiantSnowman 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right; in my amazement I neglected to post the diff. Thanks. Point being, the deleted comment itself is, I believe, a gigantic violation. Isn't it? Then the deletion. Fascinating! I sit here shaking my head. Jusdafax 02:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not usually "proper" to erase part of someone else's comment, but in this case the comment was a clear personal attack and CoM removing it was a valid approach to trying to defuse drama over it. Other admins can respond if they feel it was a problem, but I believe it was a good faith effort and support it.

I noticed the original comment and warned Redheylin on his talk page shortly afterwards. Further attention on it, lacking any more personal attacks, is not useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for clarifying the matter. Jusdafax 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is wp:refactor. You'll note that I informed the editor that I trimmed their content. Jehochman made a good point that the comment was already responded to, so I should have left a <trimmed> indicator that there was something else there.

As we're a collaborative enterprise, anyone trying to help alleviate this dispute shoul dbe encouraged. Perhaps you should consider your own actions and role? Numerous editors have tried to refocus the parties on the relevant content and sourcing issues, instead of the personality conflicts and accusations, and attempted to point the disputant in the direction of appropriate dispute resolution venues. Stirring up the conflict is only going to cause more disruption. There was no reason to reopen this an ANI thread. It's been pointed out again and again that no admin intervention is called for, and that the accusations on all sides need to stop. Jusdafax, your comments were cited in a recent Wikialert page so your interest and engagement in this looks like a kind of vendetta campaigning.

This thread needs to be archived. This is not the place to discuss the sources and content. Dispute Resolution and mediation are the way to go from here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No this is still an issue where admin intervention is needed with regard to Redheylin (talk · contribs), who has refused to retract and stop making unsupported claims about what he calls "bogus" sourcing, even in the face of comment by Brumski [89]. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alford plea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• There's a lot of verbage here, but from what I gather, Redheylin is violating the principle that Wikipedia is not for ideological battle. Various personal attacks and unsupported claims have been made, but if they end now, then nobody needs to be blocked. If they don't end, well, a block may be the result. Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why User:Redheylin was called a single purpose account? Looking at their edit history, I don't come to that conclusion. Am I missing something? Jehochman ^Talk 03:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Stricken, and I apologize for that. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've done the right thing. Redheylin hasn't struck anything yet, but I will accept dropping the matter as the next best thing. The fact that Redheylin has made a couple years' worth of productive contributions means that we should extend a fairly good amount of tolerance and second chances. If they were a single purpose account, that would be a different situation. Jehochman ^Talk 04:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, that certainly sounds reasonable. I agree with you that if Redheylin drops the matter and agrees in the future to refrain from making attacks in the form of unsupported allegations against other editors as he has done above, then the matter would be resolved. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 November 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.

Semi-protection for talk page?

Resolved

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ is being heavily targeted by the infamous Scibaby's never-ending series of sockpuppets - another 14 (!) have been identified just tonight and banned.[90] Would it be possible to semi-protect the talk page? I know it's an unusual step, but in the circumstances I think it would be justified; the socks are causing substantial ongoing disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's block-range time. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not possible. Scibaby uses a very wide range of IPs; the collateral damage is unacceptable. That's how he's managed to get through over 460 socks to date. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's been tried before, and my recollection is that there was an unacceptable degree of collateral damage, though I'll defer to the checkusers. We should just semi-protect the talk page. We've done this in the past, but at some point WP:PROT was updated to state that a page and its talk page should not both be semi-protected at the same time. Which is ridiculous - when would you ever protect a talk page but not the associated article? It's basically a prohibition on semiprotecting talk pages, which is a good general rule but one which should probably be ignored in this particular instance. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely needed in this particular instance. There are at least two other sockmasters active in addition to Scibaby - Flegelpuss and Tinpac - and the parade of socks is inflaming and severely disrupting the talk page. It's the most concerted sock campaign I've ever seen in my six years as a Wikipedian. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any specific objections here in the next hour or so, I'll be willing to semi-protect the article talk page. How about setting up a talk subpage where IPs and new accounts can be directed (through a editnotice), once the main talk page is semi-protected ? Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How bad is the collateral damage? Would it be too much work to rangeblock and then whitelist those editors who appeal? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the ranges, yes it would. Black Kite 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if not, most would not appeal, but just turn away, which is too much of invisible damage on its own. Semi-prot it. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654 might give you some insight. It's been tried but the collateral damage is too great. On a technical point, how does Scibaby get access to so many networks in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Without invoking WP:BEANS, it's not to technically difficult. Black Kite 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is the easiest way, to handle the multiple socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Support semiprotection of the talk page - that's what it's there for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Semi-protected by Abecedare for a month. NW (Talk) 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I also created a subpage for IP/new users to post comments. At least a few regulars at the article should watchlist that page. Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Farnshon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like a sleeper sock. ~YellowFives 06:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparent return of banned User:Skoojal, now editing as User:22Googoo

Resolved

 – R'ed, B'ed, now lets I... --Jayron32 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

See this edit[91] at Frederick Crews. Edit summary ("This edit is a warning. Semi-protection cannot stop me.") suggests that the banned user has other dummy accounts for use, not that the semi-protection evasion here required much skill. Edits to RPG article Aboleth appear harmless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Glad to be of service. I will presently be filing a SPI w/ CU to root out any more sleeper socks. --Jayron32 04:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal, feel free to make any additional comments there. Lets consider this WP:RBI and done. --Jayron32 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Zach8604

Zach8604 (talk · contribs) is a very new, apparently very young editor who wants to contribute to the wiki, but doesn't know how yet. He created a number of content forks associated with the BCS National Championship Game, reflecting his idea of how the subject should be organized. I deleted the duplicates or redirected them, explaining why, and blocked him for 48 hours when it became clear that he would keep reintroducing the material no matter what. Our discussion is visible in his talk page history, and here [92]. He has since blanked those discussions and re-created the article on his talk page, with links to his personal website and a stipulation that others not edit his work. His block will expire in 20h or so, and I'm withdrawing from the topic, as I'm unlikely to make more progress, but I would appreciate it if someone could have a constructive word with him that might keep him out of trouble when his block expires. He seems sincere, but hasn't yet gained enough cluefulness to avoid trouble post-block. Acroterion _(talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've welcomed Zach, and given a bit of advice re Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Questionable IP edits on Flip tricks

An IP user has made questionable changes to this article within the last 10 min. His first edit was some sort of message, His second edit was unexplained removal of content along with removing templates at the top of the page. Then he changes the reference links with apparently one of his own links on almost all of the references, it's the same reference for all of them which leads me to believe he is also spamming this site which doesn't explain any of the tricks mentioned in the article. Any feedback greatly appreciated. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll warn and then if he keeps doing it he'll be blocked..A8UDI 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing at Crucifixion

Please see Talk:Crucifixion#Explanation for this situation. A little more than 24 hours ago, a large number of IP editors suddenly began section-blanking Crucifixion#In anime, which, previously, had been stable for quite some time. The vandalism was quickly reverted, and the page has been semi-protected, which has gotten the situation under control for now. However, the talk page has now been inundated with comments calling for deleting the material, mostly (though not entirely) in incivil terms. It has turned out that these editors have come due to an off-site posting calling for meatpuppetry at a link I have provided on the talk page, at the link above. When you follow that link to the talk page, you will see that I have asked editors to stop canvassing and to use RfC or similar mechanisms instead. I am not requesting sanctions against anyone at this time, and I hope that sanctions will not be needed. However, I think it is prudent for me to put this notice here now, even if no formal action is taken right away, so that more eyes than mine can be on the situation. I hope you do not mind that I have reported it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of them have a point and the dialogue is worth continuing regardless of why it started. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I actually agree, just that the discussion needs to get under control first. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And it still does need to get under control, judging by what just showed up. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I thank Elen for going to the talk and making a helpful effort to get it back on track. An RfC has been opened, which I hope will eventually bring fresh eyes and some constructive talk. However, as of this time, all that is happening is continuing trolling and personal attacks against me by people who have apparently come via canvassing. I'm going to ignore the trolling, but I'd appreciate some continued administrative observation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat tricky. Something Awful is a website owned by Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka that depends on stirring up controversy for ad revenue, and often unfortunately they go way too far. A few years ago the SA forum members, referred to by themselves as "goons", blitzkreiged a mentally ill woman who had suffered 14 miscarriages, almost driving her to suicide by bombarding her with rude, cruel comments because she had a website they deemed inappropriate. (They even used the - there's no other word for it - sociopathic excuse that this type of immense cruelty would "snap her out" of her mental illness and show her how wrong she was to grieve excessively over her miscarriages.) They've also suggested that people with serious facial deformities be brutally murdered at birth (often with false expressions of sympathy appended to make it sound as if they were actually sympathizing with the person they intended to have brutally murdered) and have called for everyone with peanut allergies to be murdered so those without allergies could exercise the constitutional right to eat one food out of 10,000,000 on an aircraft. Suffice to say that any time SA features anything, you end up with a lot of people who are, assuming the best of faith, young and easily influenced who think they have to fight Lowtax's battles for him. --NellieBly (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is a forum post not made by Lowtax, it is hardly a 'call to action', so your comments seem a bit off. Pretty much nothing you said has any bearing here; when other groups vandalize Wikipedia, do we go around trying to impugn the group, or do we revert, ignore, protect, and get on with our lives? No one's fighting his battles for him. Goons are, believe it or not, able to think and act independently. You seem to have a personal issue with SA. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One does get the feeling an admin or two with a baseball bat would be useful at this point. Unfortunately, I think they're all sleeping off their Thanksgiving celebrations. The only ones I've seen around are Brits/Aussies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting (if disgusting) about SA. There's some hate speech starting to find its way into the talk page here. But it increasingly seems to me to not be "tricky". This has become disruptive editing, period. I think it should be possible to distinguish between editors who are making (or attempting to make) an argument based on content, from those who are only engaging in vandalism or personal attacks, and I think it would be proper to block the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see irrelevancies, but not trolling. As long as the discussion remains on the talk p. I see no harm in even newcomers expressing their ideas about what does or does not constitute appropriate content for Wikipedia. Personally, I think formalizing it as an RfC was not really appropriate or necessary. The page itself has been semi-protected, and that seems to have dealt with everything except an ongoing edit war over an image among some experienced editors; since this is now being also discussed on the talk p. I think no admin action necessary at this point. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is trolling, and I warned one user for personal attacks, but it seems under control. Fences&Windows 18:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is trolling and personal attacks against me. (It wasn't my idea to start the RfC that soon, and I kind of wish it hadn't happened until things quieted down a bit.) Thank you F&W for that warning, but I feel like there is more than one user going way beyond what DGG calls "expressing their ideas about what does or does not constitute appropriate content", at least expressing it in a civil way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read the entire thread from the 'Something Awful' website and I see nothing to indicate a call to action on behalf of the site owners. What I do see is page after page after page of legitimate criticism of the way individuals with their own self interests are able to monopolise pages to ensure they contain even the most trivial references by using the Wikipedia rules against itself. Please try and look at this from an outsiders perspective, why would anyone in their right mind be looking for anime references on a crucifixion page? This particular instance was given as an example of how ridiculous this type of behaviour has become on Wikipedia and how negatively the page hoarding and rule manipulation has impacted a non hardcore users ability to feel like they have any input into what goes on here. Unfortunately after reading the outbursts both on the talk pages and calls to action throughout admin and other parts of Wikipedia, I can only agree. Fancy steve (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I cannot see how Something Awful is relevant to the topic at hand, nor the relevance of opinions about the web site from some editors above. From my brief review there also appear to be forums within that site containing cooking, home electronics and political debate which are also irrelevant and yet do not add any inflammatory bias to the conversation here. There are many instances of unsavoury content on the Internet and in fact on Wikipedia itself, so cherry picking instances of third party behaviour and ignoring the argument at hand seems ad hominem at best. Fancy steve (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are really missing the point here. A huge number of editors showed up at once, and basically used the occasion to engage in ad hominem attacks on me. Are you saying that my report here is an outburst? Are you saying that I, or other regular editors of the page, have ignored the argument at hand (that there were improvements that needed to be made to the page, and that there is a need for editors to not be insular)? Have you looked at the edits I have made to the page? Have you looked at the page history, and seen that I absolutely did not edit war against anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there are many editors, or that they posted garbage at times. What I am saying is that you in fact are participating in the very same behaviour you are complaining about (without the abusive commentary), by creating RfCs and cross posting the references to different sub sections of Wikipedia to drum up support for your cause. A nice way to end this would be 'Hey, you know what, I had a think about this overnight and came to the conclusion that I can take my anime to somewhere more appropriate', instead we end up with Wikipedia rules wars about attempting to force what is essentially utterly irrelevant trivia to anyone but yourself upon the rest of the community. Fancy steve (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fancy Steve, I made the RfC, not Tryptofish. Gary (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gary. And the "cross posting" was neutrally-worded, placed at WikiProjects with expertise in the question of Gary's RfC, and completely out in the open, on Wiki and noted clearly at the top of the RfC. And what I've reported here has nothing to do with forcing content on anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility at Crucifixion

(outdent) Enough is enough. I'm all for not feeding the trolls, and I'm fine with welcoming new editors who wish to discuss what they believe is wrong with Wikipedia. But. There's a real problem here. I ask that administrators look at each of the following diffs (more are coming in by the minute), and decide if this is just acceptable discussion:

• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]
• [97]
• [98]
• [99]
• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]
• [113]

Without these, the discussion could actually be rather productive. I do not think that I am being unreasonable in objecting to this stuff. (P.S.: Maybe I lead a sheltered life :-) but it took me a while to realize that all those mentions of "sperg" are derogatory references to Asperger's syndrome.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And: [114]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And: [115]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question Would it be appropriate and within talk page guidelines to remove all of the ad hominem attacks and references to Asperger's syndrome, mental illness, or otherwise disparaging anime fandom? Leaving these comment in place does create an uncivil atmosphere. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yzak Jule (talk · contribs) is now restoring a personal attack by an IP editor that was removed per WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. He/she is calming in the edit summaries that the removal of personal attacks is tantamount to censorship] and the Right to Free Speech. —Farix (t | c) 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly removed what I saw as the worst one - and Black Kite removed it again when someone put it back. I think it's clear that attacks that insult Aspies and those with mental health problems should go in the same category as attacks that generically insult black or jewish people, and we routinely remove the worst of those. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who is responding here. I saw that there is also a thread at Wikiquette alerts, and I posted there asking that discussion be here instead. And in case anyone is concerned, I'm emotionally just fine. Yesterday, I suggested that the slurs should stay, at least until admins here finally get around to acting more extensively, which is very much needed, as slurs and edit warring seem to be continuing. Since I can't exactly be objective, I'm going to remain neutral now on whether the slurs should be redacted from the talk page or not. Whatever the rest of you choose to do, you have my agreement and thanks.

What I do ask is that editors who are reasonable, please speak up substantively at the talk page. If someone says something that does not speak for you, say so. There are claims that there has been consensus, even though I know that some editors say they agree with some parts of arguments I have made. The best remedy for hate speech is civil reason. I'm staying off the talk page for a little while, but I'm going to make some constructive edits to the page itself.

Sorry to shout, but administrators really need to start issuing blocks. At least for the duration of the RfC. I'm a little disappointed that we are now in the third day of incivil talk that impedes constructive editing. I'm no expert on blocking policy, but my understanding is that it supports blocks without a period of warnings when the abuse is serious and disruptive enough. Look at my diffs above. There are more since then. If these do not warrant blocks, I don't know what does. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you to take this to RFPP, where it might have been protected? That's usually what we do when a page is under attack from multiple users, and then sort things out. --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The page itself was semi-protected promptly after the section-blanking began. No need for full protection, in my opinion, because mostly constructive edits are happening. The issue is the talk page. I thought it was unusual to semi-protect or protect those. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean the talk page. the one all of your diffs referred to. If that was protected as well, I apologize, but I don't see it in the page log, but sometimes these things mysteriously don't show up. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect the talk page? That's OK by me. (No, it's certainly not semi-protected, thus the diffs.) But I don't think I'm the one who should request it. And to repeat: what really needs to happen is there need to be blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are unlikely to do anything as these IPs are only "drive by", likely from SA, and really don't care about the actual discussion. Besides, there hasn't been any uncivil comments posted in the last since my report above about Yzak Jule (talk · contribs) who is now engaged in another POV edit war on the article, and the previous personal attacks have already been redacted. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I guess time will tell if they keep on driving by. But I shouldn't have to feel like if I make more comments at the talk page, that I will be met with a barrage of blatant incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh! Now there are registered editors edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd let people talk, rather than insisting they be blocked and linking to every disparaging comment, rather than complaining that what increasingly appears to be your personal fiefdom has somehow been violated, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Delete/moderate the disparaging stuff, and the overall point remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anonymous editor above me. The anime section of that page is completely unnecessary (it doesn't exist in the Japanese language Wikipedia, apparently) so I really do not understand why you are so obsessed with retaining a paragraph which lacks anything people outside the sorts of editors who enjoy arguing on the Wikipedia discussion pages about abstruse policy decisions. I read the SA thread, and honestly your behavior has done nothing but confirm their biases. Pompous Trihedron (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because something isn't mentioned in the Japanese language Wikipedia doesn't really mean anything. However, there are much larger issues with the "In popular culture" section then just anime. However, that doesn't excuse the SA members coming here and starting an edit war and engage in a litany of ad hominem attacks on the talk page. Both are disruptive and both are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Change is better achieved by civil debate, and if need be, asking for third opinion or other dispute resolution process. —Farix (t | c) 22:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Farix. We had an edit conflict that saved me from replying directly, and that's a good thing! :-) For the record, I have absolutely not stopped anyone from talking at any point in this process (I even offered not to have the attacks on me deleted!). And I am hardly obsessed with any of the material, only having argued in talk against deletion. But I hope admins can see from this thread what has been going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are they supposed to see? --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What is shown in the diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've sliced off the entire section: it's now in Crucifixion in art. Anime is mentioned - but with references, and briefly. Can everyone shut up now? DS (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course that don't actually fix the problem, but simply moves it elsewhere (out-of-sight) in the hopes that people will stop complaining. —Farix (t | c) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And telling "everyone" to "shut up" is the problem. At this point, editors who do not have anything directly relevant to say with respect to ANI probably don't need to be replied to anymore here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

DrV early close review

Hello, The DrV on Scroogle was closed early due to what the closer saw as a personal attack. See [116]. The closer and I had a brief discussion but they will be off-line for a while now. I personally don't think there was a personal attack nor do I feel that even if there was that it should have been closed early. That said, I'm a biased party and would like to get wider input from the community. Ideally I'd like it reopened and closed after having been open for the standard amount of time. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite reasonable to me to close a discussion a little early if the arguments have descended into personal attacks. The closer indicated that the outcome would be unlikely to change which also seems quite reasonable. I should note that it closed in the way I wanted it to. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Without addressing the other issues, and noting that I'm not exactly a disinterested party - see my comments in the DRV - I find weird Spartaz's statement that "we don't do no-consensus at DRV " when 1/3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews is devoted to what will happen if there is no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats new then because historically DRV had to find either to endorse or overturn and no-consensus was specifically not anoption. I have been wandering around DRV for years and may have not noticed the change if it happened during a break. I'll raise a thread at WT:DRV to discuss this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spartaz is right from a historic point of view. There was no such thing as a "no consensus" DRV until recently, apparently. But the tradition has also been that a lack of consensus tends to result in the original decision being upheld, as there's no consensus to overturn it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from a recurring vandal

Bringing this here rather than AIV or RFPP, because this involves a vandal on a dynamic IP, and the talk pages of two editors who aren't active at this hour. Can we get an admin to semi-protect User talk:Duae Quartunciae and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? There's an IP vandalizing those pages, and has been all night on IPs such as 59.108.44.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 211.239.84.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.102.102.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 118.98.215.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). We've been playing whack-a-mole with him, but a quick semi-pro would probably quiet things down for the night. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And now here at 78.28.202.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Dayewalker (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal uses one IP to vandalize those pages. When he is blocked, he uses another IP to continue disruptive editing. When that IP is blocked, the process repeats, sort of.  Merlion  444  10:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And now, he's moved on to 212.70.138.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can we please get some help on those pages? This guy needs a block and a girlfriend, although certainly not in that order. Dayewalker (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now it is suspect that he uses 190.145.26.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), vandalizing User talk:DarkFalls, User:Favonian and User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I do not know who is the sockmaster, but he probably uses those IPs as sockpuppets.  Merlion  444  10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now using 202.148.15.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to vandalise User:Favonian.  Merlion  444  11:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now using 201.12.27.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to do the same thing.  Merlion  444  11:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now using 212.70.138.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to vandalise my user page! People involved in reverting vandalism by those IPs gets their user (talk) page vandalised by them.  Merlion  444  11:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is tiresome. I suggest semi-protecting the affected pages for one day. But mine (not my talk page) should be protected indefinitely (make sure it is move protected too). 213.135.96.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalizing. All IPs mentioned in the section are edit warring.  Merlion  444  11:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef semi-protected your userpage and for 3 days your talk. Just drop a few words and I (or other admin) will change protection settings. Materialscientist (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank everyone involved in suppressing this vandalism while I slept through it. It certainly looks like it was a time-consuming and frustrating task. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I second that. I would've liked to help out, but I was sleeping at the time. Enigma^msg 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Move help please

I screwed up trying to send a page to the incubator. Could someone help move User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sexual acts?

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Y - Done. I have also semi-protected the page per previous reasons concerning the high probability of BLP violations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll add a note on the talkpage if any newbies show up. -- Banjeboi 15:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix user Killamanmatt1's monobook.css file

It looks like one-day user User:Killamanmatt1 screwed up their User:Killamanmatt1/monobook.css file by pasting an article into it. I noticed because their monobook page now appears in the encyclopedia categories. I recommend that the monobook file be reverted to its default state by an admin. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Killamanmatt1 (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Moved to User:Killamanmatt1/sandbox [without redirect]. –xeno^talk 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

protection of the article talk page

hi all,

for the first time in many years i've been on wikipedia i have seen an article talk page protected.

Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

could someone please investigate this, and see if it is justified?

thanks.

93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on it myself; but the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Semi-protection for talk page? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While talk page protection is not a common thing to do here, the talk page has seen an extreme infestation of socks and vandals. You can either create an account or post at the Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage for now. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu

Resolved

 – No extra steps are required. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

During the AfD discussion for Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu, the article's author moved the article to Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu as part of the editor's argument that the article is not a directory. Whether or not that is a great idea during an AfD is a different question all together (personally, I think the move should not have been made during an AfD), but as part of the move the editor manually changed some of the discussion code on the deletion discussion page. I undid those specific changes, but now I am unsure. What is the proper procedure when an editor moves an article during an AfD? Singularity42 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about moving AfD discussion along with article move. I'm Unfamiliar with AfD procedures, but I'll stick with article name change from Directory to Lists. Marcus334 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And just to be clear, although I don't fully agree with the move (especially at this time), that's not why I started this thread. Assuming the move is not a problem, what, if anything, needs to be done to the AfD discussion? Singularity42 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for page names to change during XfDs. It can be confusing, but it's not usually a big problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. As I said, I'm not taking issue with that in this thread. What I wanted to know was a)if I was correct in undoing Marcus334's changes to the discussion page's header, and b) is there a process that needs to be employed when a page is moved during an XfD that I don't know about? Singularity42 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just leave a comment there for the closer. Tim Song (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Resolved

 – Deleted. MuZemike 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an Administrator please delete this IP's user page. An editor accidentally warned the IP on the IP's user page, I've since moved the warnings to the IP's talk page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jed Robbins

The article has been re-created for a DJ who fails notability under WP:MUSICBIO. The article has been created multiple times at both Jed Robbins and Jed Robbins (DJ).

The author is Musicdraft (talk · contribs), who per the duck test also appears to be the same editor as 65.103.226.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

After multiple deletes, the author is now beginning to edit war over the {{db-bio}} tag on the article - and has ignored warnings to both talk pages that as the original author, they should instead add the {{hangon}} tag to the top of the article.

I won't revert the removal of the tag again, as I'm uncertain if reverting such removal is exempted from the 3RR rule or not. But, can an admin look at this page? It's clearly a self-promotional piece - and I'm suspecting that the pages may need to be salted due to the user's past practice of ignoring talk page comments and repeated re-creation of the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the removal of a CSD tag does not fall under 3RR if it is the author that keeps removing them. I find that when this comes up I go through the various levels of cautions, and then report it to AIV when the author removes the tag for the fifth time. I've also found that adding a {{notice}} with the CSD tag requesting SALT due to constant recreation is effective for these type of situations as well. Anyway, probably not needed in this case, as I'm sure an admin will read this thread and deal with the situation accordingly, but that might help for future situations. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts at Solid

User:Logger9 has reverted for the 3rd time certain edits on solid:

• I moved a figure showing an one-dimensional model of thermal vibrations to the "thermal properties" section; he moves it back to the top of the article.

You created a new section called thermal properties by copying the text from the image - word for word. Then you placed the image there. That text hardly constitutes section on thermal properties. The image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted lengthy explanations of anorganic and organic compounds; he restores them.

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is absurd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand why you are so dead set against them ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summaries, in part also at talk:solid; he reverts without entering discussion and even without edit summaries.

This behavior must seen in the context of a long history of conflicts in which Logger9 has been involved, lately at talk:liquid and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Solid: reverts by user:Logger9. In my humble and partial opinion, time has come for blocking Logger9 for a couple of days. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified Logger9 of this thread? Crafty (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9 has been notified of this conversation. Crafty (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also am concerned by the long-term edit behaviour of User:Logger9. I dissociate myself from the comment of the anon, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Logger9 seems intent on forging ahead despite the good faith objections of other editors, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. I have suggested at User_talk:Logger9 that more discussion and less editing would be better, and that a response either there or here is required before further editing. If there is no response, or the same editing pattern continues I think a block will be inevitable. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time Marie Poise tends to come across as overly agressive, which is not helping the situation. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have found the edits of logger9 to be of poor scientific quality and unhelpful to Wikipedia. In view of his continuing practice of ignoring pleas and warnings and ploughing ahead with his often inappropriate edits, for which he has been rebuked and blocked in the past, it is not surprising that irritation is aroused. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Not saying it isn't understandable, just unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think she can be held to be at fault after having been called a parasite. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise is obsessed with removing certain sections. In certain cases, I don't see why that is necessary. -- logger9 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that everytime an article is blocked from editing, it is Paula Pilcher/Marie Poises version that is retained. Conicidence ??? -- logger9 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one are most unhelpful. Is this the extent of your response? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.

Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.

When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."

We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.

Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.

And when queried by Wikipedia editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."

She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.

She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.

I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to.

In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.

I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.

I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.

-- logger9 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to respond to my request above? It's not just Marie who disagrees with your editing style, so we need to understand how you intend to work better with other editors. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to accept being called a parasite ? For the third time, by the way: this text has been pasted elsewhere before. I admit, I have been bold in my choice of words, too, and I am ready to apologize: These days, kind mediators brought to my attention the importance of the good faith / bad faith distinction, and I am ready to retract whatever in my past comments might be understood as assuming bad faith. Yet, Parasitism (social offense) is quite another level of insult, and worse than the word for which just above someone immediately got blocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Paula: (regarding her blanket deletion of several of my articles)

"It is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs......instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one.."

"...yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like..."

"Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text."

"The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening."

Alternatively:

"The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy." -- Colonel Warden

You maintain the following on your Userpage for all the world to see: "It is very easy to get nonsense in, and very difficult to get it out. See my attempts to stop User:Logger9 from dumping pseudoscientific blunder." Which is worse ?? It was suggested to you by a senior editor that you remove that content as being offensive -- yet you refused.

You are FAR more aggressive, confrontational, and non-negotiable than I have ever been. I have to do something just to stay afloat. If it were up to you, I wouldn't exist -- nor would any of my "pseudoscientific blunder". How would you feel if someone treated you like that on a daily 24/7 basis ????

When I sense apologies and/or retractions, than I will consider doing likewise. But as long as you keep that personal statement about me published on your Userpage, it is obvious the extent to which you have always been willing to go to belittle me and my work. It's very insulting. -- logger9 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had no serious problems with other editors. Materialscientist did a massive overhaul of much of my early work, and I agreed with virtually everything he requested. We also agreed on a section removal in Solids (Chemical analysis), as per his reasoning. I agree with constructive editing. In anything but extreme cases, I don't agree with removing vital sections "because the article is too long". -- logger9 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that is not quite true. I have only run into you in liquid, but there your style of editing (replacing an entire article with one of your own devising of a, in my opinion at least, somewhat poorer standard) did make me sad, and we did exchange a few bouts of words. Removing irrelevant stuff from pages is the 2nd-most important part of editing (just after adding important stuff) Esben (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you called me a "hotshot" ;-) You were caught midstream, ny friend (as most of Paula'a advocates are). What you did not realize was that she had previously deleted the ENTIRE article -- several times, in fact. I was just trying to put it back. -- logger9 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is still ongoing, Logger9 continued reverting without discussing at page liquid: he restored a subsection with crude speculations, supported by primary sources from the 1920s/30s, without answering to the reasons for deletion I had given in my edit summaries. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I added 3 short paragraphs on the effects of association in liquids. My reasons are now stated clearly there for you. I feel strongly that this material is critical for an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for liquid viscosity. The dates of the publications are irrelevant. -- logger9 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (preferably uninvolved parties) for discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction on your assumption. These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context it might be interesting to note that one of the threads Logger9 started at talk:liquid is entitled "In Defense of the Realm". According to WP, "a realm is a dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler." - Compare this to how physics of glass, ceramics engineering, colloidal crystal, phase transformations in solids and so on are all linked to each other by "See Also" links: it really is a network of private publications, and nobody would have cared, hadn't Logger9 transgressed the bounds of specialist lemmata and tried to incorporate key articles like "liquid" or "solid" into his realm. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody would have cared ???????? You have been trashing ALL of my articles since the Physics of glass. The picture you paint is always so devastingly crooked. I have to spend half of my life just defending myself from all the attacks you launch in all directions !

This discussion is a perfect example. You have them all on a witch hunt again. I congratulate you on your cunningness. But I still don't see any serious work done by you here on Wikipedia. -- logger9 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Logger,you said above "It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. " Nobody here owns a page at WP, (see WP:OWN) and the contents can be edited by anybody. If you disagree with what they have done, it needs to be discussed on the talk page--if you cannot reach agreement, DR is needed--probably starting here with a 3O from some other editor with experience in the subject. Wikipedia does not work by academic credentials, though we certainly encourage people with them to work here, and they certainly have no less right to edit than anyone else. It appears that in this case both you and Marie have credential in the subject. We are not asked to judge between them. At Citizendium, arguments over content can degenerate into arguments about whose academic credential are stronger, but we try not to do it here. We rely on the assumption that the person who understands the subject best will make the best edits, and that other editors will see that. Your attitude here about others' editing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and you will need to re-evaluate it.

Marie, this to some extent applies to you also: you are trying to write a version that you think better. What you need to do is to develop a version that is agreed by consensus to be better. On Talk: Liquid you proposed a vote between the two versions, but this is not the way we do things. Kev in properly protected that article, but as he said, it cannot stay protected indefinitely, and he un--protected it. He seems to be taking responsibility for bringing about a compromise, and I encourage him to continue with it. Kevin, if they both stayed away from boht articles, do uyou think you (with help from NW and others interested) could do what editing is necessary? We need someohow to get a consensus version.

As a practical matter i am quite prepared to block both parties a short time for persistent edit warring, regardless of merits of the edits--and I see from his talk page Kevin thinks similarly. But I would also be prepared to block Logger for longer periods if needed, until he is willing to engage in cooperative editing and both explains and shows that he has abandoned the idea of trying to own the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to "own" anything. But I can't just sit back and let Paula delete entire articles as she sees fit. And I think that allowing her to do so, while blocking me for a longer period, is hardly what I would call justice. She creates the scene, and I am the one who is punished. -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the situation. We're at the point that behavioral changes are needed for both logger9 and Marie Poise. A topic ban is another option I have been thinking about, for both editors. Clearly both have a difficulty in remaining neutral and one way or another they have to stop. My worry with a topic ban is that unless it is very broad the dispute will simply move somewhere else, or the talk pages will be flooded with large blocks of text rather than discussion. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be offline for a week for private reasons. Maybe that's a good coincidence. All the best - Marie Poise (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns of MS below, I want to again make something quite clear (since he has intentionally deleted my message, and ignored its contents). Correction on your assumption.

These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Formal Apology

I want to take this time to express my most sincere apologies and deepest regrets for any ill will I may have created by way of my deeds and actions here at Wikipedia. In retrospect, I can see now that thru my lack of constuctive interaction and feedback on the Talk pages, my silence has been interpreted as arrogance and/or hostility.

I am truly sorry for any behavior which has been construed as rude or unfriendly. I am very tired now of laying the blame on any specific individual(s) who may have somehow gotten me 'kick started'. I can see now that it would have been much better for all parties concerned if I had handled it in a more professional manner.

Being a classical Taurus, I am sometimes particularly headstrong when it comes to the completion of goal oriented activities. (The only person I know who is worse is my 25-year old Taurean son). Once I saw what was possible here, I could not stop until I had done the best job that I could possibly do with any and all articles closely related to my fields of study (Materials Science/Engr/Phys Chem/Mathematics) which appeared either to be in need of creation or service. To be honest, I have virtually completed the job I set out to do. I.E. I have no immediate plans for further article creation, major editing or contribution.

If anything, I may show some interest in Physical chemistry in the future. But I have already made one serious textbook shot at it, and it became immediately clear that was not what they are looking for to expand the stub. So I cleared out in totality. Solid and Liquid were both pretty much bonuses after the fact. I stumbled on Solid as a stub while searching all articles on mechanical properties. And Liquid has been in the back of my mind ever since one of the major Glass editors asked my why I had not included the Radial distribution function in my description of the Physics of glass. (I am still looking for a better image of g(r) for the Liquid page - concentric rings of high particle density w/ diffuse boundaries).

As far as I am concerned, my job here is virtually done for now. One thing I have learned while working here is that nothing stays the same. Nothing is carved in stone (like journal articles). Everything changes constantly -- much like a coastal beach which is ravaged by seastorms on a regular basis. And I will surely find it interesting to look back ten years from now and view the evolution of whatever I started here.

I also wish to thank you for the privilege of publishing my work on the world's largest information source. I have the highest opinion of the work done here @ Wikipedia, and I am very proud to be a contributor and editor. That is why the articles which I have contributed to in any major way are listed on my website. There is no other reason. Other than teaching, this has been my primary work arena this past year -- and I would like to show people what is possible here.

In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone the best of luck with all of their future activities at Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you all find it as rewarding as I have. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the expression and presentation of scientific knowledge, there is no substitute :-) -- logger9 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (uninvolved parties) for a discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MS that some form of COI is happening with logger9 (and not just evidenced by his website, which is overall a minor concern IMO). IMO, it is absurd to think that logger9 purposefully wants to harm Wikipedia. logger9 seems to be used to write journal articles or reviews, and thus apply the same line of reasoning when writing Wikipedia article. The problem is that writing like in a article/review does not translate well on Wikipedia. First is the concern of original synthesis. What would tremendously help IMO is sticking to the ideas and views found in literature reviews and textbooks. AKA if the ideas are not in a textbook, leave them out. Second is that reviews need to cover every little detail and cite everything that's been done on each of the details since the last review plus what's considered to be standard citations for those details. On wikipedia, you are much better off saying "Bob proposed the theory of X, in 1949.[1] The theory explain the implication of X on the first[2] and third[3] laws of thermodynamics." than "Following the work of Claude[1], Suzy[2-3], Paul[4-6], and Jim[7-9], Bob[10] proposed the theory of X,[11] which explains the first[2,6,12-16] and third[4,8,10,17-20] laws of thermodynamics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

It is quite clear that an administrative action is required in this case. Please place your suggestion here. I understand the solution is not straightforward, but please try to be brief. Logger9 and Marie Poise. Please do not edit this section. Other editors, please move your comments here as necessary. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Topic ban for Logger9. I have expressed the view before that the edits of logger9 are of indifferent quality. They demonstrate little ability to synthesise the material into an effective overview and to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant material. They are sometimes verbose and rambling. While this was not important in the earlier stages of Wikipedia it is becoming more noticeable as WP matures and its overall quality improves. This is a content issue and administrative action is not needed to deal with it. It does explain, though, why other editors are attempting to improve the articles of logger9 and are becoming frustrated at the obstacles they find in doing so. What is more disturbing is logger9's reaction to those who attempt to develop and improve the articles that he identifies himself with on his web site http://www.wavesignal.com/. His standard operating procedure is to revert to his own version. He ignores, provokes, insults (parasite) and drives other editors away. I fear that there is only one way to deal with obsessive and recalcitrant behaviour of this sort (which unfortunately is not uncommon on WP). I suggest an indefinite ban on his editing the articles that he identifies with namely: Solid, Sol-gel, Liquid, Crystal growth, Crystal structure, Kinetic theory of solids, Transparent materials, Transparent ceramics, Ceramic engineering, Nanotechnology, Strength of glass, Physics of glass, Glass transition, Colloidal crystal, Light scattering, Spinodal decomposition, Transformation toughening, Plastic deformation in solids, Phase transformations in solids. Those of his edits that are found to be useful will be retained; those that are not can be improved without the threat of an edit war. An indefinite ban is not a permanent ban and when the articles have settled into a steady state after the efforts of other editors logger9 can appeal for release from the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
• Support: Xxanthippe's proposal of a restriction that would keep User:logger9 from editing the above-listed articles. From the above discussion, it's clear that editing by Logger9 is causing distress among several editors who work on those articles. His responses in this thread seem inappropriate, and don't reflect a sincere desire to reach compromise. The observations by Materialscientist and Headbomb about a COI are sensible. The title of this thread is #Repeated reverts at Solid, so this is a long-term edit-warring complaint of the kind that ANI can and does handle whenever there is a problem affecting many people. Logger9's effort to find consensus for his edits seems weak and inadequate. (If his edits had found support, he wouldn't have to keep reverting them back in all the time). EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support restrictions. logger9 does not seem to understand or even care about the nature of the Wikiproject (i.e. what WE is or is not, the concept of consensus, or just walking away from articles when things get tense). Logger9's contributions that I have dealt with have been inferior in quality. The editor is not stupid, just very tone-deaf. The ideal approach (that is impractical) would be that Logger9 be required to submit proposed editing plans and seek some pre-editing consensus.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, I will Support, although with the option of allowing him to edit the talk pages constructively so he may learn the way consensus works. This has got to be one of the worst cases of WP:OWNership I've ever seen. Auntie E. 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot - Unfortunately, Logger has decided to leave the project.[117] I suggest we just archive the thread and let things be as they are. NW (Talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aside from the decision, he also apologized to all Wikipedians involved. However, as being uninvolved, I would say Dismal Support.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your confidence is misplaced. Since he issued his Apology logger9 has continued to edit the project, making nine more edits to Solid, one to Physics of glass. The sad truth is that people who behave in this manner are unable to control their compulsions. The only way to get them to stop is to apply external constraint. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Very surprising. For the moment someone had told me that he had left Wikipedia per Nuclear Warfare's comment above! Possible misinterpertations, maybe?--_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Though still do not believe intentional harm was intended, several articles declined markedly in quality during his "stewardship". I believe this course of actions do seem to be the only way to improve Wikipedia. Though I agree that it appears to be moot from his recent apology. Also note that I was slightly involved in the case, though not in the actual edit-war Esben (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot I do not think it is any of our business as admins to judge article quality and give topic bans for that reason. The reason for a block seems no longer to be present. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the real issue is the behavior, which I note has not changed since the apology above. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm on the fence here, as I think a ban should be a last resort. Clearly, there is a problem that goes beyond the normal POV pushing and rude behavior. Logger9's tactics are subtle while the overall strategy seems pretty blatant. I have tried myself to help give Logger9 advice on editing in a more collaborative manner, to improve writing style, and to use a little more of a diplomatic approach. I have suggested that Logger9 try working on something else, like vandalism reversion or some other type of article which he is less passionate about, if for no other reason than as a learning experience. I have seen some slight improvement in writing style, but have not seen much improvement in other areas. Areas which others have clearly expressed on this and many talk pages. At this point, I too would have to support a topic ban, but would like to see if Logger9 could then be able to contribute constructively on the talk pages. I would very much like to see if Logger9 can learn from past mistakes and the advice of others, and can begin to contribute constructively in other areas. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dapi89

I had left the following note about Dapi89 on this board that Dapi89 deleted [[118]]. Not sure about the "legality" of his action, is a user allowed to delete a post bringing his behavior to admin notice? Here is the original post again:

This editor has repeatedly indulged in uncivil behavior. He has been blocked 4 times earlier by 3 different administrators but continues to use offensive language.

Dapi89's block logs [[119]] Last blocked on July 2009

Since being unblocked Dapi89 has indulged in the following uncivil behavior:

Calling edit by Slatersteven "nonsense edits" [[120]]

Calling edit by Redheylin "silly" [[121]]

Message left on my IP page (I registered this name later) in Dapi89 wrote: "Your 'edits' to the Battle of Kursk and Blitzkrieg are stupid" and "find the appropriate article to do it instead of dicking around". [[122]]

Message left on my talk page "you are incapable of common sense" [[123]]

Please note that my responses to Dapi89 have always been civil, I have confined myself to explaining why I was making a particular edit.

Given that Dapi89 has previously been blocked yet persists in uncivil behavior, I would ask an admin to take necessary action.

Thanks,

Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left Dapi89 a message re the deletion of discussions from ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this. Basket of Puppies 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The removal was unacceptable, but I don't see that an admin action is needed against Dapi89. He needs warning about civility, but I don't see that a block would be helpful at this point. Fences&Windows 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He has previously been warned for incivility and even been blocked 3 times, with little effect apparently. Steel2009 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank the editors who see Steel2009's complaint as nonsense. The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour. Lack of civility is repeatedly undoing another editors LOGICAL restorations and refusing to negotiate. Military history articles are thought out chronologically. Steel2009 seems to think chronology, his "opinion" counts more than consensus and logic. He has been disruptive, he has used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR,m and now he has the cheek to complain - of course he only did so because I filed a complaint. This in itself is puerile in the extreme. I can see the sensible heads here are ignoring his B.S. Steel2009: You are a new editor that has not contributed ANYTHING to wikipedia yet. All bar one of your edits has been reverted, and you are heading down the road of becoming a consistently blocked editor. The previous blocks of mine you notice, were a result of a running dispute with ONE other editor. So keep your erroneous accusations to yourself. 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide the diffs showing that I have "used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR". This is a pretty serious allegation, and I would like you to follow up on this. Also you continue using abusive words like "puerile", "BS" etc. And really, two editors who disagree with one does not a consensus make. I do think you should apologize to Slatersteven and Redheylin for your incivility towards them. Steel2009 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Steel2009 followed advice given when his edits to Battle of Kursk were brought here, fruitful discussion and good editing appears to have followed. If Dapi89 is still at it, it would appear he is the one causing the problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thanks. Also note that besides continuing to use uncivil language on this very page, Dapi is also justifying his earlier improper removal of the posted item on this page by "The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour." Rather than admitting it was wrong to do so, his position is that it is someone else's fault. Steel2009 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have known and worked with Dapi89 for almost three years now. In this timeframe I have learned to appreciate his exceptional deep and thorough knowledge of military history. His editing is extremely well researched, broad in coverage and unbiased in nature. I understand that this incident here has nothing to do with his skill as an editor but I feel that it must be taken into consideration when judging his actions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no exception for well informed editors in Civility which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.. Steel2009 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, editors who make a lot of positive contributions to the encyclopedia are given a greater tolerance than those who don't. Call it inconsistency, call it following WP:IAR, but that's the reality. The justification for this is that our goal is to build an encyclopedia and putting up with bad behavior is sometimes necessary. I don't really like it but if Dapi89 gets a pass, know that this is why. -- Atama頭 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As per the messaging on my page: I won't be repsonding to anymore baiting by the trouble maker. In repsonse to his latest 'post': We are here because of you. No one else, just you. Good day. Dapi89 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So it really comes down to the question: Does the Wikipedia community as represented by the administrators really stand by the so called "5 pillars of Wikipedia"? It is quite obvious from Dapi's continued lack of any expressed remorse at his past behavior, and continuing incivility ("trouble maker") that he is going to continue being uncivil. Non-action in this case equals acceptance. Cheers, Steel2009 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts adding defamatory comments at an AFD

Apparently, I have incurred the wrath of Mustapha Khalid and the employees of his firm. After nominating the vanity autobiography for an AFD, the subject (most probably) and/or persons associated with him are creating attack pages with defamatory comments about me.

• Talk:Mustapha Khalid - see Priority09's comment, which was removed by an admin.
• AFD/Mustapha Khalid, comment by User:Homar2155, which I had removed as attack text, but he has since re-inserted the personal attack.
• Banglabhai01 vandalized my talk page by adding defamatory comments.
• Shipoftruth/

Note that all these accounts have been created just today, and are only vandalism only accounts, and I'm pretty sure that they will turn out to be socks belonging to User:Mustapha khalid (the subject of the article under AFD).

Cunard has since cleaned up the AFD, but seems like the trolls keep on creating accounts to bypass the bans. I am hesitant to block the trolls since I have nominated the article for AFD, so I'll recuse myself from taking any admin actions against them, but I'll appreciate if another admin can look into these group of vandals. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the editors mentioned here have since been blocked, has there been any more trouble? -- Atama頭 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaggedstar13

Jaggedstar13 has been making poor edits. He has also been blaming the administrator Gogo Dodo for his actions. He needs some sort of block, in my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just left a warning on his talk page about making personal attacks. In my view he should be blocked as I deem his actions so far to be disruptive, and not a benefit to the project. ArcAngel (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's what I've been doing with all of my time. Uh huh... That's pretty funny. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence" provided of your hacking is indisputable! edit of evidence. LOL. ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for block for two days of User:HkFnsNGA

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. There is no actionable request here, if you are concerned about your own behavior, seek a medical professional
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting that User:HkFnsNGA be blocked for two days. I am User:HkFnsNGA. I wrote an "article", initially with no sources, on Louis Lesser. Other editors interpreted my very poorly sourced article as a "hoax", going so far as to call me a "liar", "fraud", etc. I then began to read hundreds of news articles. I thought I was working for a day or two, but I just noticed that what seemed like yesterday was more than a week ago. I did not see friends or family for Thanksgiving, but stayed in editing. I went outside for a breather, and world outside looked unreal. All I could think of was getting back and doing my next edit, or reading the next source. After the holiday weekend, I did not work today. I was about call in sick for tomorrow. I did not eat all day and I am not hungry, but instead feel like trying to finish my article and make it to a good standard. This reminds me of when I wrote my first computer program, and it would not work, and abuot two weeks later I noticed it was two weeks later. This sounds like a joke, but it is actually true. If I am not blocked for day, I might lose my job. I want to make the article to Wikipedia standards, but I am requesting a block on my own account for one day, so I can not edit, until I eat and excercise and talk to at least one real world person, and go outside at least once. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) See above, where I started off the paragraph requesting a "two day" block of myself, then changed it to "one day" by the end of the paragraph. That just shows the point I am making. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You can use the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to self-impose a wikibreak on your own user account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No I can't. Because WikiBreak Enforcer says "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address". So the tool is completely useless, since I would just go to a friend's house, and ask to use their computer, and edit anon, to get my Louis Lesser article finished. So if I am not blocked, I will call for either blocking every editor for two days, or nominate the "Administrators Notice Board" for deletion, until the "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address" problem is fixed. Can anyone show me how to do this? Or can someone do it for me? I am not sure I can do it voluntarily. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You can still view wikipedia from a blocked account or IP address. Frankly if your plan is just to be nettlesome, I'll just as soon block you indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The ability to edit from an IP is not a flaw as you suggest - it is by design. Also, there is no point in blocking access for every user for two days when only one person claims obsessive behavior; afterall, why should an entire community be penalized for the personal issues of a single user? It simply isn't going to happen. If you plan is to become intentionally disruptive, as your comment that you plan to repeatedly "nominate the 'Administrators Notice Board' for deletion", then you're more likely to receive a permanent block on your account. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. The Wikibreak Enforcer tool helps - but if you intentionally go around the self-imposed block, that's an issue that you may want to seek assistance to resolve. Either by having a friend change your PC's password (your earlier comment suggests that your girlfriend may be willing to help you on that), or some other friend or professional assistance with addressing any obsessive behaviors that you may feel you need to resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts at Solid

User:Logger9 has reverted for the 3rd time certain edits on solid:

• I moved a figure showing an one-dimensional model of thermal vibrations to the "thermal properties" section; he moves it back to the top of the article.

You created a new section called thermal properties by copying the text from the image - word for word. Then you placed the image there. That text hardly constitutes section on thermal properties. The image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted lengthy explanations of anorganic and organic compounds; he restores them.

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is absurd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand why you are so dead set against them ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summaries, in part also at talk:solid; he reverts without entering discussion and even without edit summaries.

This behavior must seen in the context of a long history of conflicts in which Logger9 has been involved, lately at talk:liquid and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Solid: reverts by user:Logger9. In my humble and partial opinion, time has come for blocking Logger9 for a couple of days. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified Logger9 of this thread? Crafty (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9 has been notified of this conversation. Crafty (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also am concerned by the long-term edit behaviour of User:Logger9. I dissociate myself from the comment of the anon, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Logger9 seems intent on forging ahead despite the good faith objections of other editors, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. I have suggested at User_talk:Logger9 that more discussion and less editing would be better, and that a response either there or here is required before further editing. If there is no response, or the same editing pattern continues I think a block will be inevitable. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time Marie Poise tends to come across as overly agressive, which is not helping the situation. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have found the edits of logger9 to be of poor scientific quality and unhelpful to Wikipedia. In view of his continuing practice of ignoring pleas and warnings and ploughing ahead with his often inappropriate edits, for which he has been rebuked and blocked in the past, it is not surprising that irritation is aroused. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Not saying it isn't understandable, just unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think she can be held to be at fault after having been called a parasite. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise is obsessed with removing certain sections. In certain cases, I don't see why that is necessary. -- logger9 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that everytime an article is blocked from editing, it is Paula Pilcher/Marie Poises version that is retained. Conicidence ??? -- logger9 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one are most unhelpful. Is this the extent of your response? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.

Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.

When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."

We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.

Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.

And when queried by Wikipedia editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."

She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.

She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.

I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to.

In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.

I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.

I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.

-- logger9 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to respond to my request above? It's not just Marie who disagrees with your editing style, so we need to understand how you intend to work better with other editors. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to accept being called a parasite ? For the third time, by the way: this text has been pasted elsewhere before. I admit, I have been bold in my choice of words, too, and I am ready to apologize: These days, kind mediators brought to my attention the importance of the good faith / bad faith distinction, and I am ready to retract whatever in my past comments might be understood as assuming bad faith. Yet, Parasitism (social offense) is quite another level of insult, and worse than the word for which just above someone immediately got blocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Paula: (regarding her blanket deletion of several of my articles)

"It is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs......instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one.."

"...yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like..."

"Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text."

"The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening."

Alternatively:

"The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy." -- Colonel Warden

You maintain the following on your Userpage for all the world to see: "It is very easy to get nonsense in, and very difficult to get it out. See my attempts to stop User:Logger9 from dumping pseudoscientific blunder." Which is worse ?? It was suggested to you by a senior editor that you remove that content as being offensive -- yet you refused.

You are FAR more aggressive, confrontational, and non-negotiable than I have ever been. I have to do something just to stay afloat. If it were up to you, I wouldn't exist -- nor would any of my "pseudoscientific blunder". How would you feel if someone treated you like that on a daily 24/7 basis ????

When I sense apologies and/or retractions, than I will consider doing likewise. But as long as you keep that personal statement about me published on your Userpage, it is obvious the extent to which you have always been willing to go to belittle me and my work. It's very insulting. -- logger9 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had no serious problems with other editors. Materialscientist did a massive overhaul of much of my early work, and I agreed with virtually everything he requested. We also agreed on a section removal in Solids (Chemical analysis), as per his reasoning. I agree with constructive editing. In anything but extreme cases, I don't agree with removing vital sections "because the article is too long". -- logger9 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that is not quite true. I have only run into you in liquid, but there your style of editing (replacing an entire article with one of your own devising of a, in my opinion at least, somewhat poorer standard) did make me sad, and we did exchange a few bouts of words. Removing irrelevant stuff from pages is the 2nd-most important part of editing (just after adding important stuff) Esben (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you called me a "hotshot" ;-) You were caught midstream, ny friend (as most of Paula'a advocates are). What you did not realize was that she had previously deleted the ENTIRE article -- several times, in fact. I was just trying to put it back. -- logger9 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is still ongoing, Logger9 continued reverting without discussing at page liquid: he restored a subsection with crude speculations, supported by primary sources from the 1920s/30s, without answering to the reasons for deletion I had given in my edit summaries. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I added 3 short paragraphs on the effects of association in liquids. My reasons are now stated clearly there for you. I feel strongly that this material is critical for an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for liquid viscosity. The dates of the publications are irrelevant. -- logger9 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (preferably uninvolved parties) for discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction on your assumption. These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context it might be interesting to note that one of the threads Logger9 started at talk:liquid is entitled "In Defense of the Realm". According to WP, "a realm is a dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler." - Compare this to how physics of glass, ceramics engineering, colloidal crystal, phase transformations in solids and so on are all linked to each other by "See Also" links: it really is a network of private publications, and nobody would have cared, hadn't Logger9 transgressed the bounds of specialist lemmata and tried to incorporate key articles like "liquid" or "solid" into his realm. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody would have cared ???????? You have been trashing ALL of my articles since the Physics of glass. The picture you paint is always so devastingly crooked. I have to spend half of my life just defending myself from all the attacks you launch in all directions !

This discussion is a perfect example. You have them all on a witch hunt again. I congratulate you on your cunningness. But I still don't see any serious work done by you here on Wikipedia. -- logger9 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Logger,you said above "It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. " Nobody here owns a page at WP, (see WP:OWN) and the contents can be edited by anybody. If you disagree with what they have done, it needs to be discussed on the talk page--if you cannot reach agreement, DR is needed--probably starting here with a 3O from some other editor with experience in the subject. Wikipedia does not work by academic credentials, though we certainly encourage people with them to work here, and they certainly have no less right to edit than anyone else. It appears that in this case both you and Marie have credential in the subject. We are not asked to judge between them. At Citizendium, arguments over content can degenerate into arguments about whose academic credential are stronger, but we try not to do it here. We rely on the assumption that the person who understands the subject best will make the best edits, and that other editors will see that. Your attitude here about others' editing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and you will need to re-evaluate it.

Marie, this to some extent applies to you also: you are trying to write a version that you think better. What you need to do is to develop a version that is agreed by consensus to be better. On Talk: Liquid you proposed a vote between the two versions, but this is not the way we do things. Kev in properly protected that article, but as he said, it cannot stay protected indefinitely, and he un--protected it. He seems to be taking responsibility for bringing about a compromise, and I encourage him to continue with it. Kevin, if they both stayed away from boht articles, do uyou think you (with help from NW and others interested) could do what editing is necessary? We need someohow to get a consensus version.

As a practical matter i am quite prepared to block both parties a short time for persistent edit warring, regardless of merits of the edits--and I see from his talk page Kevin thinks similarly. But I would also be prepared to block Logger for longer periods if needed, until he is willing to engage in cooperative editing and both explains and shows that he has abandoned the idea of trying to own the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to "own" anything. But I can't just sit back and let Paula delete entire articles as she sees fit. And I think that allowing her to do so, while blocking me for a longer period, is hardly what I would call justice. She creates the scene, and I am the one who is punished. -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the situation. We're at the point that behavioral changes are needed for both logger9 and Marie Poise. A topic ban is another option I have been thinking about, for both editors. Clearly both have a difficulty in remaining neutral and one way or another they have to stop. My worry with a topic ban is that unless it is very broad the dispute will simply move somewhere else, or the talk pages will be flooded with large blocks of text rather than discussion. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be offline for a week for private reasons. Maybe that's a good coincidence. All the best - Marie Poise (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns of MS below, I want to again make something quite clear (since he has intentionally deleted my message, and ignored its contents). Correction on your assumption.

These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Formal Apology

I want to take this time to express my most sincere apologies and deepest regrets for any ill will I may have created by way of my deeds and actions here at Wikipedia. In retrospect, I can see now that thru my lack of constuctive interaction and feedback on the Talk pages, my silence has been interpreted as arrogance and/or hostility.

I am truly sorry for any behavior which has been construed as rude or unfriendly. I am very tired now of laying the blame on any specific individual(s) who may have somehow gotten me 'kick started'. I can see now that it would have been much better for all parties concerned if I had handled it in a more professional manner.

Being a classical Taurus, I am sometimes particularly headstrong when it comes to the completion of goal oriented activities. (The only person I know who is worse is my 25-year old Taurean son). Once I saw what was possible here, I could not stop until I had done the best job that I could possibly do with any and all articles closely related to my fields of study (Materials Science/Engr/Phys Chem/Mathematics) which appeared either to be in need of creation or service. To be honest, I have virtually completed the job I set out to do. I.E. I have no immediate plans for further article creation, major editing or contribution.

If anything, I may show some interest in Physical chemistry in the future. But I have already made one serious textbook shot at it, and it became immediately clear that was not what they are looking for to expand the stub. So I cleared out in totality. Solid and Liquid were both pretty much bonuses after the fact. I stumbled on Solid as a stub while searching all articles on mechanical properties. And Liquid has been in the back of my mind ever since one of the major Glass editors asked my why I had not included the Radial distribution function in my description of the Physics of glass. (I am still looking for a better image of g(r) for the Liquid page - concentric rings of high particle density w/ diffuse boundaries).

As far as I am concerned, my job here is virtually done for now. One thing I have learned while working here is that nothing stays the same. Nothing is carved in stone (like journal articles). Everything changes constantly -- much like a coastal beach which is ravaged by seastorms on a regular basis. And I will surely find it interesting to look back ten years from now and view the evolution of whatever I started here.

I also wish to thank you for the privilege of publishing my work on the world's largest information source. I have the highest opinion of the work done here @ Wikipedia, and I am very proud to be a contributor and editor. That is why the articles which I have contributed to in any major way are listed on my website. There is no other reason. Other than teaching, this has been my primary work arena this past year -- and I would like to show people what is possible here.

In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone the best of luck with all of their future activities at Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you all find it as rewarding as I have. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the expression and presentation of scientific knowledge, there is no substitute :-) -- logger9 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (uninvolved parties) for a discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MS that some form of COI is happening with logger9 (and not just evidenced by his website, which is overall a minor concern IMO). IMO, it is absurd to think that logger9 purposefully wants to harm Wikipedia. logger9 seems to be used to write journal articles or reviews, and thus apply the same line of reasoning when writing Wikipedia article. The problem is that writing like in a article/review does not translate well on Wikipedia. First is the concern of original synthesis. What would tremendously help IMO is sticking to the ideas and views found in literature reviews and textbooks. AKA if the ideas are not in a textbook, leave them out. Second is that reviews need to cover every little detail and cite everything that's been done on each of the details since the last review plus what's considered to be standard citations for those details. On wikipedia, you are much better off saying "Bob proposed the theory of X, in 1949.[1] The theory explain the implication of X on the first[2] and third[3] laws of thermodynamics." than "Following the work of Claude[1], Suzy[2-3], Paul[4-6], and Jim[7-9], Bob[10] proposed the theory of X,[11] which explains the first[2,6,12-16] and third[4,8,10,17-20] laws of thermodynamics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

It is quite clear that an administrative action is required in this case. Please place your suggestion here. I understand the solution is not straightforward, but please try to be brief. Logger9 and Marie Poise. Please do not edit this section. Other editors, please move your comments here as necessary. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Topic ban for Logger9. I have expressed the view before that the edits of logger9 are of indifferent quality. They demonstrate little ability to synthesise the material into an effective overview and to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant material. They are sometimes verbose and rambling. While this was not important in the earlier stages of Wikipedia it is becoming more noticeable as WP matures and its overall quality improves. This is a content issue and administrative action is not needed to deal with it. It does explain, though, why other editors are attempting to improve the articles of logger9 and are becoming frustrated at the obstacles they find in doing so. What is more disturbing is logger9's reaction to those who attempt to develop and improve the articles that he identifies himself with on his web site http://www.wavesignal.com/. His standard operating procedure is to revert to his own version. He ignores, provokes, insults (parasite) and drives other editors away. I fear that there is only one way to deal with obsessive and recalcitrant behaviour of this sort (which unfortunately is not uncommon on WP). I suggest an indefinite ban on his editing the articles that he identifies with namely: Solid, Sol-gel, Liquid, Crystal growth, Crystal structure, Kinetic theory of solids, Transparent materials, Transparent ceramics, Ceramic engineering, Nanotechnology, Strength of glass, Physics of glass, Glass transition, Colloidal crystal, Light scattering, Spinodal decomposition, Transformation toughening, Plastic deformation in solids, Phase transformations in solids. Those of his edits that are found to be useful will be retained; those that are not can be improved without the threat of an edit war. An indefinite ban is not a permanent ban and when the articles have settled into a steady state after the efforts of other editors logger9 can appeal for release from the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
• Support: Xxanthippe's proposal of a restriction that would keep User:logger9 from editing the above-listed articles. From the above discussion, it's clear that editing by Logger9 is causing distress among several editors who work on those articles. His responses in this thread seem inappropriate, and don't reflect a sincere desire to reach compromise. The observations by Materialscientist and Headbomb about a COI are sensible. The title of this thread is #Repeated reverts at Solid, so this is a long-term edit-warring complaint of the kind that ANI can and does handle whenever there is a problem affecting many people. Logger9's effort to find consensus for his edits seems weak and inadequate. (If his edits had found support, he wouldn't have to keep reverting them back in all the time). EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support restrictions. logger9 does not seem to understand or even care about the nature of the Wikiproject (i.e. what WE is or is not, the concept of consensus, or just walking away from articles when things get tense). Logger9's contributions that I have dealt with have been inferior in quality. The editor is not stupid, just very tone-deaf. The ideal approach (that is impractical) would be that Logger9 be required to submit proposed editing plans and seek some pre-editing consensus.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, I will Support, although with the option of allowing him to edit the talk pages constructively so he may learn the way consensus works. This has got to be one of the worst cases of WP:OWNership I've ever seen. Auntie E. 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot - Unfortunately, Logger has decided to leave the project.[124] I suggest we just archive the thread and let things be as they are. NW (Talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aside from the decision, he also apologized to all Wikipedians involved. However, as being uninvolved, I would say Dismal Support.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your confidence is misplaced. Since he issued his Apology logger9 has continued to edit the project, making nine more edits to Solid, one to Physics of glass. The sad truth is that people who behave in this manner are unable to control their compulsions. The only way to get them to stop is to apply external constraint. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Very surprising. For the moment someone had told me that he had left Wikipedia per Nuclear Warfare's comment above! Possible misinterpertations, maybe?--_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Though still do not believe intentional harm was intended, several articles declined markedly in quality during his "stewardship". I believe this course of actions do seem to be the only way to improve Wikipedia. Though I agree that it appears to be moot from his recent apology. Also note that I was slightly involved in the case, though not in the actual edit-war Esben (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot I do not think it is any of our business as admins to judge article quality and give topic bans for that reason. The reason for a block seems no longer to be present. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the real issue is the behavior, which I note has not changed since the apology above. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm on the fence here, as I think a ban should be a last resort. Clearly, there is a problem that goes beyond the normal POV pushing and rude behavior. Logger9's tactics are subtle while the overall strategy seems pretty blatant. I have tried myself to help give Logger9 advice on editing in a more collaborative manner, to improve writing style, and to use a little more of a diplomatic approach. I have suggested that Logger9 try working on something else, like vandalism reversion or some other type of article which he is less passionate about, if for no other reason than as a learning experience. I have seen some slight improvement in writing style, but have not seen much improvement in other areas. Areas which others have clearly expressed on this and many talk pages. At this point, I too would have to support a topic ban, but would like to see if Logger9 could then be able to contribute constructively on the talk pages. I would very much like to see if Logger9 can learn from past mistakes and the advice of others, and can begin to contribute constructively in other areas. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dapi89

I had left the following note about Dapi89 on this board that Dapi89 deleted [[125]]. Not sure about the "legality" of his action, is a user allowed to delete a post bringing his behavior to admin notice? Here is the original post again:

This editor has repeatedly indulged in uncivil behavior. He has been blocked 4 times earlier by 3 different administrators but continues to use offensive language.

Dapi89's block logs [[126]] Last blocked on July 2009

Since being unblocked Dapi89 has indulged in the following uncivil behavior:

Calling edit by Slatersteven "nonsense edits" [[127]]

Calling edit by Redheylin "silly" [[128]]

Message left on my IP page (I registered this name later) in Dapi89 wrote: "Your 'edits' to the Battle of Kursk and Blitzkrieg are stupid" and "find the appropriate article to do it instead of dicking around". [[129]]

Message left on my talk page "you are incapable of common sense" [[130]]

Please note that my responses to Dapi89 have always been civil, I have confined myself to explaining why I was making a particular edit.

Given that Dapi89 has previously been blocked yet persists in uncivil behavior, I would ask an admin to take necessary action.

Thanks,

Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left Dapi89 a message re the deletion of discussions from ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this. Basket of Puppies 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The removal was unacceptable, but I don't see that an admin action is needed against Dapi89. He needs warning about civility, but I don't see that a block would be helpful at this point. Fences&Windows 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He has previously been warned for incivility and even been blocked 3 times, with little effect apparently. Steel2009 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank the editors who see Steel2009's complaint as nonsense. The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour. Lack of civility is repeatedly undoing another editors LOGICAL restorations and refusing to negotiate. Military history articles are thought out chronologically. Steel2009 seems to think chronology, his "opinion" counts more than consensus and logic. He has been disruptive, he has used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR,m and now he has the cheek to complain - of course he only did so because I filed a complaint. This in itself is puerile in the extreme. I can see the sensible heads here are ignoring his B.S. Steel2009: You are a new editor that has not contributed ANYTHING to wikipedia yet. All bar one of your edits has been reverted, and you are heading down the road of becoming a consistently blocked editor. The previous blocks of mine you notice, were a result of a running dispute with ONE other editor. So keep your erroneous accusations to yourself. 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide the diffs showing that I have "used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR". This is a pretty serious allegation, and I would like you to follow up on this. Also you continue using abusive words like "puerile", "BS" etc. And really, two editors who disagree with one does not a consensus make. I do think you should apologize to Slatersteven and Redheylin for your incivility towards them. Steel2009 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Steel2009 followed advice given when his edits to Battle of Kursk were brought here, fruitful discussion and good editing appears to have followed. If Dapi89 is still at it, it would appear he is the one causing the problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thanks. Also note that besides continuing to use uncivil language on this very page, Dapi is also justifying his earlier improper removal of the posted item on this page by "The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour." Rather than admitting it was wrong to do so, his position is that it is someone else's fault. Steel2009 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have known and worked with Dapi89 for almost three years now. In this timeframe I have learned to appreciate his exceptional deep and thorough knowledge of military history. His editing is extremely well researched, broad in coverage and unbiased in nature. I understand that this incident here has nothing to do with his skill as an editor but I feel that it must be taken into consideration when judging his actions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no exception for well informed editors in Civility which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.. Steel2009 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, editors who make a lot of positive contributions to the encyclopedia are given a greater tolerance than those who don't. Call it inconsistency, call it following WP:IAR, but that's the reality. The justification for this is that our goal is to build an encyclopedia and putting up with bad behavior is sometimes necessary. I don't really like it but if Dapi89 gets a pass, know that this is why. -- Atama頭 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As per the messaging on my page: I won't be repsonding to anymore baiting by the trouble maker. In repsonse to his latest 'post': We are here because of you. No one else, just you. Good day. Dapi89 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So it really comes down to the question: Does the Wikipedia community as represented by the administrators really stand by the so called "5 pillars of Wikipedia"? It is quite obvious from Dapi's continued lack of any expressed remorse at his past behavior, and continuing incivility ("trouble maker") that he is going to continue being uncivil. Non-action in this case equals acceptance. Cheers, Steel2009 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts adding defamatory comments at an AFD

Apparently, I have incurred the wrath of Mustapha Khalid and the employees of his firm. After nominating the vanity autobiography for an AFD, the subject (most probably) and/or persons associated with him are creating attack pages with defamatory comments about me.

• Talk:Mustapha Khalid - see Priority09's comment, which was removed by an admin.
• AFD/Mustapha Khalid, comment by User:Homar2155, which I had removed as attack text, but he has since re-inserted the personal attack.
• Banglabhai01 vandalized my talk page by adding defamatory comments.
• Shipoftruth/

Note that all these accounts have been created just today, and are only vandalism only accounts, and I'm pretty sure that they will turn out to be socks belonging to User:Mustapha khalid (the subject of the article under AFD).

Cunard has since cleaned up the AFD, but seems like the trolls keep on creating accounts to bypass the bans. I am hesitant to block the trolls since I have nominated the article for AFD, so I'll recuse myself from taking any admin actions against them, but I'll appreciate if another admin can look into these group of vandals. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the editors mentioned here have since been blocked, has there been any more trouble? -- Atama頭 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper rollback use

Resolved

 – Sceptre did not do anything wrong. Tan | 39 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this edit ([131], which readded a disputed shock image of a gaping rectum to the Goatse.cx article) qualifies as one of the accepted uses of the rollback function. I noticed this user has had the rollback privilege removed before; perhaps this is another one of those times. 72.65.200.22 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed not vandalism and rollback should not have been used. Sceptre went to the talk page after that to discuss, so I wouldn't call it rollback abuse. But yeah, he should've used "undo". The end result would've been the same though.--Atlan (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do admit that it was a bit iffy, the fact that I went straight to the talk page right after and the fact that the person I reverted was an admin who's been on Wikipedia for seven years instead of a newbie (so there is no BITEing involved, which seems to be a major part of the RBK policy) should mitigate it. I've always said that rollback is put on too high of a pedastal since it got debundled; really, as Atlan says, it's just a faster version of the "undo" button. (Incidentally, I notice that the IP who started this thread seems to be well-versed in how Wikipedia functions, making this post his first edit. Hmm...) Sceptre ^(talk) 11:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(OP here) Not my first edit by far. My IP is dynamic. I've been around for about a year or so, chipping in here and there. Anonymous doesn't necessarily mean clueless noob. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that Sceptre's use of rollback has ben questioned and I believe he had it removed at least once before for abuse. I don't think i can be considered impartial where Sceptre is concerned so I won't do it but I do strongly recommend that they have it removed again. Rollback is not a tool for users who use it carelessly and the the edit that was rolled back is clearly not vandalism. Iffy doesn't even come close to describinghow inappropriate that rollback was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Putting rollback on too high of a pedastal. It's not a shotgun that fires towards the head of the person you're reverting. It's simply a technical tool to make reverting edits easier. If you use rollback and instantly explain to the user why, there is no harm done whatsoever (another place where the rollback policy is wrong; it focuses more on the how than the why. If I rollback an editor and warn him, it's the same as undoing the editor and warning him, except for a slightly different edit summary and two less clicks.) And seeing as adding the image to the article without consensus has been traditionally seen as vandalism, arguably the reverse should be true as well. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  Like it or not culture is that rolling back edits is the same as declaring them vandalism so it ill behoves oyu to show a lack of caution in the use of the tool, especially as you have been here before. I would have hoped that losing the tool would have made you more careful in its use rather then arguing that its reckless use is a fault of the way we look at it rather then your own carelessness. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  If I was using rollback "recklessly", I would be going onto the RC feed and randomly clicking "rollback". The point is, ever since we were able to get the image on the article, it's been removed by people who don't think NOTCENSORED applies to the image. And it gets annoying. I could argue that removal without consensus is vandalism itself (as removing the Muhammad cartoons from that article would be), but that's a greater violation of AGF than just clicking the button. Sure, I could click "undo", but the end result is that it takes five seconds longer, takes two more clicks, and only for the change of one word in the edit summary. Seriously, people need to stop worrying about how one iffy use of rollback is the ultimate evil when we have stalking, defamation, and partisan editing rife on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre left a talk page note. That's better than an edit summary. He is also right that removing something from an article that has solid consensus to stay is not a good faith edit. Using rollback like that would be questionable, but I've done it and I'm sure everyone with rollbacker status has done it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is this "solid consensus" that you speak of? Certainly not at Talk:Goatse.cx, or any of the archives, or at this deletion review in April 2009 concerning the Goatse image. I'm a bit flabbergasted that you think removing this image somehow displays bad faith, and I wonder why Sceptre is so continually adamant that this image must be included in the article. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaggedstar13

Jaggedstar13 has been making poor edits. He has also been blaming the administrator Gogo Dodo for his actions. He needs some sort of block, in my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just left a warning on his talk page about making personal attacks. In my view he should be blocked as I deem his actions so far to be disruptive, and not a benefit to the project. ArcAngel (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's what I've been doing with all of my time. Uh huh... That's pretty funny. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence" provided of your hacking is indisputable! edit of evidence. LOL. ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thatcher has abused admin powers

Resolved

 – Obvious troll blocked. NW (Talk) 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thatcher's recent blocks have been borderline abuse. Can you please investigate? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.198.123 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Please elaborate if you want any attention to this at all. Tan | 39 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. To take something like this seriously, you'll need to provide diffs, or names, or details, or al least something that contains nouns. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Thatcher has made one block this month for three hours. Hardly seems abusive to me. AniMate 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• He's got me dead to rights, doc. Do you want to shoot me now, or wait till you get home? Thatcher 23:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked, and dismayed, and shocked, that you didn't block for longer. We give people the admin bit to use it, darn it all to heck. Wild, uncontrolled bursts, people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • What's the penalty for insufficient abuse by an admin? I'm thinking maybe an evening with an insurance salesman. That ought to get his Irish up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Nah, just send him to one of the myriad articles out there where editor behaviour is so poor he can't help but block. Call it re-education. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for block for two days of User:HkFnsNGA

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. There is no actionable request here, if you are concerned about your own behavior, seek a medical professional
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting that User:HkFnsNGA be blocked for two days. I am User:HkFnsNGA. I wrote an "article", initially with no sources, on Louis Lesser. Other editors interpreted my very poorly sourced article as a "hoax", going so far as to call me a "liar", "fraud", etc. I then began to read hundreds of news articles. I thought I was working for a day or two, but I just noticed that what seemed like yesterday was more than a week ago. I did not see friends or family for Thanksgiving, but stayed in editing. I went outside for a breather, and world outside looked unreal. All I could think of was getting back and doing my next edit, or reading the next source. After the holiday weekend, I did not work today. I was about call in sick for tomorrow. I did not eat all day and I am not hungry, but instead feel like trying to finish my article and make it to a good standard. This reminds me of when I wrote my first computer program, and it would not work, and abuot two weeks later I noticed it was two weeks later. This sounds like a joke, but it is actually true. If I am not blocked for day, I might lose my job. I want to make the article to Wikipedia standards, but I am requesting a block on my own account for one day, so I can not edit, until I eat and excercise and talk to at least one real world person, and go outside at least once. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) See above, where I started off the paragraph requesting a "two day" block of myself, then changed it to "one day" by the end of the paragraph. That just shows the point I am making. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You can use the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to self-impose a wikibreak on your own user account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No I can't. Because WikiBreak Enforcer says "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address". So the tool is completely useless, since I would just go to a friend's house, and ask to use their computer, and edit anon, to get my Louis Lesser article finished. So if I am not blocked, I will call for either blocking every editor for two days, or nominate the "Administrators Notice Board" for deletion, until the "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address" problem is fixed. Can anyone show me how to do this? Or can someone do it for me? I am not sure I can do it voluntarily. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You can still view wikipedia from a blocked account or IP address. Frankly if your plan is just to be nettlesome, I'll just as soon block you indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The ability to edit from an IP is not a flaw as you suggest - it is by design. Also, there is no point in blocking access for every user for two days when only one person claims obsessive behavior; afterall, why should an entire community be penalized for the personal issues of a single user? It simply isn't going to happen. If you plan is to become intentionally disruptive, as your comment that you plan to repeatedly "nominate the 'Administrators Notice Board' for deletion", then you're more likely to receive a permanent block on your account. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. The Wikibreak Enforcer tool helps - but if you intentionally go around the self-imposed block, that's an issue that you may want to seek assistance to resolve. Either by having a friend change your PC's password (your earlier comment suggests that your girlfriend may be willing to help you on that), or some other friend or professional assistance with addressing any obsessive behaviors that you may feel you need to resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive handle, continual uncited claims

At Brooklyn Technical High School, an anonymous IP, [User talk:173.50.127.214 173.50.127.214], has continually reverted the page to add uncited, unverified notability claims about redlinked individuals. I went to his talk page and inserted this polite but firm reuqest: "I need to ask you to please stop inserting unverified claims into Wikipedia. Doing so violates one of the cornerstone policies, and doubly so when it involves living persons. If you continue to do so, an administrator will be asked to block further edit from your IP address. You can discuss this on the Brooklyn Tech talk page, as can any editor. It would be proper and responsible to read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia before editing."

In response, he again added the same unverified claims and unhelpful edits under the new name "Tenebrae Is a Moron." I ask that this IP be blocked for disruptive edits and extremely insulting, uncivil behavior. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see that User:Zzuuzz instituted an indefinite block almost immediately upon that handle's creation. My thanks to the hardworking admins, who are amazingly Johnny-on-the-spot! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for IP range protection with recurring vandal

Resolved

Semi-protected for 3 months by RegentsPark

Hi all, [User:RegentsPark] suggested I come here following my RFPP [[132]]. My page is currently being persistently vandalised by IP range 218.186.12.2XX. This person is suspected to be banned user/sock Colorwolf[[133]] and has a trackable vandal behaviour which me and some other editors have been trying to control, hence the reason he is targeting me. Is there anything that can be done about him?

Following is the original report at RFPP

My talk page is again under attack by IP range 218.186.12.2XX. This despite a previous protection[[134]][[135]] and various warnings served to the IP's talkpages. As such I'd like to request for an indefinite page protection for both my user and talk page such that only registered editors are able to edit my page. Various editors have caught such vandalism before me and reverted the edits, but the edit summaries which contain strong language as well would still remain. I've previously requested for the summary comments to be removed [[136]] but new vandal actions (with new edit summaries) would mean I have to request for new removals in the future.

Alternatively since the vandal is using dynamic IP that allows him/her to rotate among the whole range of IPs in the 218.186.12.2XX range [[137]][[138]][[139]][[140]][[141]][[142]][[143]][[144]]. If possible, I'd like to request a permanent protection from 218.186.12.2XX edits, thanks!

Also is there any way to control this editor? Other than vandalisimg my page, this editor is suspected to be a sockpuppet of the vandal Colourwolf[[145]] who switched to using IPs since his various sock accounts got identified and banned. The above action would protect my page from vandalism by this person, but would not stop this sock from further vandalising activities.

Zhanzhao (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Spambots attacking main page featured article

Can an admin please block all these IPs? [146] Thanks. Also, any IP vandalizing this page is likely to be the same person trying to evade the filter. Triplestop x3 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone

Resolved

 – Further comments should go at WP:AN#David Shankbone where a thread is already open. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm like to request that an experienced, entirely uninvolved admin take a look at this thread on WP:AN, regarding the six-month block of David Shankbone. We need someone who isn't involved with Wikipedia Review at all, and who couldn't care less about David one way or the other. :)

The problem is twofold. David set up a number of alternate accounts in response to be harassed some time ago, both on WP, on other Foundation sites, and on WR. Over time, he let it be known (I believe widely known) that the accounts were his (e.g. [147]). Then he retired as DavidShankbone in October this year, and thereafter used a couple of throwaway accounts. He has now been blocked for six months for, I believe, using some of those alternate accounts—or socks, depending on how you look at them—to add his own photographs to articles.

I feel this is very unfair because I see it as a direct result of the harassment that he suffered, and I believe it was obvious that the accounts were his. But I'm a wikifriend of David's and so my judgment may be not correct. I'd appreciate it very much if someone entirely uninvolved would review the evidence. No disrespect is intended to the admins who've already looked at it, by the way. This is just a request for fresh eyes. SlimVirgin 05:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, this is the third thread on this subject across 2 boards Can we keep it in once place. Viridae^Talk 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC, respond to OP) Goodness. I have a) never even LOOKED at Wikipedia Review and b) never been involved with David in any meaningful way, and yet my comments mean nothing at the other discussion? I have stated all of this many times, and yet you discount every one of my comments? What level of uninvolvement do you want! --Jayron32 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have had a few uninvolved admins give you their opinion already on the other thread. The same people watch this page as do WP:AN, not sure what splitting the discussion will accomplish. ^Chillum 05:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#David_Shankbone for the already active discussion on this matter. ^Chillum 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Without the hyperbole, I think I agree with Viridae (and Chillum, etcetera). While more eyes are always welcome, I ask that we do not turn this into a shout-fest, an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT fest, or a fight over old wounds suddenly reopened. I think the result is pretty obvious here, but it's apparent that SV disagrees. I do think all further conversation should take place over on AN however, where it is ongoing. SirFozzie (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that discussion should take place there. I posted here to ask for fresh eyes, as more people read this page. No disrespect is intended at all to the admins who've already posted there, but I feel we have a pile-on atmosphere, and that people aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. For a 24-hour block, it wouldn't matter, but for a six-month block it does, very much. SlimVirgin 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts at Solid

User:Logger9 has reverted for the 3rd time certain edits on solid:

• I moved a figure showing an one-dimensional model of thermal vibrations to the "thermal properties" section; he moves it back to the top of the article.

You created a new section called thermal properties by copying the text from the image - word for word. Then you placed the image there. That text hardly constitutes section on thermal properties. The image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted lengthy explanations of anorganic and organic compounds; he restores them.

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is absurd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand why you are so dead set against them ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summaries, in part also at talk:solid; he reverts without entering discussion and even without edit summaries.

This behavior must seen in the context of a long history of conflicts in which Logger9 has been involved, lately at talk:liquid and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Solid: reverts by user:Logger9. In my humble and partial opinion, time has come for blocking Logger9 for a couple of days. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified Logger9 of this thread? Crafty (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9 has been notified of this conversation. Crafty (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also am concerned by the long-term edit behaviour of User:Logger9. I dissociate myself from the comment of the anon, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Logger9 seems intent on forging ahead despite the good faith objections of other editors, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. I have suggested at User_talk:Logger9 that more discussion and less editing would be better, and that a response either there or here is required before further editing. If there is no response, or the same editing pattern continues I think a block will be inevitable. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time Marie Poise tends to come across as overly agressive, which is not helping the situation. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have found the edits of logger9 to be of poor scientific quality and unhelpful to Wikipedia. In view of his continuing practice of ignoring pleas and warnings and ploughing ahead with his often inappropriate edits, for which he has been rebuked and blocked in the past, it is not surprising that irritation is aroused. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Not saying it isn't understandable, just unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think she can be held to be at fault after having been called a parasite. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise is obsessed with removing certain sections. In certain cases, I don't see why that is necessary. -- logger9 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that everytime an article is blocked from editing, it is Paula Pilcher/Marie Poises version that is retained. Conicidence ??? -- logger9 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one are most unhelpful. Is this the extent of your response? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.

Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.

When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."

We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.

Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.

And when queried by Wikipedia editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."

She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.

She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.

I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to.

In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.

I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.

I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.

-- logger9 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to respond to my request above? It's not just Marie who disagrees with your editing style, so we need to understand how you intend to work better with other editors. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to accept being called a parasite ? For the third time, by the way: this text has been pasted elsewhere before. I admit, I have been bold in my choice of words, too, and I am ready to apologize: These days, kind mediators brought to my attention the importance of the good faith / bad faith distinction, and I am ready to retract whatever in my past comments might be understood as assuming bad faith. Yet, Parasitism (social offense) is quite another level of insult, and worse than the word for which just above someone immediately got blocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Paula: (regarding her blanket deletion of several of my articles)

"It is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs......instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one.."

"...yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like..."

"Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text."

"The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening."

Alternatively:

"The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy." -- Colonel Warden

You maintain the following on your Userpage for all the world to see: "It is very easy to get nonsense in, and very difficult to get it out. See my attempts to stop User:Logger9 from dumping pseudoscientific blunder." Which is worse ?? It was suggested to you by a senior editor that you remove that content as being offensive -- yet you refused.

You are FAR more aggressive, confrontational, and non-negotiable than I have ever been. I have to do something just to stay afloat. If it were up to you, I wouldn't exist -- nor would any of my "pseudoscientific blunder". How would you feel if someone treated you like that on a daily 24/7 basis ????

When I sense apologies and/or retractions, than I will consider doing likewise. But as long as you keep that personal statement about me published on your Userpage, it is obvious the extent to which you have always been willing to go to belittle me and my work. It's very insulting. -- logger9 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had no serious problems with other editors. Materialscientist did a massive overhaul of much of my early work, and I agreed with virtually everything he requested. We also agreed on a section removal in Solids (Chemical analysis), as per his reasoning. I agree with constructive editing. In anything but extreme cases, I don't agree with removing vital sections "because the article is too long". -- logger9 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that is not quite true. I have only run into you in liquid, but there your style of editing (replacing an entire article with one of your own devising of a, in my opinion at least, somewhat poorer standard) did make me sad, and we did exchange a few bouts of words. Removing irrelevant stuff from pages is the 2nd-most important part of editing (just after adding important stuff) Esben (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you called me a "hotshot" ;-) You were caught midstream, ny friend (as most of Paula'a advocates are). What you did not realize was that she had previously deleted the ENTIRE article -- several times, in fact. I was just trying to put it back. -- logger9 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is still ongoing, Logger9 continued reverting without discussing at page liquid: he restored a subsection with crude speculations, supported by primary sources from the 1920s/30s, without answering to the reasons for deletion I had given in my edit summaries. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I added 3 short paragraphs on the effects of association in liquids. My reasons are now stated clearly there for you. I feel strongly that this material is critical for an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for liquid viscosity. The dates of the publications are irrelevant. -- logger9 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (preferably uninvolved parties) for discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction on your assumption. These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context it might be interesting to note that one of the threads Logger9 started at talk:liquid is entitled "In Defense of the Realm". According to WP, "a realm is a dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler." - Compare this to how physics of glass, ceramics engineering, colloidal crystal, phase transformations in solids and so on are all linked to each other by "See Also" links: it really is a network of private publications, and nobody would have cared, hadn't Logger9 transgressed the bounds of specialist lemmata and tried to incorporate key articles like "liquid" or "solid" into his realm. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody would have cared ???????? You have been trashing ALL of my articles since the Physics of glass. The picture you paint is always so devastingly crooked. I have to spend half of my life just defending myself from all the attacks you launch in all directions !

This discussion is a perfect example. You have them all on a witch hunt again. I congratulate you on your cunningness. But I still don't see any serious work done by you here on Wikipedia. -- logger9 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Logger,you said above "It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. " Nobody here owns a page at WP, (see WP:OWN) and the contents can be edited by anybody. If you disagree with what they have done, it needs to be discussed on the talk page--if you cannot reach agreement, DR is needed--probably starting here with a 3O from some other editor with experience in the subject. Wikipedia does not work by academic credentials, though we certainly encourage people with them to work here, and they certainly have no less right to edit than anyone else. It appears that in this case both you and Marie have credential in the subject. We are not asked to judge between them. At Citizendium, arguments over content can degenerate into arguments about whose academic credential are stronger, but we try not to do it here. We rely on the assumption that the person who understands the subject best will make the best edits, and that other editors will see that. Your attitude here about others' editing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and you will need to re-evaluate it.

Marie, this to some extent applies to you also: you are trying to write a version that you think better. What you need to do is to develop a version that is agreed by consensus to be better. On Talk: Liquid you proposed a vote between the two versions, but this is not the way we do things. Kev in properly protected that article, but as he said, it cannot stay protected indefinitely, and he un--protected it. He seems to be taking responsibility for bringing about a compromise, and I encourage him to continue with it. Kevin, if they both stayed away from boht articles, do uyou think you (with help from NW and others interested) could do what editing is necessary? We need someohow to get a consensus version.

As a practical matter i am quite prepared to block both parties a short time for persistent edit warring, regardless of merits of the edits--and I see from his talk page Kevin thinks similarly. But I would also be prepared to block Logger for longer periods if needed, until he is willing to engage in cooperative editing and both explains and shows that he has abandoned the idea of trying to own the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to "own" anything. But I can't just sit back and let Paula delete entire articles as she sees fit. And I think that allowing her to do so, while blocking me for a longer period, is hardly what I would call justice. She creates the scene, and I am the one who is punished. -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the situation. We're at the point that behavioral changes are needed for both logger9 and Marie Poise. A topic ban is another option I have been thinking about, for both editors. Clearly both have a difficulty in remaining neutral and one way or another they have to stop. My worry with a topic ban is that unless it is very broad the dispute will simply move somewhere else, or the talk pages will be flooded with large blocks of text rather than discussion. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be offline for a week for private reasons. Maybe that's a good coincidence. All the best - Marie Poise (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns of MS below, I want to again make something quite clear (since he has intentionally deleted my message, and ignored its contents). Correction on your assumption.

These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Formal Apology

I want to take this time to express my most sincere apologies and deepest regrets for any ill will I may have created by way of my deeds and actions here at Wikipedia. In retrospect, I can see now that thru my lack of constuctive interaction and feedback on the Talk pages, my silence has been interpreted as arrogance and/or hostility.

I am truly sorry for any behavior which has been construed as rude or unfriendly. I am very tired now of laying the blame on any specific individual(s) who may have somehow gotten me 'kick started'. I can see now that it would have been much better for all parties concerned if I had handled it in a more professional manner.

Being a classical Taurus, I am sometimes particularly headstrong when it comes to the completion of goal oriented activities. (The only person I know who is worse is my 25-year old Taurean son). Once I saw what was possible here, I could not stop until I had done the best job that I could possibly do with any and all articles closely related to my fields of study (Materials Science/Engr/Phys Chem/Mathematics) which appeared either to be in need of creation or service. To be honest, I have virtually completed the job I set out to do. I.E. I have no immediate plans for further article creation, major editing or contribution.

If anything, I may show some interest in Physical chemistry in the future. But I have already made one serious textbook shot at it, and it became immediately clear that was not what they are looking for to expand the stub. So I cleared out in totality. Solid and Liquid were both pretty much bonuses after the fact. I stumbled on Solid as a stub while searching all articles on mechanical properties. And Liquid has been in the back of my mind ever since one of the major Glass editors asked my why I had not included the Radial distribution function in my description of the Physics of glass. (I am still looking for a better image of g(r) for the Liquid page - concentric rings of high particle density w/ diffuse boundaries).

As far as I am concerned, my job here is virtually done for now. One thing I have learned while working here is that nothing stays the same. Nothing is carved in stone (like journal articles). Everything changes constantly -- much like a coastal beach which is ravaged by seastorms on a regular basis. And I will surely find it interesting to look back ten years from now and view the evolution of whatever I started here.

I also wish to thank you for the privilege of publishing my work on the world's largest information source. I have the highest opinion of the work done here @ Wikipedia, and I am very proud to be a contributor and editor. That is why the articles which I have contributed to in any major way are listed on my website. There is no other reason. Other than teaching, this has been my primary work arena this past year -- and I would like to show people what is possible here.

In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone the best of luck with all of their future activities at Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you all find it as rewarding as I have. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the expression and presentation of scientific knowledge, there is no substitute :-) -- logger9 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (uninvolved parties) for a discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MS that some form of COI is happening with logger9 (and not just evidenced by his website, which is overall a minor concern IMO). IMO, it is absurd to think that logger9 purposefully wants to harm Wikipedia. logger9 seems to be used to write journal articles or reviews, and thus apply the same line of reasoning when writing Wikipedia article. The problem is that writing like in a article/review does not translate well on Wikipedia. First is the concern of original synthesis. What would tremendously help IMO is sticking to the ideas and views found in literature reviews and textbooks. AKA if the ideas are not in a textbook, leave them out. Second is that reviews need to cover every little detail and cite everything that's been done on each of the details since the last review plus what's considered to be standard citations for those details. On wikipedia, you are much better off saying "Bob proposed the theory of X, in 1949.[1] The theory explain the implication of X on the first[2] and third[3] laws of thermodynamics." than "Following the work of Claude[1], Suzy[2-3], Paul[4-6], and Jim[7-9], Bob[10] proposed the theory of X,[11] which explains the first[2,6,12-16] and third[4,8,10,17-20] laws of thermodynamics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

It is quite clear that an administrative action is required in this case. Please place your suggestion here. I understand the solution is not straightforward, but please try to be brief. Logger9 and Marie Poise. Please do not edit this section. Other editors, please move your comments here as necessary. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Topic ban for Logger9. I have expressed the view before that the edits of logger9 are of indifferent quality. They demonstrate little ability to synthesise the material into an effective overview and to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant material. They are sometimes verbose and rambling. While this was not important in the earlier stages of Wikipedia it is becoming more noticeable as WP matures and its overall quality improves. This is a content issue and administrative action is not needed to deal with it. It does explain, though, why other editors are attempting to improve the articles of logger9 and are becoming frustrated at the obstacles they find in doing so. What is more disturbing is logger9's reaction to those who attempt to develop and improve the articles that he identifies himself with on his web site http://www.wavesignal.com/. His standard operating procedure is to revert to his own version. He ignores, provokes, insults (parasite) and drives other editors away. I fear that there is only one way to deal with obsessive and recalcitrant behaviour of this sort (which unfortunately is not uncommon on WP). I suggest an indefinite ban on his editing the articles that he identifies with namely: Solid, Sol-gel, Liquid, Crystal growth, Crystal structure, Kinetic theory of solids, Transparent materials, Transparent ceramics, Ceramic engineering, Nanotechnology, Strength of glass, Physics of glass, Glass transition, Colloidal crystal, Light scattering, Spinodal decomposition, Transformation toughening, Plastic deformation in solids, Phase transformations in solids. Those of his edits that are found to be useful will be retained; those that are not can be improved without the threat of an edit war. An indefinite ban is not a permanent ban and when the articles have settled into a steady state after the efforts of other editors logger9 can appeal for release from the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
• Support: Xxanthippe's proposal of a restriction that would keep User:logger9 from editing the above-listed articles. From the above discussion, it's clear that editing by Logger9 is causing distress among several editors who work on those articles. His responses in this thread seem inappropriate, and don't reflect a sincere desire to reach compromise. The observations by Materialscientist and Headbomb about a COI are sensible. The title of this thread is #Repeated reverts at Solid, so this is a long-term edit-warring complaint of the kind that ANI can and does handle whenever there is a problem affecting many people. Logger9's effort to find consensus for his edits seems weak and inadequate. (If his edits had found support, he wouldn't have to keep reverting them back in all the time). EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support restrictions. logger9 does not seem to understand or even care about the nature of the Wikiproject (i.e. what WE is or is not, the concept of consensus, or just walking away from articles when things get tense). Logger9's contributions that I have dealt with have been inferior in quality. The editor is not stupid, just very tone-deaf. The ideal approach (that is impractical) would be that Logger9 be required to submit proposed editing plans and seek some pre-editing consensus.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, I will Support, although with the option of allowing him to edit the talk pages constructively so he may learn the way consensus works. This has got to be one of the worst cases of WP:OWNership I've ever seen. Auntie E. 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot - Unfortunately, Logger has decided to leave the project.[148] I suggest we just archive the thread and let things be as they are. NW (Talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aside from the decision, he also apologized to all Wikipedians involved. However, as being uninvolved, I would say Dismal Support.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your confidence is misplaced. Since he issued his Apology logger9 has continued to edit the project, making nine more edits to Solid, one to Physics of glass. The sad truth is that people who behave in this manner are unable to control their compulsions. The only way to get them to stop is to apply external constraint. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Very surprising. For the moment someone had told me that he had left Wikipedia per Nuclear Warfare's comment above! Possible misinterpertations, maybe?--_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Though still do not believe intentional harm was intended, several articles declined markedly in quality during his "stewardship". I believe this course of actions do seem to be the only way to improve Wikipedia. Though I agree that it appears to be moot from his recent apology. Also note that I was slightly involved in the case, though not in the actual edit-war Esben (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot I do not think it is any of our business as admins to judge article quality and give topic bans for that reason. The reason for a block seems no longer to be present. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the real issue is the behavior, which I note has not changed since the apology above. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm on the fence here, as I think a ban should be a last resort. Clearly, there is a problem that goes beyond the normal POV pushing and rude behavior. Logger9's tactics are subtle while the overall strategy seems pretty blatant. I have tried myself to help give Logger9 advice on editing in a more collaborative manner, to improve writing style, and to use a little more of a diplomatic approach. I have suggested that Logger9 try working on something else, like vandalism reversion or some other type of article which he is less passionate about, if for no other reason than as a learning experience. I have seen some slight improvement in writing style, but have not seen much improvement in other areas. Areas which others have clearly expressed on this and many talk pages. At this point, I too would have to support a topic ban, but would like to see if Logger9 could then be able to contribute constructively on the talk pages. I would very much like to see if Logger9 can learn from past mistakes and the advice of others, and can begin to contribute constructively in other areas. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dapi89

I had left the following note about Dapi89 on this board that Dapi89 deleted [[149]]. Not sure about the "legality" of his action, is a user allowed to delete a post bringing his behavior to admin notice? Here is the original post again:

This editor has repeatedly indulged in uncivil behavior. He has been blocked 4 times earlier by 3 different administrators but continues to use offensive language.

Dapi89's block logs [[150]] Last blocked on July 2009

Since being unblocked Dapi89 has indulged in the following uncivil behavior:

Calling edit by Slatersteven "nonsense edits" [[151]]

Calling edit by Redheylin "silly" [[152]]

Message left on my IP page (I registered this name later) in Dapi89 wrote: "Your 'edits' to the Battle of Kursk and Blitzkrieg are stupid" and "find the appropriate article to do it instead of dicking around". [[153]]

Message left on my talk page "you are incapable of common sense" [[154]]

Please note that my responses to Dapi89 have always been civil, I have confined myself to explaining why I was making a particular edit.

Given that Dapi89 has previously been blocked yet persists in uncivil behavior, I would ask an admin to take necessary action.

Thanks,

Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left Dapi89 a message re the deletion of discussions from ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this. Basket of Puppies 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The removal was unacceptable, but I don't see that an admin action is needed against Dapi89. He needs warning about civility, but I don't see that a block would be helpful at this point. Fences&Windows 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He has previously been warned for incivility and even been blocked 3 times, with little effect apparently. Steel2009 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank the editors who see Steel2009's complaint as nonsense. The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour. Lack of civility is repeatedly undoing another editors LOGICAL restorations and refusing to negotiate. Military history articles are thought out chronologically. Steel2009 seems to think chronology, his "opinion" counts more than consensus and logic. He has been disruptive, he has used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR,m and now he has the cheek to complain - of course he only did so because I filed a complaint. This in itself is puerile in the extreme. I can see the sensible heads here are ignoring his B.S. Steel2009: You are a new editor that has not contributed ANYTHING to wikipedia yet. All bar one of your edits has been reverted, and you are heading down the road of becoming a consistently blocked editor. The previous blocks of mine you notice, were a result of a running dispute with ONE other editor. So keep your erroneous accusations to yourself. 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide the diffs showing that I have "used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR". This is a pretty serious allegation, and I would like you to follow up on this. Also you continue using abusive words like "puerile", "BS" etc. And really, two editors who disagree with one does not a consensus make. I do think you should apologize to Slatersteven and Redheylin for your incivility towards them. Steel2009 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Steel2009 followed advice given when his edits to Battle of Kursk were brought here, fruitful discussion and good editing appears to have followed. If Dapi89 is still at it, it would appear he is the one causing the problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thanks. Also note that besides continuing to use uncivil language on this very page, Dapi is also justifying his earlier improper removal of the posted item on this page by "The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour." Rather than admitting it was wrong to do so, his position is that it is someone else's fault. Steel2009 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have known and worked with Dapi89 for almost three years now. In this timeframe I have learned to appreciate his exceptional deep and thorough knowledge of military history. His editing is extremely well researched, broad in coverage and unbiased in nature. I understand that this incident here has nothing to do with his skill as an editor but I feel that it must be taken into consideration when judging his actions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no exception for well informed editors in Civility which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.. Steel2009 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, editors who make a lot of positive contributions to the encyclopedia are given a greater tolerance than those who don't. Call it inconsistency, call it following WP:IAR, but that's the reality. The justification for this is that our goal is to build an encyclopedia and putting up with bad behavior is sometimes necessary. I don't really like it but if Dapi89 gets a pass, know that this is why. -- Atama頭 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As per the messaging on my page: I won't be repsonding to anymore baiting by the trouble maker. In repsonse to his latest 'post': We are here because of you. No one else, just you. Good day. Dapi89 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So it really comes down to the question: Does the Wikipedia community as represented by the administrators really stand by the so called "5 pillars of Wikipedia"? It is quite obvious from Dapi's continued lack of any expressed remorse at his past behavior, and continuing incivility ("trouble maker") that he is going to continue being uncivil. Non-action in this case equals acceptance. Cheers, Steel2009 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts adding defamatory comments at an AFD

Apparently, I have incurred the wrath of Mustapha Khalid and the employees of his firm. After nominating the vanity autobiography for an AFD, the subject (most probably) and/or persons associated with him are creating attack pages with defamatory comments about me.

• Talk:Mustapha Khalid - see Priority09's comment, which was removed by an admin.
• AFD/Mustapha Khalid, comment by User:Homar2155, which I had removed as attack text, but he has since re-inserted the personal attack.
• Banglabhai01 vandalized my talk page by adding defamatory comments.
• Shipoftruth/

Note that all these accounts have been created just today, and are only vandalism only accounts, and I'm pretty sure that they will turn out to be socks belonging to User:Mustapha khalid (the subject of the article under AFD).

Cunard has since cleaned up the AFD, but seems like the trolls keep on creating accounts to bypass the bans. I am hesitant to block the trolls since I have nominated the article for AFD, so I'll recuse myself from taking any admin actions against them, but I'll appreciate if another admin can look into these group of vandals. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the editors mentioned here have since been blocked, has there been any more trouble? -- Atama頭 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper rollback use

Resolved

 – Sceptre did not do anything wrong. Tan | 39 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this edit ([155], which readded a disputed shock image of a gaping rectum to the Goatse.cx article) qualifies as one of the accepted uses of the rollback function. I noticed this user has had the rollback privilege removed before; perhaps this is another one of those times. 72.65.200.22 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed not vandalism and rollback should not have been used. Sceptre went to the talk page after that to discuss, so I wouldn't call it rollback abuse. But yeah, he should've used "undo". The end result would've been the same though.--Atlan (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do admit that it was a bit iffy, the fact that I went straight to the talk page right after and the fact that the person I reverted was an admin who's been on Wikipedia for seven years instead of a newbie (so there is no BITEing involved, which seems to be a major part of the RBK policy) should mitigate it. I've always said that rollback is put on too high of a pedastal since it got debundled; really, as Atlan says, it's just a faster version of the "undo" button. (Incidentally, I notice that the IP who started this thread seems to be well-versed in how Wikipedia functions, making this post his first edit. Hmm...) Sceptre ^(talk) 11:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(OP here) Not my first edit by far. My IP is dynamic. I've been around for about a year or so, chipping in here and there. Anonymous doesn't necessarily mean clueless noob. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that Sceptre's use of rollback has ben questioned and I believe he had it removed at least once before for abuse. I don't think i can be considered impartial where Sceptre is concerned so I won't do it but I do strongly recommend that they have it removed again. Rollback is not a tool for users who use it carelessly and the the edit that was rolled back is clearly not vandalism. Iffy doesn't even come close to describinghow inappropriate that rollback was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Putting rollback on too high of a pedastal. It's not a shotgun that fires towards the head of the person you're reverting. It's simply a technical tool to make reverting edits easier. If you use rollback and instantly explain to the user why, there is no harm done whatsoever (another place where the rollback policy is wrong; it focuses more on the how than the why. If I rollback an editor and warn him, it's the same as undoing the editor and warning him, except for a slightly different edit summary and two less clicks.) And seeing as adding the image to the article without consensus has been traditionally seen as vandalism, arguably the reverse should be true as well. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  Like it or not culture is that rolling back edits is the same as declaring them vandalism so it ill behoves oyu to show a lack of caution in the use of the tool, especially as you have been here before. I would have hoped that losing the tool would have made you more careful in its use rather then arguing that its reckless use is a fault of the way we look at it rather then your own carelessness. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  If I was using rollback "recklessly", I would be going onto the RC feed and randomly clicking "rollback". The point is, ever since we were able to get the image on the article, it's been removed by people who don't think NOTCENSORED applies to the image. And it gets annoying. I could argue that removal without consensus is vandalism itself (as removing the Muhammad cartoons from that article would be), but that's a greater violation of AGF than just clicking the button. Sure, I could click "undo", but the end result is that it takes five seconds longer, takes two more clicks, and only for the change of one word in the edit summary. Seriously, people need to stop worrying about how one iffy use of rollback is the ultimate evil when we have stalking, defamation, and partisan editing rife on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre left a talk page note. That's better than an edit summary. He is also right that removing something from an article that has solid consensus to stay is not a good faith edit. Using rollback like that would be questionable, but I've done it and I'm sure everyone with rollbacker status has done it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is this "solid consensus" that you speak of? Certainly not at Talk:Goatse.cx, or any of the archives, or at this deletion review in April 2009 concerning the Goatse image. I'm a bit flabbergasted that you think removing this image somehow displays bad faith, and I wonder why Sceptre is so continually adamant that this image must be included in the article. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaggedstar13

Jaggedstar13 has been making poor edits. He has also been blaming the administrator Gogo Dodo for his actions. He needs some sort of block, in my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just left a warning on his talk page about making personal attacks. In my view he should be blocked as I deem his actions so far to be disruptive, and not a benefit to the project. ArcAngel (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's what I've been doing with all of my time. Uh huh... That's pretty funny. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence" provided of your hacking is indisputable! edit of evidence. LOL. ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thatcher has abused admin powers

Resolved

 – Obvious troll blocked. NW (Talk) 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Thatcher's recent blocks have been borderline abuse. Can you please investigate? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.198.123 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Please elaborate if you want any attention to this at all. Tan | 39 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. To take something like this seriously, you'll need to provide diffs, or names, or details, or al least something that contains nouns. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Thatcher has made one block this month for three hours. Hardly seems abusive to me. AniMate 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• He's got me dead to rights, doc. Do you want to shoot me now, or wait till you get home? Thatcher 23:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked, and dismayed, and shocked, that you didn't block for longer. We give people the admin bit to use it, darn it all to heck. Wild, uncontrolled bursts, people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • What's the penalty for insufficient abuse by an admin? I'm thinking maybe an evening with an insurance salesman. That ought to get his Irish up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Nah, just send him to one of the myriad articles out there where editor behaviour is so poor he can't help but block. Call it re-education. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for block for two days of User:HkFnsNGA

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. There is no actionable request here, if you are concerned about your own behavior, seek a medical professional
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting that User:HkFnsNGA be blocked for two days. I am User:HkFnsNGA. I wrote an "article", initially with no sources, on Louis Lesser. Other editors interpreted my very poorly sourced article as a "hoax", going so far as to call me a "liar", "fraud", etc. I then began to read hundreds of news articles. I thought I was working for a day or two, but I just noticed that what seemed like yesterday was more than a week ago. I did not see friends or family for Thanksgiving, but stayed in editing. I went outside for a breather, and world outside looked unreal. All I could think of was getting back and doing my next edit, or reading the next source. After the holiday weekend, I did not work today. I was about call in sick for tomorrow. I did not eat all day and I am not hungry, but instead feel like trying to finish my article and make it to a good standard. This reminds me of when I wrote my first computer program, and it would not work, and abuot two weeks later I noticed it was two weeks later. This sounds like a joke, but it is actually true. If I am not blocked for day, I might lose my job. I want to make the article to Wikipedia standards, but I am requesting a block on my own account for one day, so I can not edit, until I eat and excercise and talk to at least one real world person, and go outside at least once. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) See above, where I started off the paragraph requesting a "two day" block of myself, then changed it to "one day" by the end of the paragraph. That just shows the point I am making. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You can use the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to self-impose a wikibreak on your own user account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No I can't. Because WikiBreak Enforcer says "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address". So the tool is completely useless, since I would just go to a friend's house, and ask to use their computer, and edit anon, to get my Louis Lesser article finished. So if I am not blocked, I will call for either blocking every editor for two days, or nominate the "Administrators Notice Board" for deletion, until the "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address" problem is fixed. Can anyone show me how to do this? Or can someone do it for me? I am not sure I can do it voluntarily. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You can still view wikipedia from a blocked account or IP address. Frankly if your plan is just to be nettlesome, I'll just as soon block you indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The ability to edit from an IP is not a flaw as you suggest - it is by design. Also, there is no point in blocking access for every user for two days when only one person claims obsessive behavior; afterall, why should an entire community be penalized for the personal issues of a single user? It simply isn't going to happen. If you plan is to become intentionally disruptive, as your comment that you plan to repeatedly "nominate the 'Administrators Notice Board' for deletion", then you're more likely to receive a permanent block on your account. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. The Wikibreak Enforcer tool helps - but if you intentionally go around the self-imposed block, that's an issue that you may want to seek assistance to resolve. Either by having a friend change your PC's password (your earlier comment suggests that your girlfriend may be willing to help you on that), or some other friend or professional assistance with addressing any obsessive behaviors that you may feel you need to resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive handle, continual uncited claims

At Brooklyn Technical High School, an anonymous IP, [User talk:173.50.127.214 173.50.127.214], has continually reverted the page to add uncited, unverified notability claims about redlinked individuals. I went to his talk page and inserted this polite but firm reuqest: "I need to ask you to please stop inserting unverified claims into Wikipedia. Doing so violates one of the cornerstone policies, and doubly so when it involves living persons. If you continue to do so, an administrator will be asked to block further edit from your IP address. You can discuss this on the Brooklyn Tech talk page, as can any editor. It would be proper and responsible to read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia before editing."

In response, he again added the same unverified claims and unhelpful edits under the new name "Tenebrae Is a Moron." I ask that this IP be blocked for disruptive edits and extremely insulting, uncivil behavior. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see that User:Zzuuzz instituted an indefinite block almost immediately upon that handle's creation. My thanks to the hardworking admins, who are amazingly Johnny-on-the-spot! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for IP range protection with recurring vandal

Resolved

Semi-protected for 3 months by RegentsPark

Hi all, [User:RegentsPark] suggested I come here following my RFPP [[156]]. My page is currently being persistently vandalised by IP range 218.186.12.2XX. This person is suspected to be banned user/sock Colorwolf[[157]] and has a trackable vandal behaviour which me and some other editors have been trying to control, hence the reason he is targeting me. Is there anything that can be done about him?

Following is the original report at RFPP

My talk page is again under attack by IP range 218.186.12.2XX. This despite a previous protection[[158]][[159]] and various warnings served to the IP's talkpages. As such I'd like to request for an indefinite page protection for both my user and talk page such that only registered editors are able to edit my page. Various editors have caught such vandalism before me and reverted the edits, but the edit summaries which contain strong language as well would still remain. I've previously requested for the summary comments to be removed [[160]] but new vandal actions (with new edit summaries) would mean I have to request for new removals in the future.

Alternatively since the vandal is using dynamic IP that allows him/her to rotate among the whole range of IPs in the 218.186.12.2XX range [[161]][[162]][[163]][[164]][[165]][[166]][[167]][[168]]. If possible, I'd like to request a permanent protection from 218.186.12.2XX edits, thanks!

Also is there any way to control this editor? Other than vandalisimg my page, this editor is suspected to be a sockpuppet of the vandal Colourwolf[[169]] who switched to using IPs since his various sock accounts got identified and banned. The above action would protect my page from vandalism by this person, but would not stop this sock from further vandalising activities.

Zhanzhao (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Spambots attacking main page featured article

Can an admin please block all these IPs? [170] Thanks. Also, any IP vandalizing this page is likely to be the same person trying to evade the filter. Triplestop x3 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone

Resolved

 – Further comments should go at WP:AN#David Shankbone where a thread is already open. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm like to request that an experienced, entirely uninvolved admin take a look at this thread on WP:AN, regarding the six-month block of David Shankbone. We need someone who isn't involved with Wikipedia Review at all, and who couldn't care less about David one way or the other. :)

The problem is twofold. David set up a number of alternate accounts in response to be harassed some time ago, both on WP, on other Foundation sites, and on WR. Over time, he let it be known (I believe widely known) that the accounts were his (e.g. [171]). Then he retired as DavidShankbone in October this year, and thereafter used a couple of throwaway accounts. He has now been blocked for six months for, I believe, using some of those alternate accounts—or socks, depending on how you look at them—to add his own photographs to articles.

I feel this is very unfair because I see it as a direct result of the harassment that he suffered, and I believe it was obvious that the accounts were his. But I'm a wikifriend of David's and so my judgment may be not correct. I'd appreciate it very much if someone entirely uninvolved would review the evidence. No disrespect is intended to the admins who've already looked at it, by the way. This is just a request for fresh eyes. SlimVirgin 05:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, this is the third thread on this subject across 2 boards Can we keep it in once place. Viridae^Talk 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC, respond to OP) Goodness. I have a) never even LOOKED at Wikipedia Review and b) never been involved with David in any meaningful way, and yet my comments mean nothing at the other discussion? I have stated all of this many times, and yet you discount every one of my comments? What level of uninvolvement do you want! --Jayron32 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have had a few uninvolved admins give you their opinion already on the other thread. The same people watch this page as do WP:AN, not sure what splitting the discussion will accomplish. ^Chillum 05:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#David_Shankbone for the already active discussion on this matter. ^Chillum 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Without the hyperbole, I think I agree with Viridae (and Chillum, etcetera). While more eyes are always welcome, I ask that we do not turn this into a shout-fest, an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT fest, or a fight over old wounds suddenly reopened. I think the result is pretty obvious here, but it's apparent that SV disagrees. I do think all further conversation should take place over on AN however, where it is ongoing. SirFozzie (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that discussion should take place there. I posted here to ask for fresh eyes, as more people read this page. No disrespect is intended at all to the admins who've already posted there, but I feel we have a pile-on atmosphere, and that people aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. For a 24-hour block, it wouldn't matter, but for a six-month block it does, very much. SlimVirgin 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested re Nagara373

Nagara373 (talk · contribs) recently came to my attention via AIV; I recommended that swaq bring their report here instead, but unfortunately the thread was archived without response.

• Summary of swaq's archived post: Nagara373 persistently adding unsourced and incorrect information to automotive articles, probably deliberately. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4

Nagara373 has had three former appearances at ANI dating back to 2006 (1, 2, and 3) and a history of non-communication when challenged including no response to the recent concerns. Although the two older incidents are irrelevant in one sense, in another it may be showing a long-term disruptive pattern per WP:COMPETENCE. Is it time to move Nagara373 on? Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The second ANI report you linked to says that Nagara was blocked indefinitely. As I can't see the block log, could you please fill in the details about this user's apparent unblocking? As for their current edits, they don't immediately stand out as vandalism to me, though admittedly I don't actually know who owns and operates Lamborghini. Since I doubt many editors are very knowledgeable about the minutia of the auto industry, could you or someone who has been reverting Nagara's edits provide some context as to why they were reverted? The third and fourth diffs, in particular, seem fairly reasonable, and I personally would not have reverted them. GlassCobra 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was Zetawoof (talk · contribs) that was indeffed. There was another ANI appearance here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chaser's comment confused me too; Nagara373's block log only has a single 24-hour block for June 2006 (result of first ANI thread, I guess) that expired naturally. Re GlassCobra's second point, I've asked swaq to comment here as they are more familiar with the subject area/editor that I am. And thanks Toddst1, I overlooked that one, probably because it was Nagara373 opening the thread rather than being complained about. However, to me that's further evidence of unsuitable editing. EyeSerene^talk 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the confusion, I didn't see that Sandy hijacked the section somewhat. In any case, it seems clear that previous behavior was unacceptable; however, if recent edits are deemed legitimate, further discussion about letting the editor stick around would certainly be warranted. GlassCobra 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nagara373 has edited primarily automotive articles this year. Some of his edits show he is certainly not ignorant in the field. I find it hard to attribute his blatantly incorrect edits to incompetence. Lamborghini is owned by Audi, who in turn is owned by Volkswagen. Removing the correct parent/owner field and replacing it with a company that has no relation to any of the three seems deliberate to me. Here is another example when he added an incorrect owner for Koenigsegg. If it was just one edit, I could pass it off as a brain fart or something, but he has had several of these that are clearly wrong (for someone who follows the automotive stuff). I hope this is helpful, let me know if you guys need any more clarification. swaq 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for whatever it's worth, from my end, seeing what Swaq said and also noticing the reverts following Nagara's edits that seemed initially reasonable, it does indeed highlight a pattern of deliberate insertion of false information. Given the user's poor past history, I think it would be safe to label this user as having exhausted the community's patience. GlassCobra 21:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Support indef block per GlassCobra. This would still allow for the possibility of an unblock discussion, which would itself require communication on the part of Nagara373. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've indefblocked per the above, at least until we can get a satisfactory explanation for the concerns raised above. EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Duchamps comb

Resolved

 – Editor has been indefinitely blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Duchamps comb and I have been having some spats recently. DC has taken to spamming an image of dubious validity - File:Climategate.jpg ‎ to various articles where it doesn't belong ([172], [173] etc etc). That didn't work - I and various others have reverted it out. So now he has taken to adding spurious AFD tags to my images, presumably in some puerile act of revenge ([174], [175], etc etc but thre are far more - see his contribs). Can someone please block him William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted the image as it's a clear F7 regardless of it being spammed. I'll let another admin look at blocking him, as I've just dealt with an AN3 report regarding you. Black Kite 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Leaving aside the image-spamming as potentially a content dispute, this editor is clearly going through images uploaded by WMC and tagging them with completely inappropriate deletion rationales, without bothering to actually nominate them at RfD. It looks to me like a pretty clear case of disruptive editing and hounding; given the recent block for edit-warring on related topics, I've blocked Duchamps comb (talk · contribs) for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with block. I was minded to do the same after a review of recent contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with block. I'd already pointed out to the editor that NFCC #9 forbids the use of non-free images on talk pages. It's regrettable that he chose to ignore my advice. Hopefully the block will encourage him to raise his game, which he badly needs to do - he has been flagrantly tendentious and disruptive for some time now. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential violation of WP:NLT, need clarification

I am self-reporting, but would like clarification before getting blocked. I am deliberately leaving out names, locations, and even gender pronouns, in an attempt to avoid inflaming the situation. Please help me by not introducing any names into this discussion.

A specific and identifiable person has harassed and libeled me on Wikipedia through various sockpuppet accounts and semi-anonymous IP's, in various other internet forums, and in real life. I have filed a request with a court for a protection order, as this person's behaviour has caused me to fear for my personal safety. This person has formally opposed my request, and a court hearing is scheduled. To help support my arguments for a protection order, I need copies of certain deleted and/or oversighted posts from Wikipedia, and have asked the court to issue a subpoena to WMF for these specific documents. I do have PDF's created prior to reporting the posts to oversight, but the "true and correct copies" have to come from the source, i.e. WMF.

I don't think requesting a protection order violates WP:NLT, but the subpoena to WMF could be seen as an NLT violation, unless you take a few things into account, by my reading of the policy.

1. Any defamatory materials should be reported to oversight, and not become the subject of legal threats. I have done exactly that: reported the various posts to oversight, and allowed them to handle it. These posts are still not the subject of legal threats; they are evidence of physical threats made against me and other forms of harassment (in the criminal, rather than WP:HARASS, sense).
2. I can't follow the suggestions in WP:NLT to pursue dispute resolution, because this person is site-banned from Wikipedia.

I'd like an admin to evaluate this situation, and if I get to ask, I'd prefer that it be an admin with whom I have not had any previous involvement, either positive or negative; I think that's only fair. I am not asking to exclude previously involved admins from this discussion; I only ask that the final block/don't block decision be made by a previously uninvolved admin, that's all. While this question is pending, I will refrain from any editing, with two specific exceptions:

1. Reverting obvious vandalism on articles that I watch
2. Participating in this discussion

If blocked, I am willing to continue discussion with any interested admins on my talk page. I will of course post an unblock request when the legal matter is concluded, which I hope will be in approximately one month. Pfagerburg (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be blocked - if that were the case, User:Fran Rogers would be banned right now because she's using the courts to get JarlaxleArtemis (whom is sitebanned) out of our hair. WP:NLT only applies if you're threatening legal action against Wikipedia editors, not banned users; as far as admins are concerned banned users have no place on Wikipedia and reasonable legal action against them (which this smacks of) should not be punished. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 07:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You are not trying to influence Wikipedia as a whole, any specific editor, or any type of article editing. Whether your legal action is reasonable or not is not even relevant, it doesn't seem to have any intended influence on Wikipedia itself or any part of it, so no reason to block. Fram (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Kevin

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.

---

Closing comment: See comments below, this isn't an issue that can be resolved here. If you want to contest it take it to ARB. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevin has insulted me and now apparently refuses to produce evidence when asked. I would be grateful if an uninvolved admin could comment on my case. See my talkpage. Please do not get involved unless you are prepared to make the effort to do the task properly. I would prefer discussion on my page because it is hard to keep track of this page. Thanks Kevin McCready (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He has insulted you by telling you he isn't qualified to make a determination about your topic ban and to speak to ARBCOM instead? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you could be a bit more specific. Where is this insult?--Atlan (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2)From a glance at your (Mccready's) talk page, I'd rewrite your original post here to say that User:Kevin has declined to review a topic ban against you but, if you don't agree, pleasantly invited you to take it to a higher authority - Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC. Your response has been to get shirty then run here. An alternative course of action would be to go to a higher authority - Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC - and see if they'll review the topic ban. Less drama that way, anyway. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, note that he violated his topic ban here and here and prevent him from further violations. That could be a bit stale and looks like punishment not preventative anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 1 December 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.

CarolineWH

Resolved

 – User:CarolineWH blocked for outing/off wiki harassment --Atlan (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently engaged in a discussion to which the user in question is party to on several abortion-related articles. Fortunately, the pro-choice side has many articulate users whose opinions I respect and who have been productively contributing to the discussion, Caroline's absence would not detract from its quality.

Caroline came on the scene as an anon SPA fighting on abortion-related articles in October. The ip address was initially banned because it was the same as a previous sock-puppeteer who had edited the same articles. After some e-mail correspondence between the user and the CU submitter the ban was lifted and little good has followed.

The user wikistalked me for a bit, following me to places as diverse as the talk page of a Canadian military scandal and a Sockpuppet investigation. After that fun she started back into the abortion articles. Though she later apologized after a RfC was filed, she has denigrated the Christian religion and attempted to discount the opinions of its followers. She has waged a long edit-war and worst of all, has repeatedly reinserted false material into an article for no other discernible reason than that it was removed by editors who oppose her political outlook. In that last one she reinserted the statement that "there are no American pro-life Jewish organizations", this is damagingly false and is in no supported by, or even insinuated by the source. But rather than look at that source, Caroline just punched the revert button. Later on in the same edit she reverted the tense in the sentence about George Tiller to say that he is alive for reasons that I cannot comprehend. George Tiller is very much dead, he has been for a while and we have been embarrassed for things like that in the media.1, 2, 3 After I explained, curtly, albeit, the reasons for these changes on the talk page she just reverted them again 6 hours later, compromising the integrity of that article to an unacceptable extent.

After that, yesterday she filed an ANI on me (withdrawn after a lack of community support) and against policy, she never let me know.

She also claims to have phoned an editor's workplace posing as a journalist to try to confirm his or her identity.

At a time when we are having problems with editor retention this user's shenanigans have already cost the encyclopedia a highly valued senior editor, to which she reacted with malice.

It is possible that this user has productive contributions to make in other fields but nothing good has come of her actions on abortion-related articles and she has caused A LOT of damage. For the good of the encyclopedia, I think Caroline should be topic banned from abortion-related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(We have senior editors? When do I become one?) I have no comment about the pro-choice vs pro-life edit warring, but I do see a problem in calling another editor's workplace to uncover his/her identity. That's entirely inappropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, please, just drop this matter? First you and Paul came to Wikiquette alerts‎, asking that we help resolve the apparent personal attacks, Caroline promised not to make comments about you that could be construed as offensive in future, problem solved. But no, you then go on to RfC demanding an apology and redaction of a statement, which naturally Caroline gives you. Yet still you seem to be taking issue with the matter, you've now taken it to AN/I to have Caroline topic banned. Not only will that result in you "winning" your edit war, but it will also annihilate any good feelings Caroline has remaining for this project.

Through out this Caroline has shown extremely good judgement and good faith, and it has been made clear that she herself has been acting from good faith in all cases. However you seem determined to keep bringing the matter up time and again.

Caroline has apologized for the statements she made in regard to you, which is what you asked for. So please accept that apology and move on from the matter, its counter-productive to keep bringing the issue back up.

As for this whole outing accusation. Well, yes, Caroline has phoned someone's work place, and mentioned that she's done as much on wikipedia, if however, we take some time to examine the incident, we can see that Caroline's comment in regard to her phone call was very specific about not revealing the names, numbers or locations, except those freely available on the internet already. Therefore if we punish her for the phone call, we're as good as saying: "all editors on wikipedia must maintain a strict etiquette on and off the project, otherwise they get blocked", since the accusation was about something that she did off the project, it is completely irrelevant to the project. Save for the fact that she made a post that basically revealed the following: "I made a phone call to try and find out whether this user could be a certain person; they're not", that reveals next to nothing.

Unless we what to become some authoritarian power that dictates over user's activity off the project I suggest that we drop the matter. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Her on-project activity troubles me as much as her off-project activity. - Schrandit (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note: there is currently an RFC for CarolynWH where the phone call to the editor's workplace is being discussed (and poo-poo'd by a couple of editors), and a long discussion on my own talkpage (including a couple of entries that I removed) about the same issue. I agree that the incivility seems dealt with, but the User:Ecoleetage-like phone call to an editor's workplace is highly problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "forum shopping" comes to mind as to the number of places this matter has been discussed, Wikiquette alerts‎, RfC, AN/I, user's talk pages, project talk pages, etc etc. Also, I wouldn't say we've "poo-poo'd" the accusation, we've pointed out why its not a valid complaint, if you just scanned over that and disregarded it as, uh, "poo-poo'ing" then maybe that explains why its become rather hard to communicate effectively. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about outing, as that hasn't been the case, but would you like it if people from the internet call you at work for no other reason than to check who and what you are IRL? Calling someone's workplace you have a dispute with on Wikipedia could be considered real-life harassment. For reference, User:Ecoleetage was banned for such actions.--Atlan (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Bwilkins was thinking the same thing.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop bringing up this thing about Ecoleetage, he was banned for an incident that was unrelated to the real-life harassment (sock puppetry, I think...). And this incident is completely different from that one anyway, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Ecoleetage was banned for harassing a user by calling his work place. Pastor Theo was banned as his sockpuppet. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this phone call. What was the purpose? AniMate 11:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, the harassment was exactly what he was banned for. Saying, "sock puppetry, I think" gives me the impression you have put no effort at all in looking into that matter. I will not stop bringing up that matter, simply because you find it undesirable to discuss it. I think the parallels to that issue are relevant.--Atlan (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Atlan) Hmm, maybe he was, still, the two are very different (Caroline and Eco). The purpose of the phone call was to work out whether an IP user was the same person as a previous sock master, something that interested Caroline as she had previously been accused by Schrandit of being a sock of the user. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. Why not just file a request for checkuser? Frankly, I'm appalled by this user's actions. AniMate 11:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I told you I'd shot a man in Reno (just to watch him die) you'd probably be appalled too, and rightly so, however, that gives you no grounds to block me. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. And you complain about the lack of relevance to the Ecoleetage case?--Atlan (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, the main point is; off wiki actions shouldn't have an impact upon our presence in the project. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)We have checkuser for such investigations, which allows everyone to remain anonymous. I think you trivialize the phone call too much. Yes, Ecoleetage's call was pure harassment, while Caroline was investigating an IP editor. I still think that's taking things too far, and it creates a chilling effect to other editors. But that's a matter for debate.--Atlan (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What do we want to achieve here? A block is meant to be preventive not punitive, although I still think what Caroline did wasn't something terrible, I doubt she'll be doing it again. So what constructive gain is there by discussing the issue like this? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"It already happened, there's nothing to prevent". You can get away with anything but blatant vandalism with that reasoning. I wasn't arguing for a block by the way, I'm merely discussing the appropriateness of calling someone at work.--Atlan (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said. What I said was more alone the lines of: "the user won't do it again, so forget the matter", if the user was likely to do "it" again then you could block them as a preventive measure, if they are not likely to do it again then any blocking becomes punitive. Anyway, I'll be leaving the discussion for a while, I may get back this evening. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, I didn't mean to imply that you were calling for a block, and I do realise that you're just discussing the matter, my question however was: "will anything constructive come out of the discussion"? To which I personally think the answer is no. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like discussing here, while there's an Rfc about basically the same issues going on right now. In that sense, I agree with you. As for what a block would prevent: I can understand if editors Caroline works on articles with, have concerns about such intrusive investigations. We don't want an atmosphere where people have to worry about their personal lifes being investigated, simply because they take an opposing stance on abortion related issues. You may assume she won't do it again, but the die has already been cast, I feel.--Atlan (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The user account has been active less than a month, although she did edit anonymously for some time before that. In that time she's been willing to issue an apology and retraction based on community feedback at WQA. At my request she immediately withdrew the WQA she posted regarding Schrandit. It seems reasonable to assume that she would agree to refrain from making phone calls relating to Wikipedia if asked. Would such a commitment be sufficient to allay your concerns? If not, what would? Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we agree to limit the scope of the discussion to the phone call? Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What is problematic to me is that based on the posting on my talkpage, CarolineWH still fails to see that making the phone call was a problem - they continue to justify it. The defence and minimalization of the phone call by others is just as bad. If, when presented with a clear and similar case, the user still "doesn't get it", how do they move forward? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit-warring and the re-insertion of false material need to be discussed as well. - Schrandit (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All phone calls to people's places of work should result in immediate indef blocks. It's chilling, and wrong, and failing to take immediate action will spread more nonesense beliefs like spitfires that this is acceptable. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what preventative means, it is not only so that the user in question does not cause further direct damage but also to ensure that other users are aware that such actions has consequence. Tracking down an IP editor in order to gain satisfaction within wikipedia is by no means 'off-wiki'. Unomi (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can somebody provide a reason not to block CarolineWH indefinitely for attempted outing? Why shouldn't she remain blocked until she agrees not to attempt to do such a thing? This does not look like an edge case. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, all. Now that I know that this discussion exists, I'd like to contribute.

I'll say three things briefly, then answer any questions. First, I have no intention of making any phone calls in the future. Second, I am absolutely certain that my actions in no way threatened the privacy of any editors and therefore was not an example of WP:OUT. Third, please note the context of this accusation. CarolineWH (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the context: your supporters feel that the phone call to someone's place of business does not belong in the RFC. Fine then, based on the section of WP:NPA that I have quoted both in our discussion on my talkpage, and I believe I left it in the RFC, this is an issue that requires immediate intervention - if there is indeed action to be taken. Indeed, when I became aware of the situation in the RFC, I should have brought it here myself. You have had about a full day since the end of the interactions on my talkpage to reflect - based on the above, I'm not sure you used the time wisely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, I voluntarily revealed the fact that I did this research, while carefully avoiding any revelation of private information. My motivation was to demonstrate that yet another checkuser conviction was mistaken.

Weeks passes without a whisper, until the now-departed User:Paularblaster digs it up to try to add substance to an unpersuasive RfC/CU that he and Schrandit launched. There was no haste or cause for it, just an ax to grind.

Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again, and whether or not you agree with the action, there was never any potential to harm anyone, much less an intent to do so. All this talk about a "chilling effect" is well-meaning but simply mistaken. No matter how you add it up, the situation is one that requires calm reflection, not urgent action, because there's a risk of knee-jerk reaction without actually understanding what happened.

Now, I'm going to ask you, Bwilkins, the question you refused to answer before, and which you deleted from your talk page. Bwilkins, how could my phone call have caused anyone to lose their job? CarolineWH (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(@ CarolineWH) Do you understand why we would be concerned with your off wiki sleuthing, and how that could have a chilling effect? In other areas it would be bad enough, but considering that you are editing abortion-related articles (some of which likely document the murders or stalking of abortion providers) makes it more so. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec):It was uncalled for sleuthing. You clearly indicate investigating the workplace of either Spotfixer or Phil Specter, even if it eventually didn't turn out to be their workplace. Had it happened to me, I would consider such intrusive investigations into my private life just to one-up me in a content dispute, harassment. Despite saying you won't make such phone calls in the future, I see no indication that you understand how serious and inappropriate it was.--Atlan (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "I have no intention" phrase is what sports coaches famously say when asked about their interest in another coaching position...the day before the big announcement that they're changing jobs. Take this user's carefully nuanced response, add it to the complete inability/unwillingness to recognize that the previous act was harassing and inappropriate, and you have one very problematic user here. People who cannot conduct themselves properly in hot-button topics should simply be removed from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked CarolineWH indefinitely. This shouldn't have even been discussed this much. Completely inappropriate behavior; no real indication that the editor realizes why it is wrong. Tan | 39 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tan, I wonder if you could do me a favour? Please quote the precise part of policy that Caroline violated. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment, specifically this: "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.".(let wiki-lawyering commence...)--Atlan (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't lean too hard on that phrase, it might break. The problem here is that the moment WP:HARASS is mentioned everyone gangs up for a witch hunt, when WP:HARASS has actually been violated, then maybe its fair enough that they do, however, on this particular occasion the policy has not been violated. Starting with this accusation of privacy violation, at no point did Caroline actually intrude upon the person who she was trying to "find out" about. She rang a work place, and asked if anyone by the name of the person she was looking for worked there. They didn't, thus, no ones privacy was violated. Now you're probably thinking: "Okay, but what if that person had worked there?", the answer to which is: they don't, so it doesn't matter. (also note that Caroline has said she won't do it again)

Secondly, WP:HARASS states: "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence.", Caroline obviously didn't mean to cause distress, there was no victim, as the person she was phoning up about didn't actually work there and so her phone call had no effect upon him, and finally, it was a one-off isolated incident, which brings us on to WP:HARASS#Consequences of harassment: " editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents". I request an unblock. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Carolin recently said that she: "did not ask for anyone by name. I asked about recent hires who were graduates of my schools. In this way, nobody in specific was mentioned. I then hung up and used their automated system to check for any employees named Specter; none were found. So even if he had worked there, the receptionist would not know that I had checked." Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any call to a work place, under any pretense or justification, is harassment in the wikipedia sense and would have the tendency to very much chill the editing environment if tolerated. Indeed, one can almost see the implied threat in the innocuous call to the office. Maybe the next call won't be so innocuous, hey, if your editing doesn't shape up... The user in question continues to prattle on about her "intent" (as you appear to be doing) as if any of the rest of us should care. We don't. Until she provides a statement along these lines (I welcome her to copy paste this) she should remain indef blocked. "I understand that calling that person's place of work was wrong. I promise I will never, for any reason, try to call the workplace or home of another wikipedia user again. I now understand that there is never any justification for actions like the ones I recently took. I understand that i will be indefinitely blocked if i break this promise and that i won't be given a second chance to come back."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone driving by I must say I agree with Bali. Spitfire's dependence on the fact that CarolineWH didn't violate anyone's privacy exempts her from having tried. Whether she was succesful or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that she tried to discover the identity of another editor. I, for one, would not feel comfortable knowing that other editors are allowed to investigate my background with impunity. It does not directly violate any wiki policies but I'm not sure it should be condone (or even embraced as your postings seem to indicate). Just because she failed doesn't negate the attempt. Padillah (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As a completely uninvolved party, I completely agree with Bali Ultimate and Padillah. There is no wiggle room when it comes to this type of privacy violation. Tan's block here is sound. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: to Bali; Firstly, the use of the word: "prattle" only causes to further inflame the situation, please be careful when dealing with sensitive matters. Secondly, you're supporting the block on the possibility that she might call someone's work place again (not "home", some please don't use that word), however, you say that you're willing to let the matter pass if Caroline says she won't do it again, therefore I suggest you observe her previous comment in this discussion; "Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again." Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: to Padillah; I don't embrace violations of policy, please don't suggest that I do. Another thing I don't embarace is editors getting unfairly blocked just because someone yells outing. you suggest that Caroline tried to find out another editors identity, this however is false, what Caroline actually did was try to find out if and identity she already had matched a certain editor. she did this in an extremely careful and sensitive manner, see this edit. You also say that just because she "failed doesn't negate the attempt", yes, she "failed" (or from her point of view succeeded in showing that the editor was not working at that place), however, as she didn't find out anything, there was no harm done, no harm done provided she doesn't make this a pattern, which she won't (see above comment: "I said outright that I won't be doing this again.") Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't mean to suggest anything except what your continued justification and defense of these actions suggests: that you condone the actions. Since you are, in point of fact, condoning them and justifying them, it's really the only conclusion I am left with. As for her failure, that is secondary to her attempt. As RaseaC points out below Attempted Murder is still a capitol offense. Just because you suck at shooting doesn't mean you weren't really trying to kill. You argue that she already had the identity she was just trying to match it to an editor - for me this statement calls into question the very basis of this discussion. If you are trying to equivocate the discovery of someone's identity by "matching" vs discovering someone's identity via other means then we have a serious problem. There should be no circumstance under which one editor is allowed to investigate the real life identity of another. No amount of wikilawyering should allow any amount of investigation under any circumstances. That this isn't painfully and obviously clear to both CarolineWH and yourself is a great concern to me and, I hope, to others. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you meant to miss and you did, then that wouldn't be a problem, particularly if you fired the shot into the ground at your feet (although a lot of people would probably argue that you'd been trying to hit the person, but really really really sucked at shooting), Caroline didn't aim to find out where the editor worked, she aimed to find out where they did not. As I said, I don't condone a violation of policy. The problem is that policy is debatable, and I have not seen proof that Caroline's actions were a violation. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire, enough! Caroline is not going to be unblocked because of anything you say here. Padillah, I think you should feel free not to have to prolong this ridiculous argument (just a thought). Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, enough! Spitfire is not going to shut up because of anything you say here. Although, I'm starting to think that maybe its time to let this die, I can see that no one is going to change their minds, and as your argument is the one supported by an administrator (who apparently reckons that consensus doesn't matter: "While consensus isn't a vote etc etc etc, this rings in at Caroline and Spitfire vs. Everyone Else.") there's not a lot to be gained. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, as soon as you go off-wiki and start looking for people you've crossed a line and don't belong on the project. The 'she didn't find them' argument is ridiculous, if I go and shoot my neighbour but miss I'm still going to have some questions to answer. The editor obviosuly doesn't understand that what she did was wrong and that is probably the most worrying part of all of this, for that reason alone it is probably best that they stay away from WP for a very long time. It's all well and good trying to educate people, but when the issues are as fundamental as Caroline's I think the only possible route is an indef. I've been following this discussion and have been amazed at how long it's been carrying on, Tan, or any admin, should have issued a block a while back. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire -- If you don't like being accused of prattling then stop prattling. As for caroline - real, extended grovelling, and iron clad evidence that she understands why calling the home, work place, church, former school, etc. etc. of any wikipedia editor is very clearly wrong. Then promises that she will never, ever try to track, either by phone or internet records or any other means, the real life identities of any wikipedia editors. Perhaps an essay making it clear why these sorts of violations are so harmful is in order as well. All i've seen on her talk page so far is surliness and self-justification. Again, a prolonged, full prostration is needed to come back from a violation of trust this serious.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you aim to achieve by having her grovel at our feet? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good block. Any attempt to contact the workplace of an editor with whom one has a conflict – successfully or not – is entirely unacceptable. This is a 'bright-line' rule. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

She didn't have a conflict with the editor, which immediately throws that "rule" out of the situation. Also, she was only trying to see whether or not some one she already knew worked there, her aim was to prove that they did not work there, not that they did. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you, her wiki-lawyer? You are sure doing a lot of poking and prodding around the edges of policy, looking for gaps to exploit. The moment someone attempts to "investigate" another user in this manner, that crosses the line into harassment; there is no wiggle room here. This approach to editing in what is supposed to be a collaborative project is simply cancerous, and should not be tolerated n the slightest. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No just an editor who doesn't like to see people unfairly accused of things they didn't do. You people sure do a lot of "assuming" about policy that isn't actually there, apparently just so that you can justify blocking people. The policy actually states: "editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents", I haven't seen any proof that this is a pattern, and certainly no proof that policy justifies a block, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. While consensus isn't a vote etc etc etc, this rings in at Caroline and Spitfire vs. Everyone Else. There's no need to convince Spitfire of the appropriateness of this block. Let's all move on. Tan | 39 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"etc etc"? As an admin you kind of have a responsibility to justify your blockes, I am left in extreme doubt as to whether you can when the only response you've made is "There's no need to convince Spitfire of the appropriateness of this block". Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I indicated at the RfC that the forum was inappropriate for bringing up material not related to the dispute, I believe the block is completely appropriate. I also attempted to discuss the phone call privately and found that Caroline was either unwilling or unable to understand why the behavior was such a serious concern. Checking up on an editor in real-life, no matter how well intentioned, is completely inappropriate. I'm very concerned that Caroline is continuing to defend her actions; she doesn't appear to realize the seriousness of her intrusion. Shell ^babelfish 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Might help to look up: Wikipedia:HARASS#Private_correspondence. She has already shown that she appreciates how serious any actual off-wiki harassment is, and she has said she won't do this again, even though she doesn't think it qualifies as harassment, which shows that despite her own feelings on the matter, she is prepared to let you (the community) be the judge of whether or not certain behavior is appropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe that's the case. She's just called her actions harmless and repeatedly stated that she didn't break any rules; there's just nowhere we can go from there. That's some serious stubbornness despite copious feedback; her actions were inappropriate, full stop. Shell ^babelfish 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how the phone call and attached edit harmed anyone? Not how it could have harmed them, but how it did, regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One last try Spitfire. While i can't demonstrate harm to any particular person, that sort of action is very, very harmful to wikipedia's editing environment. In theory, a productive editing environment is the most important thing here. Actions like hers are corrosive to this most important thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can, easily. It has irrevocably damaged my ability to trust that I can edit articles like Abortion without fear of being investigated, outed or harassed. How's that? I don't say this to "win" the argument, I say this as an honest response to the question. You are looking in one specialized spot and saying "There's no harm" but you are failing to see the effect these actions have on other editors. Do you not see that condoning the investigation of editors in Real Life, however innocuous it may seem to you, tells other editors that they are subject to the same consequences? Don't you see the harm in this? Padillah (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, what I am saying doesn't deserve a block is when the investigation has no harmful consequences and none are intended (provided there's an understanding that future investigation will lead to a block), what would deserve a block is if the investigation did have consequences, intended or not. So really, Caroline's edits will only make people feel that they can investigate people so long as they don't find anything out and they don't aim to, and no one (except under cicumstances like this incident regarding Caroline) really sets out to investigate people not intending to find anything out. If that makes sense. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic block - why anybody is arguing this is completely beyond me. Contacting an editor's workplace is completely out of line - This is one of those situations where even a "sorry, I won't do that again" wouldn't be good enough. What Caroline did completely crossed the line and then some - the only answer is to swiftly show her the door and make sure it's securely locked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last time: she's said she won't do it again! WP:BP states very clearly: "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." However, you seems to be justifying the block on the ground that what Caroline did at the time was shocking, however, she won't do it again, so the block is punitive, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Outing, or anything that resembles outing, is one of those situations where it doesn't really matter if the editor says they won't do the said crime again - the fact of the matter is that they've already done something which most people consider to be the most serious thing you can do here. I'm not going to get into the intricacies of whether not she outed the editor, but it does come under that umbrella. Is this is punitive block? I don't think so because of the seriousness of the charge. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "seriousness of the charge" has no effect on whether or not a block is punitive. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion, but I'd like to quickly state my support for this block. Any sort of off-wiki investigation is completely inappropriate, over the line and indicates a severe lack of propreity. GlassCobra 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Late to party but absolutely support this. I said at the RfC that this was an immediate block rather than a discuss first. Calling up the person you believe to be another editor's employer/professor/priest/mom because you want to find out who they are, is right out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving the discussion. I'm sorry that the discussion couldn't have had a more productive outcome, in my opinion a punitive block is about as far from productive as is possible. But, as I said, its clear that no amount of discussion is going to change the matter, and so I'm regretfully going to have to leave it as it stands as the discussion is becoming counter-productive. Kind regards to everyone involved, and thanks for your time and opinions, both of which are valued, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since 1) this is winding down into a pissing match between one fan and everyone else, 2) the user in question is unable to find fault in their off-wiki stalking actions 3) the user is no longer contesting the block, can this be marked resolved? Tarc (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Spitfire, I think you should reflect on how it is that community consensus seems to be behind this block. The likely outcome of appealing to excerpts of policy is unlikely to result in having the block overturned. I agree that perhaps language regarding the unacceptable nature of trying to deduce the workplace or identity of an IP editor should be spelled out more clearly. It is unfortunate that it should be necessary, as most hold it to be self-evident. I also do not see this as a punitive block but rather one aimed at protecting wikipedia from further harm. Allowing attempts at breaches of privacy, which I believe CarolineWH's actions constitute, would be to invite harm to wikipedia and its editors. Unomi (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see when I said "let wiki-lawyering commence" up there, it was taken as an invitation to do so. Clearly consensus is for the block to remain. This discussion isn't going anywhere else from there.--Atlan (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's pretty much no way that calling someone's employer, even without bringing their name into it, can be justified. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, The matter is over (see above comment), please, please, just leave it? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Move to mark as closed. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been since 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Look at the top of the post (this is just a section) Padillah (talk) 19:13, 30 November 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.

Waste / CarolineWH

While I do not condone the activity I do not feel an indef ban is the appropriate response. The losing of a potential good editor in a rush to judgment is a waste and does not benefit the Wikipedia community. To summarize the consensus position of community as I understand it, the issue is not that Caroline refuses to agree not to repeat the activity but rather that she is defending herself and refusing to take the position that she should have known a priori that making the call was an improper activity. I have been involved since the WQA on 24 Nov and have found Caroline to be willing to listen to advice and counsel when presented in a respectful manner. Meaning depends on context, and interpretation of action should be made in that light. To start, let's consider the original post by Caroline herself

I doubt it, since CU is immune to oversight and has no reason to be honest, but I'm sort of proud of myself so I'm eager to brag. I might have very limited computer skills, but I'm tops at research! I clicked a few links here until I got the company name behind the IP (which I won't mention here in case they Google), then found their phone number on their web site and gave them a call. All I had to do to get their cooperation was explain who I was, including my role in the student paper, and say that I was researching where our recent graduates went off to and how they're adjusting to the real world. I didn't say so, but I'm sure the receptionist assumed it was for a story.

[[176]]

Note:

• She states her skills are limited. Therefore, saying 'she should have just done a checkuser' presumes she even knew that checkuser existed. This is not reasonable
• She is clearly cognizant of the need to prevent breaches of privacy. She intentionally did not post the company's name and provided a cover explanation for why she was calling. At no point does she mention Wikipedia is this account.

Therefore it is understandable to me to she is unwilling to state that she someone should have known the making a call was unacceptable before being told.

Meaning depends on context. Caroline had gotten engaged in disagreement over Abortion page content with Paularabaster and Schrandit. The history here is intervention postings, focused not on the outing but rather on unrelated Abortion page discussion, by Paularbaster on WQA 24 Nov, and Paularabaster on WP:RFC 25 Nov and finally here 29 Nov by Schrandit. Both BWilkins and Elen of Roads have stated they should have escalated the issue to AN/I but in fact they did not. I infer from many of the comments above that is is obvious to the community here that Caroline's activity should have resulted in a block immediately. In contrast, no one reading either the WQA nor the RFC brought the issue to the attention of AN/I. Therefore it seems to me that what is obvious to the experienced administrator community was less obvious to the general editor community. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect that it would have been obvious to a new editor.

under attack

Multiple factors came together that likely resulted in Caroline feeling attacked:

• The fact the AN/I was posted by Schrandit rather than a third party editor despite the fact the activity had been known for days
• her action was compared to stalking abortion providers
• reference was made to countries where Wikipedia activity could result in harm, although I believe the call was not made is such a country

why the haste?

Based on past interactions I considered it likely that if Caroline was forced to respond without having an opportunity:

• to have explained to her the mores of this new community she was part of, and
• given time to reflect and digest the reasoning behind those values
that she would not "get it." To which extent I counseled her to wait before responding [[177]]... I had hoped to have an opportunity to talk her through this. Unfortunately other editors demanded she respond immediately, to poor results.

When a person feels both attacked and pressured to respond quickly it is significantly less likely they will respond in an insightful way. What I don't get is why the rush? Why the need for haste? An explanation of Wikipedia's point of view, concurrent with positive validation of Caroline's intent while making the call while disapproving of the method, coupled with time for her to process, could very well have resulted in a much more positive outcome.

The justification of the ban as a deterrent against future misbehavior presupposes that a new editor such as Caroline would both be aware of and review past Case_law of AN/I. This is inconsistent with the anyone can edit model of Wikipedia.

Therefore I respectfully request the indef ban be mitigated. I don't think any block is necessary at all; however if the community feels some cooling off period is justified my past experience suggests a few days would be sufficient. Gerardw (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gerard, the user was given all day yesterday to rethink as per a discussion on my talkpage. You don't call someone's work/church/home, period. When politely confronted and shown a similar case, you don't continue to justify it. Arguably, Spitfire's discussion absolutely shot down any chance for her, however, she was provided more than enough opportunity to realize her bad, bad, bad judgement. She chose to justify it instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No mitigating circumstances. Caroline sought real-life personal information of other editors to be used to her advantage on Wikipedia. Her totally unapologetic response when asked about it, sealed the deal.--Atlan (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

She called what she thought was another editor's place of work and refused, despite repeated prodding, that this was a major wrong hereabouts. She continued to insist there was no problem with her behavior. Excellent block. Prevents more possible instances of same from an editor that crossed one of the brightest red lines here and pour encourager les autres (one can hope).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to "case law" is missing the point entirely. This isn't a government and no laws are being enforced. The intent is to protect Wikipedia and its editors. Tracking down and contacting an editor's employer is so far over the line that there's little point in debate. If I thought that such things were given an inch of tolerance I wouldn't want to participate in Wikipedia. That kind of thing is scary. -- Atama頭 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also [[178]] Gerardw (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gerardw for bringing this continued discussion to my attention. One of the most disturbing things for me about this whole sorry saga has been the way it has been conducted all over the shop in various forums. I am no newbie here, but I have found it very difficult to keep up with all the various threads of the discussion in all these different places. In my opinion this is an abuse of process. It has been nothing more than a gaming of the system by two experienced users (one who has since flounced) who have taken exception to an oposing opinion about a content dispute. People here who should know better have allowed these two to dig for something that could be turned into a hot button issue and responed unthinkingly when they had no compunction in pressing that button. Certainly CarolineWH's actions deserve censure, but she has been denied natural justice by all this forum shopping - which surely should have raised some alarm bells with people here - which has made it impossible for her to respond, especially given the pressure that has been applied to elicit a rapid response from her. Frankly it looks like a kangaroo court to me. I have stated in the link supplied above by Gerardw what I think should have happenned. It is not too late (I hope) for this precipitate action to be reversed and more naunced approach to be tried.

Finally, there remains the issue of the two who started all this, whatever CarolineWH's actions deserved, this sort of simultaneous multiple forum attack on her is unjust and unconscionable. We cannot afford to allow this sort of abuse to continue. The two perpetrators of this should not escape with their actions unsanctioned, especially given the way the current case for a new user has been dealt with. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

CarolineWH has been told how to contest her block. I can't see any administrator willing to unblock under these circumstances, so she can always take it to ArbCom. AniMate 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerardw, your entire argument falls at your very first note (why would she even know there was such a thing as checkuser). Read the text you quoted - that bit about CU not being subject to any kind of oversight. CarolineWH had in fact had a disagreement with a checkuser in an SPI prior to the events described, which was why she decided to conduct her own off wiki research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

On article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia user DIREKTOR is deleting valid source and edit warring, and has the nerve to write me Please stop edit-warring to push your edit, but actually he is pushing his POV by removing valid source. Thank you in advance. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days. Tan | 39 15:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (you actually protected version without valid sources, but that can be corrected in 3 days), but user DIREKTOR is also abusive on my talk page his edit Last 2 sentences of above edit are: I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat. I hope being so rude (presuming he will have to repeat something to me because I couldn't fathom it) is not OK here. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see this--Ex13 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Standard attempts by a nationalist WikiClique to get me banned. This time Croatian (betrayed by my own balkans faction :). So I make a very complicated point and I add

• ME: "I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat."
• HIM: "Please be polite. Sentences like you wrote me I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat. are insulting."
• ME: "Polite? I did NOT mean to sound arrogant or anything! (Keep in mind that raw text can be ambiguous.) I was just hoping I'd have your full attention. But if you want to talk about politeness than I suggest that first and foremost you stop edit-warring to introduce your edit. Its still there and it can be easily restored. Edit-warring destroys conversation."

I'm not sure if I violated 3RR, but an article I worked on got "invaded" by one of the Croatian WikiCliques who started introducing standard anti-Serbian POV edits, so I reverted the edit and kept pleading for the article to be left alone while the discussions are on. Of course, I'm always the bad guy for trying to keep Balkans nationalist POV out of articles... Its a standard tactic, outnumber the other guy so that you out-revert him with WP:MEATPUPPETS that never violate the 3RR - and introduce whatever you want. I did not think it should be allowed to work this time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice wording: Croatian WikiCliques, anti-Serbian POV edits.... Well, you are troll who is removing valid sources. It's a standard tactic, remove the valid sources of other guy, and call him names, and you will get your POV. I hope not. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't labeling me as "Croatian WikiCliques". I provided the sources for my edits, and you violated wikipedia's verifiability policy for several time, and I explained on talk page. There is no anti-Serb POV pushing edits. There is only yours anti-Croat edits with bad explanations--Ex13 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand where DIREKTOR is coming from. He's reported on this board on a regular basis and almost always without cause, usually the person reporting him is the one blocked. If he's a little paranoid about nationalist cliques, it's not without justification. On the other hand, edit wars are never a good idea. I don't think that DIREKTOR literally broke 3RR on the article, though he did reach three reverts a couple of times in a 24 hour period. The 3RR rule does not mean that reverting up to 3 times is okay; it means that more than 3 times is almost always worthy of a block, while less than that might still result in one. The bottom line is that any kind of edit war is unproductive regardless of actual revert counts. Just keep this in mind in the future. -- Atama頭 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to me why are Admins so inconsistent with their decisions? I was recently put on a 1RR even if I have not reverted more than once. Now I see that this DIREKTOR keeps edit warring and dancing on the 3RR line and all that happens is he gets some generic warning. Seems to me that wikipedia's Admins have double standards. Loosmark (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Every situation and every editor is different. I doubt very much that you and DIREKTOR have completely identical actions and so I wouldn't expect you to face the same consequences. If there were a set of easy and consistent rules to follow that would evenly apply in every case then admins wouldn't need to use their judgment in such things. -- Atama頭 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that's true, me and DIREKTOR do not have completely identical actions in fact our actions aren't even remotely similar. I never come even close to edit warring, I did one revert on one page and then another one on another. And somehow even if nobody found my actions disruptive or problematic the Admin put me on a 1RR. I am more and more convinced that the Admin system on wikipedia is just totally broken, because lets face the truth, the Admins' decisions are completely inconsistent and more, if the Admins like you, you can do whatever you want, but if you happen to have some argument with an Admin then they keep "beat you down" for nothing. Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This ANI doesn't surprise me at all, given some semi-related surrogates were here a few days with an ANI of harassment ago over a debate of which map to use on a page: the better-looking one or the slightly-more-accurate one. There I believe 3 more users involved in the larger dispute for the Balkans as a whole, and at this rate it won't be that long until they appear here for whatever reason. I won't give names but edits histories all around paints a rather depressing image as a whole. This report and replies from a few semi-involved editors continue to suggest that there could be a puppet issue afoot. It can't entirely a coincidence that this ANI listing comes near the time that a recently-blocked user in this case would have received and read his block appeal request. This is far from over regardless of anything decided here or not. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont wanna talk about 3RR. I put referenced text (with several sources), and someone deleted that text, telling me that his edits are better and NPOV. I explained a lot,but I just got a label "nationalist", "POV pusher", "Croatian WikiCliques", etc. without any real argument. Nobody explain to me this. How is this possible--Ex13 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)