Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658

Three Strikes and You're Out?

Resolved

I think maybe its time for admin intervention with Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated WP:IDHT

Previous ANIs (relating to this matter)

• September 29, 2010
• November 15, 2010

Today he's recreated the article in dispute at (I Only Know Him) In The Dark and despite repeated warnings he's added unsourced information to the parent article Can't Take That Away from Me. In this edit he uploaded an album cover which was of HQ and 1000×1000px (too big) as well as adding information about leaked songs and used twitter/youtube as sources for speculated information. Funnily enough after I reverted it an IP address made the same edits here without the change to the album cover. Lilbadboy has been warned before about uploading inappropriate images and I believe he simply cannot understand/comprehend or follow wikipedia rules. He has even uploaded a watermarked image here which he has claimed under fair use for being his own work yet on flicker the same image has even more watermarks and is clearly marked as "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED".

I rest my case. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking at your difs and the editor you mention, I think enough is enough and a block is needed or even a ban. I am especially concerned with the copyright problems and lying about it. No, we can't have editors behave like this. Definitely need to stop this and now. I would also recommend salting the article the editor keeps recreating to stop that from happening too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Lilbadboy312 has caused enough disruption to Wikipedia and has utterly failed to understand the rules in a collegiate manner. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse blocks

Resolved

 – The SPI request shows they are socks so nothing more is needed at this time, accounts are blocked. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I blocked Uachtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and CanadaNoveScotia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for making the same inappropriate talk page additions as PLehany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to talk pages loosely related to Child sexual abuse. It seems an obvious attempt to pretend to there being multiple editors supporting the changes, but it seems unlikely that new editors would make the same violations as WP:TALK without making exactly the same edit, using WP:UNDO.

As I have been involved in content editing in some of the articles, I'm putting the blocks up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits have also come from 86.42.13.231. [1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention IPs, but 86.44.252.83 was also used. (Do we need to inform those IPs by {{ANI-notice}} now?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, it's almost certainly the same person each time anyway:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the blocks. Maybe the IP or if it's multiple ones though I only saw the one, should also be briefly blocked (unless it's one that doesn't rotate than also block it permanently). --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way I submitted an SPI request, in case the editor is sophisticated enough to have created additional socks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly disruptive to spam the same post across several article talkpages, using different accounts to possibly evade clean up. I am only concerned that the project is not being suckered into allegations of pro paedophile censorship, since the content of the disruptive edits may indeed be suitable for placement in the appropriate article. I am noting this concern in case the situation does arise, but otherwise I think WP:BEANS applies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be closed now. The SPI that Arthur Rubin set up confirms they are socks and they are all blocked except of course the IP's. I don't think anymore is needed here unless there is more problems going on that have not been added here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP hopping vandal

Since December 2, an IP has been persistently vandalising various pages, especially those related to Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. Some of the vandalism is fairly sneaky, such as wikilinking random words[2] or changing spelling, eg "Vain" to "vein".[3] Other vandalism has been blatant, like changing the gas in "Lilly's "Green Gas" science project" to "Dirty Tan"[4] and then to "Dirty Blonde".[5] Other examples are changing female names to "Chanel"[6] and there's just plain ridiculous stuff.[7] The random wikilinking is a trait exhibited in every one of 122123 edits so far made by this editor, who has used 1314 different IPs so far,[8] all of which are from Verizon's pool.

IPs used so far

• 2-5 December 108.17.101.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 7 December 108.17.99.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 9 December 108.17.100.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 9 December 108.17.96.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 10 December 108.17.106.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 11 December 108.17.105.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 12/13 December 108.17.102.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 13 December 108.32.6.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14 December 108.17.105.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 16 December 108.32.11.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 17 December 108.32.15.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.32.3.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.32.4.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.17.100.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

new entries

• 19 December 108.32.1.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 20 December 108.32.11.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There are too many pages affected to protect them all. Would a rangeblock be appropriate? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I'd think you need two or three. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Kids across the USA are off on Winter Break, apparently. Let's get the rangeblocks in there if we can. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And we have another one to add to the list. I see it's back to changing names to "Chanel" again.[9] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Verizon needs to be informed of the abuse, don't they? Shouldn't they? 123 edits is pretty ridiculous. Dusti^*poke* 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So they could do... what? No ISP is going to give a crap, sadly. However; perhaps a very short rangeblock for the holidays might suffice. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have some options for the rangeblocks. We can get all the IPs with:

• All IPs listed starting with 108.32.x.x = 108.32.0.0/20, - 4,096 addresses
• All IPs listed starting with 108.17.x.x = 108.17.96.0/20 - 4,096 addresses

We can go smaller with rangeblocks for the addresses starting 108.17.100.x and 108.17.105.x, but there's no way we can get the rest of the IPs listed without blocking 108.17.x.x. What should we do, and for how long? - KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like more input before I place these rangeblocks. In the meantime, I semi'd List of Hannah Montana characters, as it's certainly had enough recent IP disruption. I looked at the other articles in that genre and they haven't received nearly as much recent activity.

Thoughts, anyone? - KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is winter break. I say we just hard block the entire USA. That way the little kiddies can't attack Wikipedia. I'm joking obviously. I'd say that someone file an Abuse Response thing to contact Verizon. Isn't there a bit much collateral damage on those rangeblocks? Sure the IP isn't using a proxy of some sort? I'd block for 3-5 months. If vandalism continues after the block is lifted, switch to 6-8 mo. If it continues after that, which I doubt, just block indef. Someone could file an sock puppet thing on this, if you think it would help. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 04:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done it. :-) The smaller ranges, 108.17.100.128/26 and 108.17.105.0/24, block 64 and 256 addresses respectively, but his dynamic IP has changed from the 108.17.x.x range to the 108.32.x.x range just today. I agree that WP:ABUSE is a good idea, but they're backlogged and short on volunteers. Should I just semi all those pages? That's not as big a sledgehammer, but still... - KrakatoaKatie 05:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Different IP, different country, no mention of Chanel but the rest is all still there. Is there some airborne virus they haven't told us about? And the first post by this IP was made only 22 minutes after the last post made by the last IP listed above (108.17.100.183). That seems too coincidental. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm concerned that protecting the pages might just force the IP to go to other pages, another has just hit List of Hannah Montana main characters so I say go ahead and protect away. These pages don't see (m)any positive contributions by IPs usually, so nobody is going to suffer because of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't see any dissension here, so I've semi'd those that have been hit so far for one month, to get the entire US campus crowd back in school, which won't be until the start of the third week of January (guess how I know that?). If he/they does/do go to other pages, let me know or list them here and we'll get those too. I think this is more effective and with less damage than playing whack-a-mole with them. - KrakatoaKatie 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As I feared, the IP has moved to Cory in the House. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd it and gave him the final warning. Feel free to final warn the rest of them, if they vandalize again. We can still block him the old-fashioned way, without a rangeblock. KrakatoaKatie 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate block evasion by IP sock

• 66.71.97.39 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.71.97.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1103/Archive

I'm reporting two IP addresses used for socking and block evasion. I had tried to counsel this person not to do this, but they have stated unambiguously that they intend to evade the block: [10]. Beyond that, I think it's pretty self-explanatory if you look at the two IP talk pages and the archived SPI case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified: [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

66.71.97.32/28 would be the range to block here. It's pretty small, but perhaps it would take care of this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, do you think there is any chance this editor will do anything useful if unblocked? The history is somewhat difficult to parse. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HA (the blocking admin from SPI), thanks. Looie, I'm conflicted about this. It really looks to me like this person just wants to edit in WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and they did some medium-competency work on Calcium reactor in the past. So, when I first got involved, my hope was that they would make a clean start and become a policy-abiding contributor. And there does seem to be some perception on this person's part that no one except me is willing to listen to them, and they just want to put their past behind them. But you will see at their talk that I tried very hard to get them to do this the right way, and they are pretty determined to ignore my advice. And I don't know the whole story of what got them blocked originally (the SPI archive seems to be incomplete). So I'd be hard pressed to endorse an unblock at this point. Previously, HA suggested to me at his talk to use WP:OFFER, but no unblock any time soon, and I suppose I could be talked into agreeing to mentor them if they came back under a pretty strict editing restriction (ie, no editing outside of aquarium fish), but I'm not confident about that, given what has happened so far. I'd be very much influenced by what other, uninvolved, community members think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(I haven't done the rangeblock yet; I'm curious to see that others think as well.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

About that rangeblock, I should note that they say that they are at that IP through the end of the month (probably university semester), but will move to another IP in January. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• And now: TonyPSU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Here's the part I'm not getting: in this edit, the user stated that "I went back to my account and protested the block", but I see no evidence of that on User talk:Antony1103. They were told on User talk:Toner89 (a confirmed sock) to go try on the original account, but all they did was blank their talk page. I don't really want to invoke WP:CIR here, but this is just getting worse and worse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I also found that somewhat cryptic, but I think it refers, not to anything done since I started communicating with them, but rather to when they were first blocked, before the socking in response to the block began. I think they put a request to review the block on their talk, probably not very well thought out, and the reviewing admin (very likely correctly) declined, and that's what this is referring to. I've tried to go back and figure out what that was all about, and I'm afraid I haven't been able to piece it all together, because some of the record seems to have been deleted. I've seen mention of something about bad bots, no idea what that was, and I've seen the user make some incivil comments about those who blocked them.

I, too, am coming to the conclusion that this boils down to WP:CIR. But if you look at the last few diffs at User talk:66.71.97.39, the user may have made this decision for us, saying that they've decided not to edit here any more.

My advice at this point: go ahead with the IP rangeblock, including blocking new account creation, since we have no guarantee that they won't try again to come back. And then consider the matter closed and done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Re: "I went back to my account and protested the block", User talk:Antony1103 has been blanked a number of times, and looking at previous versions reveals a number of old unblock requests, which I'd guess is what that comment refers to. Is there no possibility that this is someone who genuinely wants a clean start? Is there no way anyone can try to help rather than just saying "You didn't do it the right way, so go away" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I appreciate you saying that. As I've indicated above, I've been going back and forth on what I think about this question, and I'd welcome input about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdel?

Do any of the recent edits here by USer:XMAS2010BITW (now indef blocked) warrant revdel? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've the removed the abusive edit summaries, and removed the vandal's talkpage access. Rd232 ^talk 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And apparently I shouldn't have bothered, since checkuser now says the vandal is actually a sock of the account being abused, so both idef'd... Rd232 ^talk 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how bizarre - thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on though... Are you sure that's not a shared IP? Iamred1 was complaining about an autoblock before, and I don't believe XMAS is the same person. Grandmasterka 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, it does seem odd. I've asked the checkuser (Muzemike) to comment here. Rd232 ^talk 20:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not look like a public IP (i.e. from a computer lab or anything). Otherwise, it looks like it's all coming from the same computer to me. –MuZemike 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This also supports my findings. –MuZemike 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong

Moved from WP:AN § User:HelloAnnyong

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It's time to drop the stick. (X! · talk)  · @870  ·  19:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I am requesting review of User:HelloAnnyong admin actions in relation to this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phrasia - The sockmaster had been blocked for previous socking and was vandalizing the integrity of the wikipedia with adding a hoax - a picture of himself to an article, User:HelloAnnyong at first gave him a three day block, I complained and he tells me to settle down like its my fault and then he raises it to two weeks. The user is quite simply a disruptive repeat offending sockpuppeeter hoaxer and is detrimental to the project yesterday , tomorrow, in two weeks and indefinitely , which is how long his block for these actions should be. Please review, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're coming off like a four-year-old whose brother's just been grounded for a day when you wanted him grounded forever. Settle down is right.  f o x  18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, WP:NPA? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that's not an attack. He's escalated this far too quickly.  f o x  18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And you couldn't have pointed that out in a way which doesn't attack his character by comparing him to a four-year-old? I'd think that's pretty insulting by anyone's standards. It's likely o2rr needs to back off from this, but that was just a completely unnecessary comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I asked for a review not a personal attack. What is too quickly? I went to the trouble to make a report and it is poorly actioned by this Administrator and then after I complain to him he raises it to two weeks and I complain again and he doesn't reply, I am able to ask for review of the Admin actions without being attacked? I don't need to back off anywhere, I expect decent administration, when it is not given it is so self defeating and just makes the whole thing seem a waste of users time, three days - what was he thinking.Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I love how you're taking a harmless analogy as an attack. Anyway, HelloAnnyong is an administrator, not a judge. It's up to him how he deals with it. Take it up with him, don't just suddenly out him in the stocks.  f o x  18:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since as an uninvolved editor who thus far agrees with you that this has been escalated too rapidly, I was the one to point out that comparing someone to a four-year-old trying to shit-stir, surely that's an indication that you could have chosen a rather less offensive "harmless analogy", Fox? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That was at both of you. Edit-conflicts. And really, if that's offensive, then, wow.  f o x  18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um.. wow. First off, I've been busy looking into other things both on and off-Wiki, so I apologize for not replying immediately to you, I suppose. In terms of the case, the master had been blocked back in May for a week for puppeting using one of the accounts that came up again in this case. The case wasn't reported, though, and it seems to have been just based on behavior. So here we are seven months later, and the case actually went through a checkuser and was confirmed. Perhaps three days was a bit light given the user's block log, but since this is the first time the socking has been confirmed, I thought not indeffing would be slightly less bitey. Anyway, I increased the block to two weeks, so this should be moot now. I'm not really sure why this needed to go to review, though, all because I didn't block enough. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Even raising to two weeks is not enough for a user that has this - I have been very bad in the wikipedia community for the past years, but I'm going to change my ways, have you know.' - on his userpage and is a vandalistic hoaxer who uses sockpuppets in editing that is detrimental to the fabric of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, what on Earth are you chasing? An apology, the chance to be proven right, or for HA to step down? It's hardly clear.  f o x  18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O2rr: So you think that the worst case scenario, having to block the user indefinitely if they resume after two weeks, is worse than dragging the community through this mess? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an apology, I don't want to be proven right, I don't want anybody to stand down. I want this administration action to reflect the users actions, imo that is a thankyou - goodbye - indef restriction Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thus far it seems that the blocking admin and three uninvolved editors disagree per WP:ROPE: so again I ask, why does this warrant a trip to ANI with hardly any discussion with the blocking admin? Or indeed to AN, where the thread was originally placed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROPE. There's never much of a problem if the block is too short. One of the 1699 other admins can block them again when the problem starts up again. No big whoop. --Jayron32 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment makes it seem pointless to make any effort to take the responsibility of making a report. Oh don't worry three days would be ok, if he does it again someone will block him again. Reports need actioning with a degree of reflective expectation or user, well I am, will get disheartened and not bother removing hoaxs and not bother making reports as its not worth it and for expecting a decent level of administration and for questioning admin action am called and likened to a four year old child. I could get more than a three day block for telling an Admin to fuck off. This user wanted indefinate block and I would have done that immediately, if three days was correct and I am wrong to complain then I disagree completely. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please drop it. Reblocks are easy and there was no need to bring that here, much less the way you brought it here, to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I discussed with the admin I asked him to increase the block he didn't reply, I told him I was going to request review and I notified him that I had. I am able to request review without being attacked. It was very poor administration and I reject it. No worry, I won't make any more SPI reports if this is the way they are treated.Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, you gave me eight minutes to respond to your comment before reporting me. I apologize for not staying in front of my computer for those eight minutes. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked how many mins but you knew a situation has arisen about your admin action and you should have stayed and dealt with it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like, at the very least, you came here to stir things up when an admin didn't answer a post fast enough for you. That's not on. The account was already blocked, there was lots of time to deal with any worries you may have had. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a review of admin actions is allowed isn't it? Or am I just supposed to accept whatever they do? If you disagree and have a little chat and then notify him, its perfectly within allowances isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not how you've handled it. You badgered HA from the start and then kept on, bringing it all the way here. Most editors watching this now are likely much more worried about your behaviour than the two week length of the block, or how HA handled it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will, request review of admin action if similar situations arise, in the same way, so if you think I shouldn't do that then you are welcome to restrict me now. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review is ok, give it plenty of time though and please, if you hope to be heard, be more careful with how you word things. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Close? I think it's been made clear by at least 4 uninvolved editors that there was no need to bring it here in the first place, and it seems to be the consensus that it's better to see if they hang themselves after two weeks. If an uninvolved editor could close this now, we can all go do something more constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Long-term abuse vandal

Resolved

 – User blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much speaks for itself. Netalarm^talk 19:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda328

I'm not sure where to report this, but this seemed like the most appropriate place. If it's not, I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.

I've been having an issue with Propaganda328. They've been inserting content into the Rafic Hariri article that I consider fringe conspiracies cited to a non-English source whose reliability has not been established. The content was originally inserted by an Iran-based IP address, 94.182.19.94, which is slightly troubling as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been implicated in the assassination, and I'm not even sure if Propaganda328 can read the Russian source they're reverting back into the article. I've removed the content three times; Propaganda328 reverted me three times. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining that I considered the source to be of questionable reliability, the content itself sounded like a fringe conspiracy, requesting a translation of the non-English source, and explaining that the verifiability burden was on editors attempting to insert the material. Propaganda328 replied that "All theories are to be included," and proceeded to reinsert the material. I then opened a discussion on the user's talk page, explaining the issues with the content, noting that I wasn't interested in edit warring over the material, and requesting that they self-revert, lest we have to go through the noticeboards. The editor refused, replying simply "Temper Temper".[12] So, that brings me here.

To be clear, I'm not here to discuss the content. I'm not asking if the source cited is reliable, I'm not asking if the content added was a fringe conspiracy, and I'm not reporting the editor for edit warring the material in. I'm here because of the editor's behavior. They've continued to push the material, while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the article talk page or any sort of consensus building, failing to establish the reliability of the source they're citing, and failing to provide a translation of the Russian source they're citing, despite my explicit requests. Would appreciate if someone can look into the issue or advise. Thanks. ← George ^talk 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are reasonable content edits in the contrib history, but major issues with interactions with other editors. I suggest an "official" warning regarding their communication behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care, I just don't know how to prove that a reference is reliable on wikipedia. And as for the translation, can't you just copy and paste into Google Translate? I mean you already know it's in Russian(that's what I did to read it). I know it wouldn't be translated perfectly, but it will be readable.

You should watch the other side's news channels from time to time, the French Guy, Xavier Laroche, was in an interview on Al-manar a few days ago. I already knew about the Uranium missile long before I saw the Russian Magazine reference on wikipedia. However, it should be noted that if you use google, you will get a hundred links to many news sites, which all reference Odnako for the theory(including al-manar site<ref , scroll down to the last bit), so can the source be that bad for wikipedia when so many news sites use it? Even when you write in the article "Explicitly according to Odnako and none else"?

Okay, now I know what you're thinking: "Ohhhh! This guy is obviously a propaganda tool working for those Iranian Hezbollah trying to spread lies all over the internet to cover up that they killed Hariri! I must fight for the truth!". But okay now, really, I don't care who killed Hariri, because as far as I'm concerned, he's not a martyr, he's an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality. So if you think I don't want Hezbollah to be implicated in his killing, you're wrong, cause I'd consider it the greatest honor if Hezbollah were the ones who executed him. But I just wanted that text included because I'm 100% positive the theory has enough weight and popularity among the population today to be placed as a side theory on wikipedia, whether I like it or not.--Propaganda328 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at what you've just written:

1. You don't know if your source is reliable, nor how to find out if it is (despite my explaining, twice, that you should check that at WP:RSN), yet you're edit warring to include it.
2. It appears that you're either unable or unwilling to provide a translation of the source you're citing. Do you even understand Russian? Did you include the source based on a machine translation of it? Or are you just adding the source because you think it says what you want the article to say?
3. You said that there are "a hundred links to many news sites" that support your content. And yet you failed to link to any in either discussion I've opened, nor even mentioned them. The only one you've now mentioned is al-Manar, a Hezbollah affiliated news organization, whose reliability, especially in this instance, is highly questionable.
4. Do you understand what WP:FRINGE says? Do you understand that extreme fringe theories should not be included in Wikipedia articles? Based on what you've written, it appears you don't believe that, even though I've told you three times now.

I don't think that (or care if) you're associated with Hezbollah. However, based on what you've written here, it's clear you are very personally opposed to the subject of the article, assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, whom you describe as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish... and is the very definition of corruption and immorality." I don't like or dislike him, and I don't know what an "2irish" is, but you definitely should not be editing this article. After reading that, I'm hoping an uninvolved administrator considers topic ban you from this article, and all articles related to Rafic Hariri. ← George ^talk 02:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block

This user User:LouisPhilippeCharles is blocked. But he is editing under his old account [13] User:Tbharding. - dwc lr (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have hardly caused a problem my fellow Wikipedians. If this is good bye, Adieu </3 The One And Only (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd the old account for block evasion. If they'd like to come back or have the block shortened, they need to work that out with their current account. Shell ^babelfish 03:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously blatant block evasion is not acceptable, and I know there have been a series of issues in the past, but I'd welcome a further attempt to reach a better resolution with this user if that is possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is socking while blocked suddenly no big deal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The sock puppeteer acknowledges he has no intent or ability to restrain his edits to comply with admin restrictions here. And why should he? Even as a pitch is being made on this page to reach a "better resolution" allowing him to resume editing, he is using yet another sockpuppet to evade the one-month block as seen here. This sockpuppet needs to be blocked, as do the others that have or will be used next. FactStraight (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for a week. I support indef block for LouisPhilippeCharles. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Once they agree to abide by the policies and guidelines of the project, and those restrictions applied to their account to better ensure that they do so, then they are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia. Socking because they feel they have a greater need to edit than to comport themselves to the will of the community does not indicate that they are capable of editing in the collegiate and consensual manner that is required of all contributors. I suggest resetting the 1 month block presently, and am willing to be proven wrong when they return. Any more of this nonsense, however, and I think Favonian's suggestion may be taken up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Support indef block and further attempts to reach a better resolution with the user. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Eustress' block of Racepacket

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

Resolved

 – Everyone makes mistakes. It is important that we learn from them. Nothing further to do here. --Jayron32 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I am calling for a review of the block made by User:Eustress on User:Racepacket on the grounds that Eustress was clearly involved in the content disputes at hand.

• Part of his block rationale is based on edits by Eustress that were reverted (see [14])
• Directly involved in content disputes with Racepacket at Cornell University ILR School, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, and Johnson Graduate School of Management
• Eustress took it upon himself to full-protect Cornell University ILR School and then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cornell_University_ILR_School&diff=403229279&oldid=403015743 unprotected it] to block Racepacket.
• Eustress, being a (former) student at Cornell, has also displayed a clear bias and WP:OWN issues with all articles related to Cornell University. This is evident at Talk:Cornell University/GA2, which I failed the GA nomination due to numerous verifiability issues as well as a case of plagiarism. As a response, he has criticized me for the handling of the review and maintaining non-NPOV stuff as witnessed here.
• He also accused Racepacket of "tag-bombing" when all Racepacket was doing was legitimately pointing out serious sourcing, verifiability, and plagiarism issues in other Cornell-related articles.

For the reasons explained above, I feel that Eustress' block of Racepacket was inappropriate and, even if said block was justified (which IMO is not), to say the least another uninvolved admin should have blocked instead. –MuZemike 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I blocked Racepacket for the following reasons:

1. edit waring (continuing to push a preferred naming of the ILR School despite warnings 1, 2, and 3 to wait until the WP:REQMOVE he initiated is closed and since his behavior has now spread to multiple articles 4, 5, and 6)
2. disrupting the community (tag bombing 7)

Because I didn't see anything at WP:NAS saying that an involved admin cannot exact the block, I went ahead and did it myself. If it was inappropriate for me to do it myself, I apologize. I am, however, more than happy to discuss the validity of the block. I feel MuZemike's allegations above are false and likely attributable to an altercation he and I recently had involving Racepacket (see here). Any help and consideration is welcomed in this matter. —Eustress ^talk 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of WP:INVOLVED. I suggest the block be lifted. In these cases a block of an established editor by an involved admin (whether the block was correct or not) can do more damage than an erroneous block by an uninvolved admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This block by an involved administrator should be reversed immediately, and Eustress cautioned never to do this again. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked I was unaware of WP:INVOLVED, so I have since lifted the block on Racepacket. However, I still feel the block justified. Thank you for your help. —Eustress ^talk 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How is someone who passed RFA 71:1 6 months "unaware of WP:INVOLVED"? The mind boggles. More helpfully, I would suggest you consider yourself involved on anything related to Cornell editing, and therefore refrain from admin actions on that topic. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In the light of the above comment from Eustress, I have added a "when not to block" section to WP:New admin school/Blocking to mention being "involved"; development welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the unblock very much. I don't think we have much else to discuss at this point. –MuZemike 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Slag (slang)

Could someone with a few minutes take a look at Slag (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It looks like a bunch of schoolchildren adding the names (and sometimes the ages and schools) of other people to the article as an insult. Example. I've already requested semi at WP:RPP but there probably needs to be a bunch of warning and blocks handed out, as well as a bunch of RevDels. Kelly ^hi! 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu got it. They'll have to go and look after their baby sisters or something useful instead. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The example edit I gave by Peridon (talk · contribs) (now deleted) was very strange - Peridon is an established user. Kelly ^hi! 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a case of Peridon, I assume, reverting the reversion of the vandalism by accident, rather than the vandalism itself--Jac16888^Talk 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it hid the revert of the vandalism, so it's OK. Seems to be taken care of to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That page probably should be semi'd for longer than 48 hours, since the abuse has been going on much longer than that. A similar page, Slut, has been semi'd indefinitely. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that, since I earlier today indefinitely semi-protected Piers Morgan. Arguably the same sort of thing. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've extended it to 3 Jan, to cover school hols. Can review when that ends if you like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, thanks Elen! Kelly ^hi! 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion regarding User:Kagome 85 and User:Blackmagic1234

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

 – Blackmagic1234 and Kagome 85 have been community banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

unresolved|1=Ban discussions need to be open for a minimum of 48 hours(I think, it may be more)— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blackmagic1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Kagome 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki)

I honestly do not remember how long ago this was, but let me start from the basic beginning, as I remember it;

Blackmagic and Kagome at one point were lovers. I'm not certain if this point was before or after they came to wikipedia.. but I do know each knows of the others' original username. At some later point, they broke up.. and began a two and a half harassment campaign against the other. I came onto this around maybe 2009; Blackmagic was being harassed and cyber-stalked by Kagome. I looked into the matter, got some socks blocked, and suggested WP:CLEANSTART to BM. I tell him to stay away from articles he has edited, and refrain from even mentioning his ex or editing any similar articles.. instead, as they came back on, this was thrown back in my face? They did more than go on a wiki-stalking revert spree of a previous sock of hers.. They listed off her real name in almost every single edit summary. Some time recently, at least int he past year, I took them both to this forum for the very thing mentioned above.. a two-way harassment campaign, and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert.

Reason for ban request

60+ socks later(combined, I've lost count, just check out their sock categories), I am frankly sick and tired of reverting the socks. Let's make it easier; block on sight, rollback allowed.. ban them from the site indefinitely until such time they can grow up and leave each other be. I really, really am sick of dealing with their disruption and harassment of each other. Wikipedia is not therapy.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Also, I'm not going to bother notifying each because nowadays, with their ever-increasing amount of socks, I'm not sure they would even see the message. I did also warn both prior about this discussion, so they knew it was coming. Lastly, if anyone can find each of their latest socks, feel free to notify them of this discussion, but I don't believe they'll see it because they'll just already be on to their next set of socks.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As a further note, I forgot to mention that yes, BM has socks but at some point, I just gave up and began tagging them all as Kagome 85. They're both using the same range, so as far as I'm concerned regarding technical, they're the same person(they act the same anyways).— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Unresolved|1=I believe it's been at least the required 48 hours; now we just need an uninvolved admin to issue the ban.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  Hi DaedlusIt'll be good if you were to summarize in one line what the editors are supposed to support or oppose in order to provide editors summarized clarity. Regards Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per details provided above by the proposer. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question Are we banning one, the other, both, or are you claiming they're the same person and calling for a ban of them and their alter-ego? N419BH 09:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• From what I'm reading, he's asking for a ban of both, and noting that they share a range and act very similarly to one another. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 09:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Details appear convincing, so lets ban the both of them. Use of multiple socks is something I feel Wikipedia needs to take an extremely hard line on. Add in the outing and vios of WP:BATTLEGROUND and it looks clearcut for a double ban to me. Jusdafax 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• They've exhsusted my patience, that's for sure. Support showing both of them to the door until they grow up, which, at this rate, could be decades. - KrakatoaKatie 10:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Huge wasteful time sink. Ban both of them. I'm wondering though: are you sure they're really NOT both the same person engaging in a long-term trolling campaign? If they edit from the same range that makes it even more suspect. In any case, ban both, revert on sight without breaking 3RR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert" Actually, Blackmagic is not currently blocked... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because George blocked one of his socks. He abandoned the BM account and created a sock under the pretense of CLEANSTART, but didn't follow CLEAN at all, and as noted began harassing his ex.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sock George blocked BM under, Burp.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban on both. If a new account is created and stays away from these issues then we will never know nor need to - as soon as an account or ip starts repeating this behaviour it can be blocked. Whatever the situation, it should not involve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, based on above, but they both need to be notified and be given a chance to come here and defend themselves. Maybe they have a case to make, maybe not, but they should at least be given the opportunity. Saebvn (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - valueless disruptive time sink. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Recommend periodic checkuser requests of each to check for all socks that haven't be found. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per evidence presented. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Fellytone

This is a username that's been around for about a year but is intermittently active. The editor seems to have rather strong ideological convictions and i'd be rather surprised if this is the sole username in front of the actual editor. At any rate, his over the top combativeness and strong ideological convictions are problematic, particularly in the BLP arena. I encountered him at CounterPunch a few days ago. He wanted to put in some criticism by strong political opponents of the magazine's editors, sourced to opeds, that the magazine and its staff are antisemites (an israeli court convicted an ideological opponent of a CounterPunch writer of defamation for just this charge a few years ago). Another editor remove this edit, and explained why on the talk page. Fellytone's response was to attack the other editor as biased, writing Could you imagine if the United States government issued a warrant for Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints?[15]. The other editor took issue with the characterization of himself and the magazine and asked Fellytone to stop [16]. At this point i got involved on the talk page, agreeing with the removal and the reason and reminding Fellytone of edit warring rules (he'd gone to 3rr while trying to insert this information). I also wrote that just because someone accuses someone they don't like of antisemitism in an opinion piece that doesn't justify including that information in an encyclopedia article. His response? I'm simply proving that the Wikipedia guidelines you're slapping on your posts are compatible with the criticisms that a few "assholes" are making for an immigrant monkey like Cockburn and his motley crew of crazed conspiracy theorists and left-wing intellectual midgets and likewise accuses me of the same bias he slapped on the other editor I'm not the self-righteous one here arrogating to a magazine that shares my political orientation the status of immunity from criticism.[17] I too ask him to stop accusing me of bias for which he has no evidence [18]. He insists he's going to soon reinsert the same material, i tell him that he doesn't have consensus for that [19]. He again accuses me of bias And yes we've been able to co-exist for hundreds of years in such a society without sending anybody to a Siberian gulag. Like I said, I welcome any further input from any of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to take a look at this section and make a judgment as to whether or not the criticism section go on the page.[20]. A day or two later he heads to my talk page to write Right so unless you have anything to say or ask any one of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to rebuts the arguments I've made on the Counterpunch talk page, I'm going to put the criticisms back on. I won't have your feigned absence filibuster my attempts to get the (warranted) criticisms against that left-wing rag of a magazine put on its Wikipedia page [21] Then reinserts the edit [22]. A third editor then also agrees the information should not be placed in the article [23].

As people that know me know, i'm not a member of the civility police. If someone called me a jerk or an asshole i'd laugh. But he's consistently attacking other editors who disagree with him (and in my view are trying to enforce some basic blp standards) as biased, and doesn't seem to back off when warned. At the meta level, i have strong suspicions that this is a sock, but since it could be any of a host of different banned or departed users, and no way to say which, it's hardly the point. Even if Fellytone's legit, he's going to at minimum have to rein it in, famliarize himself with BLP, RS etc... He doesn't seem willing to do so at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week to give them time to review editorial content and conduct policies; review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 11:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I endorse Bali's statements and Eye's block, after Fellytone's aggressive and unnecessarily personal comments while hashing out a fairly simple content disagreement on Talk:Andre_Geim#Nobel_Peace_Prize_statements.

Jaffna

Resolved

 – two editors blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

An anon user is constantly inserting content[24] which is detrimental to the believes of the people in the Jaffna region, without substantial evidence. I request the page should be protected or the anon user should be blocked. If he is genuine enough in the addition of the content, he should open an account and first discuss at the talk page.Shankar2001 (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this vandalism? (not saying it isn't, I need more information as I am not an expert on Jaffna) N419BH 10:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but that's what some editors in this topic area call any content with which they don't agree. Feelings can get so stirred up, calls for neutrality are met with answers akin to "Yes, neutrality, that's all I want, the truth, please block those vandals." Disputes and edit warring over ethnic/caste topics in the subcontinent pop up all the time on en.WP. Some of these disputes have roots going back thousands of years. Semi-protection doesn't help much, if at all. There are all kinds of fuzzy sources on these topics, many of which don't agree, many of which are less than reliable. There are also meaningful culture gaps between en.WP admins and many of those who edit these topics, never mind that subcontinental English is not the same as UK/US English. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is not vandalism why he can't discuss at the talk page first for radical change on the content? Why he should come out with different IP addresses time to time to post the content?Shankar2001 (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, please read WP:Vandalism. The word has a narrow meaning here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Shankar's revert was off. The IP is more encyclopaedic. Please explain what exactly bugs you about the edit. I would prefer it, if you were to use academic transliteration for indic scripts. Maybe it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with that. Other than that, Sinhala comes before Tamil as both are official languages with Sinhala having the majority of speakers. BTW what exactly is radical about the edit? Chartinael (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not a bullshit Sri Lankan Government mouth piece for another war crime or ethnic cleansing what the world has seen in the recent past. Jaffna is Tamil dominated though Sri Lanka is Sinhala dominated.Shankar2001 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a neutral post, Shankar. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shankar is unwilling to step back and look at edits from a neutral point of view. Calls encyclopaedic edits cleaning up lead and establishing proper transcription in both official languages radical. Not willing to talk with neutral editor. Sees POV pushing everywhere. Admin to address him/her needed. Chartinael (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The way you have come out with the controversial addition probably with an Anon IP address shows your neutral and genuine intention of dealing a sensitive issue. Don't come out with so called bullshit transcription and altered epics which are the root cause which made the way for recent blood path in Sri Lanka.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shankar, as I was trying to hint above, neutral does not mean true. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shankar, I see no attempt to talk to the IP editor about their edits. Calling them vandalism and coming straight to AN/I is not going to help you. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shankar, please refrain from emotionally editing lemmata. Step back, take a deep breath and try to figure out why you feel that this controversial edit is controversial to you when others don't view it as vandalism. Chartinael (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Although we don't have a hard-and-fast rule about this (as far as I'm aware), Jaffna is an overwhelmingly Tamil city, and so it would seem appropriate that the Tamil name should take precedence. If we were to take articles on Indian cities as a model, usually only the name of the city in the main local language is given in brackets after the English name. On that basis, there may be a case for saying that Sinhala script should not appear in the article at all. I'm not necessarily recommending that, but attempting to promote it above Tamil certainly looks like sectarian POV-pushing. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, at least you identified the fact at least on Wikipedia! These are the facts which caused the wars not only in Sri Lanka but all over the world historically.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Both languages are official, both should be used and transcribed. This is how it ought to be done in other lemmata on non-latin scripts as well. i.e. Lakhnau, Colombo. If it is not done yet, hey, plenty more to do. Chartinael (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please have this discussion on the talk page --Errant ^(chat!) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ErrantX, I will hereafter discuss on the talk page only this issue. But for my final post here; though the Hindi is the official language in India, I haven't seen anywhere in the major Indian cities of Bangalore, Hyderabad, India, Thiruvananthapuram, Chennai, Kolkata, the Hindi language is used.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, india is of a different political structure, second: don't look too far, check out the lemmata on sri lanka. Always both languages given, ideally with transcription. There is no value put to the sequence of languages. If Tamil comes before Sinhala it doesn't make Tamil any better than Sinhala nor vice versa. Chartinael (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing here political structures, but the usage of language. If you feel "If Tamil comes before Sinhala it doesn't make Tamil any better than Sinhala nor vice versa", then leave Jaffna page as it is now. I am not proposing remove totally Sinhala usage at Jaffna page any way.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked both Shankar and Chartinael for 24 hours for edit warring. I found out about this via the AN3 report filed by Chartinael. Looks like we have enough boomerang effect to go around for a while. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Corydor13

Resolved

 – talk page access revoked. JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a compromised account which is already indef blocked, but whoever has been trying to get it unblocked is now being abusive at User talk:Corydor13. Is it time to revoke Talk page access? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Might as well. I don't see why they're getting so upset at not being unblocked, when their account really has been used only for vandalism (with the sole exception of adding some unreferenced negative information on a BLP). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User: TommyMgunn

Resolved

 – indef-blocked as a spam-only account. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TommyMgunn (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale additions of agent details to biographical articles. Information is unsourced. Not sure if this counts as spam (as no external links added) or just general disruptive editing. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors

Unresolved

 – I am still waiting for an administrator to take action on this matter. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657 § Something_Unusual

Last Dec 15, CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) removed a statement in the public opinion climate change citing that this is the sentence by savillo as shown below.

1. (cur | prev) 18:20, 15 December 2010 155.99.230.57 (talk) (24,690 bytes) (→Issues: see talk page Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Sentence by Savillo Removed) (undo)

Savillo did not write this but his comment was used as a reference. The statement that was removed blamed the IPCC and if you go to the reference citing the comments of Savillo- there is no mention of IPCC. IPCC is a very sensitive issue and Cac 155.99.230.57 (talk) will just state freshly that this Sentence by Savillo removed. What kind of editor is CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk)? Does this person has the immunity to blame a statement to someone in the reference even the the author of the reference did not write it? and the reference's comment does not support the statement? It shows that CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) has a low IQ, doesnot analyze the situation, an imbecile or an idiot. Blaming someones statement to the author of reference is a very grave error and ought to be punished severely.I know CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) is old to be taught how to and to feel sorry for therefore she/he has to suffer the consequences. Documents are documents and she has to face them. He/she is highly irresponsible, worthless, uneducated, unethical, not urbanized and a bullshit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The contributions from this group of IPs, including 69.31.68.51, 69.22.185.186, 69.22.185.187, 69.22.185.189, and 69.22.185.191, have been largely incomprehensible, but it is obvious that they need to learn about a number of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:RS, WP:NLT, WP:NPA, & WP:TPOC. As most of the recent IPs have been within one range, I wonder whether a range block would be appropriate? If not, a block for the last of the list would seem to be a minimum requirement. - David Biddulph (talk)

il garbagio
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Referring to the above CaC is of course mentally retarded ... why hire Cac for this job? am just a visitor to this site but like to comment...in addition who are you david to block the ips can you do that? or I'll piss at your smelly breath.. Wikipedias are not as smart in containing all the ips of the world...they cant even contain their immorality online!!! or flush their bad breath with pisses or HCL to have a good smart look.. am incomprehensible? am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.38 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, have a look at [25]. Attacks and garbage being thrown around by the same series of IPs, all from the same ISP. Perhaps a rangeblock/checkuser is in order. I've blanked the attacks and vulgarities from that talk page- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just rangeblocked 69.22.185.184/29 for a week. Um, at least I think I did. I think I followed the instructions, but I'm not sure how to tell whether it actually worked (first time I've done a rangeblock). Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The justification of the fault of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) who comes from the University of Utah or uses the IP of the Univ of Utah has been deleted in the Talk Page of Public Opinion on Climate Change. It was clearly written there. Now the users page of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) cannot be retrieved because it is owned by the Univ of Utah-- who cares if it is owned by U of U... as long as the user is irresponsible and has committed a crime... the user is always a criminal and will be charged..U of U you better look for this user and fire this user from your univ... This user is extremely a shame to your institution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.70.39 (talk)

Brave acts can be ruined by accidents! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this recent A.N.I. thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Something_Unusual, which involves these same IP users (both "CaC" and the 69.xx IPs). Same users, same article (Public opinion on climate change). From the above comment, it looks like an even bigger rangblock may need to be placed. (?) This IP user (69.xx) also does not seem to know or care about WP:No legal threats, WP:No personal attacks, etc. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is demeaning to use or cite Savillo's statement without his permission. If he wants to write something he'll have it published authored by him. So pls donot use him to play the tug of war between those who are in favor of IPCC and those who are not. When he makes his comment there was no mention of IPCC but Cac meant the opposite when Cac stated that the removed statement was Savillo's and it was clear from the beginning that it was not his... this is another display of plain stupidity among the editors of wikipedia supposedly a useful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a better rangeblock may very well be helpful here... :-( [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC needs to say sorry to everyone whom Cac hurt while doing the reckless assertion... I think this resolves the issue..Will you accept this proposal-forwarding this question to all other concerned users: 69? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@69.31.68.5: While I do apologize for your misunderstanding, I do have this in reply:

1. My assertion was simple: the sentence cited a forum post, which by Wikipedia's guideline was not acceptable.
2. I made my intentions clear in my first reply. It was not meant to be about Savillo or the IPCC. It was your decision to believe otherwise.
3. I do not find your claims credible. You may believe what you want, but the objective is to convince others of the same.
4. You are incomprehensible. While your tone makes your intentions clear, I have trouble understanding what your reasons are, or lack of thereof.

I apologize in advance if you find this brash, but I find a terse dismissal to be in my opinion an unsatisfactory resolve. I do not appreciate your threats against myself or my institution nor do I find them credible. While under the presumption of your threats, I do not find that a discussion with you will lead to a satisfactory resolve, and resign from involving myself thereof. --CaC 155.99.230.219 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Users 69 could not comment because they are blocked. Nevertheless, I have this opportunity to say that your tone is melancholic to dilute the heart but your statements are flirtatious that require a second look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the seperate 69.xx IPs are different people. I believe that they are probably the same person under multiple IPs (they may be dynamic, or the current 69.xx IP could be the result of the person resetting his own IP).

The fact is, the sentence that was removed from the article was taken from a forum post where someone was giving his own opinion, without citing any reliable sources in his post. Such forum posts are not reliable sources, thus they do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. With as many harassments, personal attacks, etc. as you are throwing at this sensible IP editor (155.xx/CaC), it is a wonder that an administrator has not already blocked you by now. But one sure does need to block you, though. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this issue has already been enlightened but what you did Retro00064 you fueled it to a more fiery piece... this will continue further.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.45 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Retro00064 you need to apologize to CaC and Users 69 for re igniting this issue again amid the ongoing enlightening peaceful process between the two parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.46 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologize for what? Making sense out of all of this? The fact is, it does not matter whether Savillo wrote that sentence or not. The reference was citing who wrote the forum post that backed up the sentence in the Wikipedia article. Here at Wikipedia, we write a generic sentence that makes a claim, then we cite a reliable source that backs up the claim in the article. It is not necessary to quote the source exactly as the source wrote, as in many cases that could cause a copyright violation. In this case, CaC removed the sentence and citation altogether, so any arguing about the sentence quoting exactly what Savillo said or not is just a pile of stinking crap.

There is no need to apologize to CaC, as I support his removal of the sentence. Read my last post in this thread (above), and read my explanation of the fact that the Savillo forum post is not a reliable source.

Are you hearing all of this?

The reason that you need to be blocked, 69.xx, is not because you disagree with CaC's changes. It is becuase of your harassment, incivility, legal threats, personal attacks, sock puppetry (and claiming otherwise), etc. What a foul mouth of yours that you expressed on CaC's talk page.

Any administrators to the rescue, to close this case? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you know it, now this IP user has flipped his lid and reported me at WQA! :-P [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Still looks as if it needs a range block. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Flagging this as a request that requires some administrator assistance; in particular, blocking may be required to prevent the disruption that is being caused. See also my closing comment at the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sets of eyes for an inactive/involved admin

I'm concerned that 2010 in LGBT rights seems to be turning into some sort of low-level revert battleground. Although I've been unwilling to voice the concern explicitly, (and his battling with a ban evader complicated matters), it does vaguely look like Lihaas (talk · contribs) has, for all practical purposes, essentially taken over the page. I am not the first to note that Lihaas seems to have somewhat idiosyncratic criteria, cf. meco (talk · contribs)'s comment here. In particular I am concerned at Lihaas' insistently sweeping reverts (every time he deletes all content of any nature that has been added for the period since September, with some justification, e.g. grammar, not exactly sound), and some of his templating (i.e. restoring a {{clarify}} template demanding "hat is the precedence set as a "right"" of the Chimbalanga and Monjeza case). I haven't really been an active admin in years, and am basically involved here, so a couple pairs of eyes would really appreciated. Circéus (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To do what? I have on each and every occasion used the talk facility that so many editors utterly refure to do, simply choosing to edit away and have their version listed on. On each occassion i have piecemeal taken apart and discussed matters as in 2010 Ecuador crisis, Paedophilia, Irish general election, 2010, Fuck for Forest (where you will also note meco's comment as absolutely rubbish in that he pushed for a war to further edit without discussing. Don't take my word for it, see the talk page that he still refused to return to. )and instead of blindly quoting meco you should first see what his "strange notions on what is appropriate editing practices" refers to!)) You can also see 2010 Baghdad church attack where the other editor later asked me to check up the article for review when a new editor abrubtly came in refusing to discuss. Likewise I have answered every query for this on the talk page that both the sockpupper and now you dont want to discuss (where i have now restarted a conmversation to make it easy for said editor who refuses to want to discuss adn see the said talk pages, yet wants it spelt out on a platter for his own case. Wikipedia can't do his bidding that he wants his version in without discussing as he said on my own talk page "I am NOT going to slog through months of back-and-forth arguments steeped in sockpuppetry. I want to hear your reasoning for that specific revert and removal of three months of information, many more and often better sources etc." -- just because he wants that doesn't mean he get it, the onus is on the editor seeking this change (where 2 other editors have come in on the part to support/request the cahnges being taken), yet i still did it. If he doesnt want to discuss then, frankly, that is his problem. I have also said on his talk page im willing to discuss each ofhis concerns, and then he resorts to an ani conversation to escape discussion. (see the page he ahs doubt it, after bending to his whim he still doesnt discuss)(Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).

You have not actually answered most of my concerns (even scratching some grouping of events to editorial disagreement). Though I fundamentally disagree with your content definition assertion, your reverting and argumentation (this rant is not exactly a good start as far as I'm concerned) has not been very encouraging. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be more than happy to leave the page to get choked by your approach (I have other editorial projects), but I'd rather at the very lest attract fresher sets of eyes to what's going on. Circéus (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why dont you discuss it? There is a talk page with all content on there, if you have a problem then see it or ask. Im not a mindreader to see what you expect. if the rant is not a good start to your concern then youre always welcome to start your own encyclopaedia where your will can rule the roost. What arguementation? That i acceded to your whim and did in fact go to the talk page before you refused to even see it (as duly described on my talk page). Thats fine then, if you dont want to discuss changes as ive been ever willing to do (and backed by evidence on here as opposed to your concerns that are, in fact, a rant), then youre fine to go wherever else you please.

And if i have "taken over the page" then how come 2 other editors supported the same initiative to have the content removed? vs. 1 (with the sock puppet obviously discounted) who misinformed the discussion that he ahs been watching it for awhile, he hasnt or else hje would ahve seen talk.

Morever, this is not the behaviour of an admin to go about willy-nilly demanding to have everything spoon fed to him to make a decision because he had a problem. He should be level-headed and pursue what he had a problem in, not simply others! his "admin-ship" should certainly be reviewed!Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My concerns about Lihaas' contributions on a related article are discussed at Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi#article_cleanup. I suspect this may be an issue of incompetent and non-collaborative editing/behaviour rather than any more worrying pattern, however I would backup a request for independent eyes (even though this may not be the right forum). Fæ (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And please elucidate what i have done other than discuss, a facility that most people dont seem to want to use. Albeit in this case we are in fact using it, and, as I specifically said, calling others to give theri input.

Instead of posting here you could continue to make progress on the discussion, which you apparently are not bothered about not but would rather Attack and spite over.

One can also note that im not the only one to question the worthiness of the article (2 deletion requests are certainly grounds for improvement as are the inline tags i added with comment, which you then removed without answering)

Seems like WP:BOOMERANG, certainly above.

Im not at wits end as to what the function of the talk page is. With each other I have duly gone to talk, broken down point by point each aspect of the removal and for some reason editors who refuse to want to continue a discussion resort to some sort of red herring to blame or take it to ANI. Why this is here i haven't the foggiest? The editors have not (particularly the former) even bothered to attempt any of the conflict resolution methods such as discussing before come to sort of arbitration which is flagrantly in violation of wikipedia at least claims. Whoever takes this case up should clearly see my attempt to discuss at both these pages are met with no attempt to further consensus building. (in start contrast to such articles as paedophilia, where initial disagreements were mutually worked through and commended despite said disagreements.

The aforemention second user has not clearly joined the ranks of WP:BOOMERANG as you can see on the talk page of his wish to WP:OWN the article and not discuss which i have once again asked to do AND bent to his tune of restoring his interim version, yet he wants EVERYTHING to go without discussion. One can also not my VERY polite consideration to ask him that ive not made accomodation and we can discuss it.Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, clearly I can't manage whatever this is (Argh. Why did I ever accept the mop anyway?). I wash my hand off this whole mess and will leave Lihaas to block additions of the DADT repeal and anything else happened in the fourth quarter of 2010 all he wants. I'll stick to my academics bio and life sciences projects. Clearly that's going to be more efficient at, y'know, improving the encyclopedia. Circéus (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that I didn't see this earlier, and have made a few edits on that page. I know we administrators generally hesitate to take admin actions based on content issues, but can we please agree that don't ask, don't tell is related to LGBT rights (and therefore 2010 in LGBT rights)? People who argue otherwise really ought not to be editing such pages. NW (Talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see on that talk page ive duly discussed every issue. If you want to continue that discussion im more than ready to do so. (i will take this there)

Though the above users admin-states certianly needs review.Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Albums deleted under A7

Resolved

 – Jimfbleak learned something new, and Chubbles can have the content userfied if the band article is kept. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Backstory: I recently nominated a band article for deletion, and I do believe it should be deleted along with its albums. That said, User:Chubbles (who wants to keep the article I nominated) pointed out that all these albums were deleted under A7: Spine and Sensory, Dream Signals in Full Circles, Mania Phase, Mixed Signals, Espuma, A Colores, En Nuestro Desafio, and Paisajes. No matter how one feels about this band (keep/delete), this user is absolutely correct that the albums should not have been deleted via A7. How was this decision made? — Timneu22 · talk 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While those deletions are obviously improper, why did you not discuss this with the deleting admin (User:Jimfbleak) first before running to ANI? You also neglected to notify him of this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were all deleted by different admins. (This isn't really my issue; I'm just getting this conversation started on behalf of Chubbles.) I'll go notify him now. — Timneu22 · talk 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that they shouldn't have been deleted under A9 either, since that criteria specifically excludes articles about albums where the artist already has an article. But WP:DRV is over there... Thparkth (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Albums were never tagged - Jimfbleak seems to have deleted them all himself, and made a mistake as A7 does not apply to albums. Chubbles could ask for Deletion Review, or recreate them, but he'd have to provide some kind of evidence of notability for the albums or risk having them deleted again. Tell you what, shall I put them in his userspace, so he can tidy them up. Looks at the moment like the band article will be kept - if it gets deleted, the album articles will be pretty moot. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't deleted the band article, because it maybe scraped notability. The deleted articles were just tracklists which made no claim for notability beyond being made by the band. I can't see that the fact that the band has an article precludes CSD when there is no other claim. If the band has a cat, does that mean it can have an article by virtue of the transferred notability principle? I'm happy to continue this discussion if it's moved elsewhere, as long as someone lets me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7 never applies to albums at all. CSD A9 never applies to albums where the artist has an article. "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." I'm sure you're not the first person, editor or admin, to be surprised at exactly how strict the speedy deletion criteria really are ;) Thparkth (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The band is barely notable, even if it does pass the AfD. Is it actually necessary to keep the album pages, too? I can't see the content: is there anything more to say than that the albums existed? I'm wondering if a redirect to the band page is appropriate instead of creating full album articles. I'm still hoping the AfD deletes the page, frankly. The article does not give me good feelings about band notability. — Timneu22 · talk 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my question was answered during the edit conflict. If it's just a track listing, lets not recreate the album pages and see how the AfD plays out. — Timneu22 · talk 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the band are kept, I'm happy to drop the content of the deleted album articles into Chubbles userspace. Maybe he can create one discography article out of it. If the band don't make it, there's not really any point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Resolved

 – information deleted, newbie user warned. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Rpay-tooshay appears, in a user page, to be outing an editor's real name. The same editor created an article about the same person, which is up for CSD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible abusive sockpuppetry

I am currently involved in an editing dispute with Rahlgd (talk · contribs) at Template talk:Ethnicity in Mexico and Talk: Nahua people - a new account has appeared recently Mapudunganpanzer (talk · contribs) - this account has only edited articles related to Chile and indigenous peoples of Mexico - both topics that Rahlgd has edited extensively - and more than half of his edits are in support of User:Rahlgd in disputes with me - arriving at articles the user had not previously edited. His name is a combination of Mapudungun the language of the Chilean Mapuche ethnic group and "Panzer" - User:Rahlgd's other big interest is weapons and military. Apart from the fact that both users argue based on their personal experience instead of by using sources. User:Rahlgd has a history of disregard for wikipedia policies such as copyright and WP:V (this can be seen at his talkpage User talk:Rahlgd). I am suspecting that something underhand is going on here, but I don't know how to deal with it. I would appreciate some extra attention on the issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry-related suspicions should be looked at via WP:SPI.  Sandstein  20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI states clearly that in some cases it is better to go via ANI - in this case because I am not sure that an actual SPI is warranted - perhaps this can be settled by WP:DUCK or perhaps I am not justified in my suspicion at all. Actual advice would be appreciated.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mapudungan panzer is me too. i use that account when i log in through my phone. Sorry, not meant to be sock puppetry Rahlgd (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

It may be better if you use an account that is named similar to your main account, and that you cleary link the two accounts together on the accounts' respective user pages, to avoid confusion. Having a seperate account for use on less secure devices and networks is okay, but it is important that you cleary link the two accounts together on their respective user pages. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is no ok, he has clearly been using the second account to make himself count double in content discussions. This is the definition of abusive sockpuppetry. He is only coming out now because he was nicked.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus seems to be correct. Diffs [26] Mapudunganpanzer makes some argument about what should be in an ethnography template; [27] Rahlgd copy-edits his own argument, then indents and agrees with himself by saying "Exactly." He is (or at least, was) pretending to be two different people (albeit in a really obvious way) in order to try to force a concensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think some sanction or at least a sharp warning would not be out of place.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should create some extra Dramah! - to get some admins to look at this...·Maunus·ƛ· 16:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, as Slr and others have said in different circumstances, please be a little more pragmatic. Looking at the timing, the phone excuse is barely tenable and certainly would not permit the long responses, let alone the accents on Mondragón in Talk:Nahua people. The sockpuppet account (the second to be created) should probably be blocked indefinitely. No need for drama: just make a request to MuZemike, our friendly CU ... Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The excuse isn't tenable at all. Here, the puppetmaster clearly "agrees" with the sock, setting up the pretense of two separate, independent editors. Blocking the sock alone seems like a mere slap on the wrist for someone who was blatantly trying to game the system. jæs (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but Maunus can make the case better than anybody else ... once he allows his inner child to be a little more ruthless :) Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok...

to pretend to be two different users in a content discussion as long as you admit that you were doing it once you get caught?Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_abusive_sockpuppetry.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate accounts should be disclosed on the user pages beforehand, otherwise, no, it's not ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were disclosed I don' think it is OK to try to influence consensus by pretending to be different persons, e.g. by faking agreement with one's other account. Could someone take some kind of action against User:Rahlgd for doing this? I posted the thread above thread (linked) two days ago and have received very little response...·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked them about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the above thread where the user admits to having used two accounts, but says that he did not try to mislead. Then look at the evidence that obviously shows that he was trying to mislead e.g. by essing agreement with himself. And yes I have had multiple discussions with the user about his behavior and other things, but he generally ignores it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a bright-line "no-no" in the realm of account abuse. There's no valid reason for one user to be posting opinions, votes, etc., under two different names on the same page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts, this was beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I liked the part where he corrected his alter ego's spelling while pretending to be someone else. The expression in Spanish is that he was caught con las manos en la masa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

Lanternix (talk · contribs) has a long history of poor editing in topics related to Arabs as well as Christianity in the Middle East. The user has long been edit-warring to maintain the view that Egyptians are not Arabs. To give the latest example, at List of Arabs, Lanternix has been removing the names of all Egyptians, including Gamal Abdel Nasser (rvs: [28],[29],[30]). Because Lanternix believes that Egyptians are not Arabs, the user is forcing that view on every Egyptian. Never mind that Nasser considered himself an Arab, or that sources invariably call him an Arab (see for example the title of this book). Lanternix has also been edit-warring on issues related to conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. For example, the article Damour massacre includes that this was retribution over the Karantina massacre. Lanternix has repeatedly edit-warred to remove sourced material on the death toll at Karantina and replacing it with a much lower number despite sources disagreeing with him (rvs [31], [32], [33]). The user has also been edit-warring at the article titled Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. This article had been titled Arab Christians when others, hoping to put an end to Lanternix repeatedly removing any mention of Egyptian Christians from the article, agreed to rename it. This rename has not ended Lanternix's persistence in edit-warring on whether or not Egyptian Copts are Arabs. These are all of the edits Lanternix has made to that article since late November, see if you cant find a pattern: [34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41]. A similar edit-war has been taking place at Religion in Egypt with Lanternix and another user reverting one another without end or any discussion about the reversions (rvs: [42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47]. In the article Egypt, the user has been edit-warring to include a passage for which there is not a single source cited, though the user laughably says in one edit summary that they are restoring "deleted referenced material" (rvs: [48],[49],[50],[51] (note the user has broken the 3RR on this article today). The user had edit-warred over this material in the past, and returned to reinsert it again a few days ago. The past discussion on the talk page is here. The user often makes no comments regarding their reversions in either their edit-summaries or on article talk page, choosing to only interact through the use of the undo link.

This user has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit in accordance with the policies of this website, regularly reintroducing poor sources and removing quality ones, edit warring until others are either exhausted or fed up to continue cleaning up their poor edits. I dont know what can be done about the user's editing short of a long block, but something should be done. nableezy - 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really funny how the user Nableezy is accusing me of things that he himself/herself does: edit warring, reverting for nor obvious reason, trying to impose pan-Arab labels on non-Arab people etc etc. I am totally willing to discuss matters and reach middle grounds, but I will not be doing so unilaterally. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this issue seems a little complex for this noticeboard, a request for comment might be a more appropriate forum. Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue is edit-warring across a range of articles, at times making edits such as this which can fairly be described as vandalism, edit-warring that includes a 3RR violation today at Egypt. If this board is ill-equipped to handle such an issue then I apologize. nableezy - 08:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a revelation that the Copts are constantly oppressed and killed by an Egyptian leader who does it to distract the muslim Egyptians from the fact that he's an Israeli puppet dictator.--Propaganda328 (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting that I have blocked this editor for 48 hours (they already have a 24 hour sanction for disruption) for making this unhelpful and potentially inflammatory comment within a few hours of them being reported to this board for, um, making unhelpful and potentially inflammatory responses to other editors when being questioned about their conduct. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I will comment only on edit warring on Egypt.Yes, Lanternix added not sourced info, but there are lots of sources that prove the added info.In his addition Lanternix linked to well-sourced Nag Hammadi massacre and Kosheh Martyrs. I am sure Nableezy knows about those articles . So at least some (most) information added to Egypt by Lanternix could be sourced, and should not have been removed from Egypt.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sources and references for the disputed paragraph in Egypt have just been added. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, please note that a related discussion is taking place on this page. Thank you! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very straightforward. This is obviously a long-term issue for Lanternix. 8 reverts on 3 articles in 9 hours is not a sign of cooperative editing.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] His prior day of activity (Dec 14) and the active day before that (Dec 12) form a clear recent pattern. Dec 14.[60][61][62][63] Dec 12.[64][65][66] This is an ongoing problem that a short 24-48 hour block after the fact won't address. I am issuing a strong final warning and asking the user if they will avoid edit warring. In my opinion, further incidents of edit warring should be rewarded with week-long plus blocks and/or month-long plus topic bans. This is classic tendentious edit-warring, which is not that complex at all. --Vassyana (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User warned.[67] --Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be some sort of sock or meat farm here involving User:Propaganda328 (blocked right now) and Laternix who edit in tandem in a typical pattern of disruptive editing; removing sourced content with deceptive or no edit summaries, for example [68] [69]. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC) There are also a bunch of IP edits making similarly deceptive edits on the same content, probably using open proxies or some other way of editing from seemingly disparate IP addresses. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. Perhaps the Lebanese civil war, even when not involving Israel, should be considered for community-based 1RR or something like that. These series of diffs looks more like deliberate trolling to me than a genuine content dispute. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if User talk:Tijfo098 is implying I am sockpupetting. If he/she is, I can assure them I am not, and I have no idea who that Propaganda user is. I am thus totally open for a spckpuppet investigation. However, I would kindly like to include the following users in the sockpuppetry investigation: User:Voiceofplanet, User:NebY and User:Alexandrian10, and their possible link to users such as User:Nableezy. They have been stalking me for the longest time; undoing edits I do on different articles. Thank you. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NebY is almost certainly not a sock, given that it was created in 2005. From a cursory look, the others do not look like Nableezy. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how the fact that the account was created in 2005 make it not a sock!!! Even if - hypothetically - NebY predates Nableezy, this does NOT mean that the one and same user may be using both account simultaneously. Also, could you please explain who a "cursory look" can ascertain whether or not these 2 other accounts are not Nableezy? Shouldn't there be some sort of official IP address investigation here? After all, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 16:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to file an SPI. Wont be the first, wont even be the first by you. nableezy - 18:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

KBE and OBE and British Isles naming dispute

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

 – Socks blocked. Doc talk 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Captain Fearnought (talk · contribs)
• Dunlavin Green (talk · contribs)

I am not sure whether this incident falls under WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names or not. These two accounts seem to be operated by the same user. They are spending their time removing references to the British Isles and any use of OBE or KBE awarded to personalities born in Ireland. I came across their edits on Europe and noticed that two different accounts had made identical edits to the BLP of Liam Neeson. Similarly Bono, but not yet Bob Geldof. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"They are spending their time...". A quick look at my edit history will show this for the paranoia it is. Captain Fearnought (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Run an SPI. It's best to clear up any suspicions of sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The edits to Europe [75] a year ago and then today [76] are not very different. Current arguments about "post nominal letters" seems the latest twist in the British Isles naming dispute. There does seem to be a slow edit war going on at Liam Neeson with occasional drive-by contributions from Dublin IPs. Liam Neeson was born in Ballymena in Northern Ireland and grew up in Belfast, so on the face of it would appear to have had British citizenship by birth and certainly in 1999 when the OBE was awarded. (He now is a US citizen.) Wouldn't it have been an honorary OBE otherwise, like that of Pierce Brosnan? Now in that case he was born in the Republic of Ireland. There is an OBE after his name in the article. He is also now a US citizen. Something very strange is going on here. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting involved, but here is an official article, even a video, about an honorary degree he received from Queen's University, Belfast, In the official release [77] he is quoted as saying “My home will always be Northern Ireland. I have often found that no matter where I meet people in the world, there is a path that leads back to Queen’s. Queen’s University flies the flag for the arts in Northern Ireland and beyond. It is to be commended on its commitment to the arts sector and in nurturing new talent through its broad range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses." Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's basically content stuff. Your concern of sock-puppetry is the 'big issue' here. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but I was sorting out this mess in my own mind. Getting back to Europe, their editing does seem similar [78] and their general interests seem almost indistinguishable. Mathsci (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend you open an SPI, just to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have requested CU with some additional input from Doc9871 on my talk page. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed as sockpuppets here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunlavin Green together with an IP added for good measure. So much for "paranoia", Captain Fearnought. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note - While they have been  Confirmed they remain unblocked. Shouldn't Dunlavin Green be blocked indef as the sock and Captain Fearnought (& the IP) for some standard length? Doc talk 19:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts now blocked indefinitely per checkckuser confirmation--Cailil ^talk 20:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And tagged. Looks resolved to me! Doc talk 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Bot making unauthorized edits?

Resolved

 – Pending changes caused confusion. The bot itself made only the change that the bot said it made. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like something is going on with the bot Pokbot (talk · contribs). With edit, the bot leaves the summary "robot Adding: fr:Sonisphere Festival", but it's also making some other content changes that don't seem very bot-like to me. Is this normal? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified the bot's operator, Pok148, here. I should note that the bot's user page does not link to the operator's enwiki userpage as required, so it took me a bit of effort to find it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the history. You're combining three edits into one with your link. I think it's because they're all pending edits. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 19:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, they were, until the bot's edit got accepted a minute ago. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fake billionaire vandal

• User:Jimmylump and diff [[79]]
• User:Lincolnsinn and diffs [[80]], [[81]], [[82]],[[83]]

Signature seems to be fake billionaire names such as Fredrick von Strasser, yacht owners, and imaginary companies such as Central European Waste Management. Similar edits to User:Limbeone,and some IP hoaxers on the same articles a couple of weeks ago. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same:

• • Jimmylump (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Lincolnsinn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Poorsamantha (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Dizzydoozy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Taliskerone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Todaroba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Limbeone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Truthtell9986 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All accounts that haven't been blocked has been blocked. Tags updated. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Should an SPI archive page be created with this and prev checkuser evidence? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Bush tax cuts

Unresolved

 – Not resolved - returned as if nothing has happened... see bottom of this section SatuSuro 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily resolved (as it is with davidyork71) in abeyance - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71 SatuSuro 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's anyone uninvolved on the subject left, could you take a look at Bush tax cuts? Thoroughgoodness (talk · contribs) moved it three times to Bush-Obama tax cuts, and after the third time, Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it to end the move warring. There's currently a move request open to move it from "tax cuts" to "tax rates", but a fair number of people (me included) have said to move it back to the original location. I don't know about starting a new discussion to move it back while the other discussion is still running. Also, I have notified Thoroughgoodness about the Obama article probation, which I believe he invoked by trying to hang Obama's name on that article, in defiance of pretty much all reliable sources to date. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Courcelles protected the page without reverting Thoroughgoodness's move first. :-o [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know? Protection always happens when the page is on the wrong version! Kelly ^hi! 04:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is metaphysically connected with the theory that an open-faced sandwich always hits the floor jelly side down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend letting the move discussion play out, there seem to be plenty of editors working towards consensus without need for an immediate imposed solution. Kelly ^hi! 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets leave it where it is now, see where the discussion goes, and then move it to the most appropriate name once the discussion plays out. That is the textbook way this is supposed to be done, Courcelles handled this exactly right. --Jayron32 04:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Double L.O.L.! X-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughgoodness (talk · contribs) blocked as a confirmed sock of DavidYork71. TNXMan 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Being as how banned users are not allowed to edit, shouldn't his move be reverted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done, and unprotected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  I endorse Sarek's action here, didn't know that a banned user was behind this. Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Neither did I. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Nor did I until I saw Tnxman's report. The puppetmaster has more socks than Hanes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

continued activity

At Australia_–_New_Zealand_relations : -

1. cur | prev) 08:58, 21 December 2010 IsOurChildrenLearning (talk | contribs) m (72,660 bytes) (→Sport) (rollback | undo)
2. (cur | prev) 19:40, 20 December 2010 RedundantRedundancyRedundance (talk | contribs) m (72,262 bytes) (undo)

like there is no tommorrow SatuSuro 01:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the link to the sockpuppet investigation page for DavidYork71, which lists these two users: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou again

DinDraithou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by me a few months ago for warring over page moves. He proceed to launch a number of insults against me and several ethnic slurs against Scots [84][85], and, according to my perception, started targeting articles I had started as an editor. This was detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#xenophobic_postings

He has recently tried to start an edit-war at another I created, insisting that Domhnall mac Raghnaill was a 'flaith', rather than a chief (flaith is just an Old Irish word meaning 'lord', 'chief' or 'prince'). He had just created an article on 'flaith', so to appease him I put it back to 'chief' retaining flaith as a piped link. He reverted,[86] and wrote 'Deal with it. I've reverted you for perpetuating the use of the wrong term. Chief is wrong. Flaith is right.'[87] So I offered it as 'magnate' instead; got reverted again.[88] The 'dispute' seems to be over now, but nonetheless the poor behavior is continuing.

He bares grudges quite seriously, launching multiple WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations both to me and indeed even to User:Giftiger wunsch for not being favorable to him on his last AN/I thread. See [89] At the moment he is also committing a variety of conduct violations at Talk:Lady Gaga. He has been subject of many behavioral threads in the past (search the archive); usually he is defended by User:Finnrind who, although acting in good faith, is doing very little to check the user's behavior. Please note that the user removes everything 'negative' from his talk page, so you have to go through the diffs individually to see his misconduct history properly. He has had so many 'warnings' already, real action of some kind is needed.

I gained his animosity in the course of performing my administrative duties, and I don't feel either I or the community should have to put up with this any longer. I have tried to get User:John back involved, as this user was largely responsible for DinDraithou escaping sanction on the last AN/I thread, but John seems to have been busy. So with reluctance I bring it here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been somewhat busy. I didn't remember this user until Deac jogged my memory. I have left them a warning for a personal attack. If it's reoeated I think we could go for a longish block, 48 hours to a week. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to approximately recall this thread a while ago, but don't recall being the target of personal attacks or AGFails; is this recent and I haven't noticed them, or are you referring to an old comment? As far as I'm aware, I haven't had any particularly memorable interaction with this user, or any interaction at all recently. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deacon, this doesn't have to continue. It looked like we had finally reached an arrangement, things having cooled down at Domhnall mac Raghnaill, and then I find out you were asking around for support. Everyone look at Talk:Domhnall_mac_Raghnaill#Admin_intervention, and note that I have told Deacon in the past to stay away from my talk page. What he does is make a revert or two and then leaves a cute message, essentially a taunt, at my page. See Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross#Titles. He tried to scandalize my edits as "controversial" when in fact they were very well supported. DinDraithou (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@ GiftigerWunsch That's the thing, you haven't had any interaction ... but he still remembers you: 'That discussion then got wild when some guy who wasn't even an admin (and still isn't) came in pretending like he was' Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact I had forgotten about GW until you posted the thread at Talk:Domhnall_mac_Raghnaill#Admin_intervention, where I call him "some guy". DinDraithou (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look at the situation, but is there anything recent that actually warrants sanctions? The content dispute aside, all the other diffs appear to be pretty stale (from August or thereabouts), unless I'm missing something. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check out the catalogue of WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations on Talk:Domhnall mac Raghnaill and Talk:Lady Gaga ... all from the past few days. That's why I opened the thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the conversations, I do see a couple of personal attacks, yes; namely accusing you of lying to the community in an attempt to get them banned (which as far as I'm aware is untrue, so it appears defamatory), and calling another editor a "fantasy geek" on Talk:Lady Gaga along with a rather nasty note; the latter of the two I have just redacted. Addendum: and of course there's the continued unfounded accusation that I have claimed to be an admin, but since I wasn't mentioned by name I'll WP:AGF and assume that he wasn't referring to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Add to that belligerent edit-warring (enough on its own for a block), removal of cited material, tendentious tagging of the ODNB as an 'unreliable source', suggesting I only edit to make myself 'look smart', suggesting I requested John's intervention merely to win a dispute, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross#Titles. DinDraithou (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My response to Legolas in Talk:Lady Gaga was too harsh, but he has been bothering me there for months. See Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_9#Gays.3F. Also his first comment in Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American. included "tabloidy shits" and an accusation of OR. DinDraithou (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An edit war may or may not be coming. Legolas has followed through with his threat to archive the thread. I have reverted him. DinDraithou (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As usually (:o) I'm defending Din Draithou... Or rather than defending, I'm pointing the attention to that DD has responded favourably to Johns final warning [90] and promised not to do this again. A block at this stage could be nothing but punitive, so I'm not sure what other kind of admin-intervention than the warning already issued would be relevant. I'm not up-to-speed on the Lady Gaga stuff, but with regards to issues bordering the North Channel DD will have to show good faith in DoP's contributions and comments, regardless of previous administrative sanctions applied by DoP. This is an area where both editors are active, and they're bound to edit the same articles again. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think User:DinDraithou is in need of a block. Reading the contributions and accusations, it seems that DD has a habit of going overboard with anything that he/she is doing. At the Lady Gaga talk page I had asked a few times that not to continue discussions which are irrelevant to the article. The article talk pages are not for such commentary. Failure to do so, I had said that I will remove such discussion. And yes, I had to, after the continuous addition of such com by DD. And DD, lets not go overboard shall we? What you commented at Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_9#Gays.3F, everybody can see. It was pointed by other users also to not post homophobic comments. I suggest you cease additions which actually irritate others and waste their time. I will revert that talk page addition to the Archive, please donot add it again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide a valid reason for reverting like this DD, please provide so. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say. Obviously I have my problems, but? DinDraithou (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow and I need you to provide reasons for continuing such additions. Why are you conitnuing the wastage of article talk space when asked not to do? The whole section has simply nothing to do with the article in question, its your irrelevant additions about a certain family tree. Its good that you are engaging in researches and finding such info, but can't you have your own userspace to utilize the content? The article talk pages are strictly for discussion related to the article and is not a forum to ponder upon. I fail to see why the discussion can't be taken over to your own talk page. If you have problems with sanboxes, I can create them for you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This was absolutely unacceptable. You are being continuously enlightened by editors as to not continue such discussions and personal attacks. IAN collapsed the whole section to rest the matter. Can you provide why you reverted him? These actions will do nothing to help you, but move you towards a block. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I awake? In any case I'm going to bed. DinDraithou (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Ianmacm#Talk:Lady_Gaga. The community should be aware of this discussion. DinDraithou (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On a humorous note, let me point out that I've gotten refactoring confused with redaction, or the other way around. They sound similar, and since I'm unfamiliar with the use of the former, my brain somehow automatically made the change.

I'll summarize the origins of the thread which Legolas alleges to be full of OR and irrelevant, and which is neither. Back in March, when I was first learning about Gaga, a cousin of hers posted the artist's entire pedigree going as far back as possible,[91] in the article text in the appropriate section, saying that Gaga is also of French, German, and English heritage in addition to Italian. It was only up at Wikipedia for a little while but I happened to see it, and a couple of months later when this thread was started, not by me, I mentioned the existence of the pedigree and made some comments. Some were not very nice but at the time lots of critics were calling her pretentious and so on. Seeing the problematic pedigree and noticing a strange news story that she had contacted the College of Arms in England it was easy to agree. Also she herself was claiming to be fully Italian in interviews and everything looked weird. Then I found a neglected interview in which she describes her parents as both coming "from lower-class families" and added it to the appropriate section in the article, where it remains. Legolas did not participate in the discussion. Our first real encounter was a little later in the other thread.

I had meant to come back to the Bissetts but wasn't inspired to until the present thread was started at the end of October by an IP, who considered the matter very important. Ian, who has now joined Legolas rather spuriously, linked to the older thread and I viewed that as referring to my points. What I now decided to do was tackle this as professionally as possible, in great part because I had discovered the Bissetts once held noble titles and extensive lands in both Scotland and Ireland, and felt genuinely terrible for having dismissed them. In fact I absolutely love researching family history and am quite good at it, but Northern Ireland and much of Scotland I still don't know well. Aware of the no original research policy, I was first relieved that it was remarkably easy to demonstrate with 99% certainty the Bissetts of West Virginia are Scotch-Irish as understood in the US. I quickly came across a better done pedigree giving the earliest known as born in Maryland and moving to Pennsylvania. It was like simple math. Not OR, because the earliest known family claims to French ancestry date from the early 20th century and the anglicisation is unsupported. One and only one answer left: Scotch-Irish. No OR.

It could have stopped there, but as I have mentioned I am weak in Ulster and Scotland and welcomed the excuse. The Bissetts, it turns out, are perfect for a little of both at once, and on top of that a wonderful example of cultural assimilation in Late Gaelic Ireland, intermarrying with some of Gaeldom's most royal and princely families for a period. So, I thought I would let Wikipedia and some of Gaga's fans and critics watch me do the research and then eventually write an article. People need to know who the Bissetts once were, right?

Legolas has obviously been hostile to me ever since our encounter in late July, where he acted way out of line. That thread may not have been popular but I did nothing wrong in it. I was cussed at but Legolas was not disciplined. Then, in mid November (the 15th), he cusses again, and this time accuses me of OR... and of course without being specific. It's just an attack. His next message on the 21st is better, and in fact probably appeared to him as genuinely appropriate even if it really isn't, since my post right before it was more like you would find at a blog. Whatever. My next post introduces User:DinDraithou/Byset_family for those who might be interested, and summarizes the genealogical situation. The next discusses this and that but nothing irrelevant. I teach the world how to pronounce a princess' name and recommend a few articles in Wikipedia for reference (genetic genealogy). Finally I start the section Talk:Lady_Gaga#up to announce the newly started article, mention/credit my resources, and so on. I give my academic opinion but really leave things up in the air. Following that is one more post in the academic discussion proper, because unexpectedly I got a response from someone of noble family who knew of a special resource, and because another editor had unexpectedly created an article on the 1522 battle which I had mentioned before and can be found at the research page.

I thought the thread was more or less over, and was considering a fun final update on a Bissett ghost in Ulster, since Gaga herself looks like she has a thing for them. Then an IP enters, makes a good point, and I reply, relating the content to Gaga as far as I know of her, which is actually somewhat limited since I'm not a "superfan". Legolas enters and unprovoked nastily calls it "useless" and "irrelevant", complete with threat to archive disregarding opposition. After first concisely (and plenty harshly) telling him the threat was unwise, knowing he is into fantasy (check his userboxes), I add "geek", and then mockingly ask him his age. So I got a little angry, but no admin watching the page, and there must be a number, does anything. And wouldn't have. I was warned, ultimately rightly for the offense itself, as a result of a campaign beginning elsewhere. This isn't so bad except that now it has encouraged Legolas. I don't know what Ian was thinking by following him but I believe both their actions are of the sort frowned upon by the community.

I remind everyone that I did not start the thread or the one back in May. There is obviously a demand for the knowledge and I have made sure Wikipedia is now the source for the very best to be found. What I have posted relates to an important section in the article. This long defense I am posting here I may at some point repost with modifications elsewhere. DinDraithou (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni

Unresolved

 – A few revisions were missed.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 05:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Needs to have talk page privileges revoked, the reasons being obvious once you look at his talk page history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Reblocked & RevDel'd Rodhullandemu 23:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This user just blanked ANI here a little while ago. I saw it blanked, and went to revert it, but I was not fast enough to beat Elockid. ;-) While the revisions have been revdeleted, the edit summaries may need to be deleted as well. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, for the ones that reflect on real persons. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you may have missed one revision that may be in need of deletion. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary from 23:40 should probably go too, as it's about Buddha. Although all of his edit summaries and comments were stupid and funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you molested colds, Bugs. First I've heard of such a thing. Oh, and Retro00064, you've got an IP extolling your virtues over at WQA that you probably didn't know about.[92] Doc talk 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'd actually pay money to see that, just out of sheer curiosity. HalfShadow 04:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Colds are typically caused by a rhinovirus, although with that character's limited knowledge of English (he must be the guy that wrote the credits for Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he would probably think that means I've molested rhinos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones? –MuZemike 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean whoever it was that drew slashes through all the O's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, I had no idea of that. :-O L.O.L. That IP is crazy. Take a look at the ANI thread CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors at the top of this page. Could someone block him, please? I have been waiting for someone to block him for ages. :-( [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cho Pan Dong

Cho Pan Dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni came back to blank WP:AN and A.N.I. here yet again just a few minutes ago, under a sockpuppet called User:Cho Pan Dong. He was blocked afterward (including disabling his ability to edit his own talk page), and then posted some more bad comments on his talk page, which were reverted afterward. Looks like WP:DUCK thus applies in this case. An admin may want to check out his talk page history and revdelete his edits and edit summaries if seen as appropriate. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh. They're not too bad and mostly directed at me. I'm not gonna bother with revdel. AniMate 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Any relation to Chengdu Zhao Pho Ni Kiu (talk · contribs)? Any translators out there: I'll bet the names mean something "bad"... Doc talk 03:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that one blank the Administrators' Noticeboards. Per WP:DUCK, I suspect that all of these accounts belong to the same person, someone who is obviously running a self-campaign to disrupt the Administrators' Noticeboards. Just another troll who keeps trying and trying. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by several IP adresses

Resolved

 – The page is protected: DonCalo should read 3RR for questions on reverting other editors. Doc talk 04:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article on Antonio Petrus Kalil is vandalized by several IP adresses, removing referenced material, despite a request to discuss changes on the talk page. - DonCalo (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. It may be bad, it may be not allowed, but it is not vandalism. It is a content dispute. Edit summaries make it clear the user in question is not trying to degrade the quality of the article. Protection for the sake of stoping the ongoing edit war may be in order, but the person who is editing via IPs is not vandalizing the article. --Jayron32 04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe it is not vandalism, but it certainly is disruptive editing. I asked for page protection. However, how do you defend yourself against disruptive editing from different IP accounts? Now I am warned for the violating the three-revert rule, while the user, using different IP accounts 77.228.100.153, 88.3.112.113, 62.82.34.51, 88.5.113.44, 88.5.125.107, 88.3.120.12, 77.228.100.153 can do whatever he likes. - DonCalo (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The page was protected by SlimVirgin[93]. SPI for the "IP attack": it's a non-issue here now. Doc talk 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User creating apparent hoax articles

Resolved

 – Blocked, SPI confirmed sock of banned user, articles deleted. Fences&Windows 03:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken Donovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating articles that appear to be clear hoaxes.

• Iron Static Overdrive claims to have had Phil Collins as a drummer, yet I am unable to find any source that says that and obviously Phil Collins is a notable enough musician that it should be simple to source. A search for their album is also quite revealing.
• David Rossiter is apparently a member of Jukebox Brigade, both articles created by the same editor. Nothing on Google, the sources listed on the David Rossiter are all irrelevant.

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Ron Clark (actor). An actor who has "won over thirty Academy Awards, winning his first Academy Award - an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor - for his role of Lenny Dean in the 1951 film A Streetcar Named Desire, at the age of 18. This made him the first actor to win an Oscar in a film debut", and yet we never had an article on him before Ken Donovan created it on 17 December? O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no "Lenny Dean" character in "A Streetcar Named Desire", and no actor called Ron Clark. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The Oscar claim was not in the original version (it was added later by an IP that is probably Ken Donovan), but the Lenny Dean/Streetcar role was in the article. O Fenian (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

He's going at a hell of a pace. I'm going to block to stop this mayhem. Fences&Windows 00:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, done, indef blocked. He can appeal if he likes. Now, is any of what this account added actually true? Fences&Windows 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this seems to be a well-organised hoaxer, who may have been preparing unreliable 'sources' like IMDB and blogs to 'support' the articles. Fences&Windows 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ron Clark (actor) references aren't even prepared. They're just pointers to pages with similar names or random search engine results. Is there any reason why this wouldn't be a CSD G3? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to say Fences and windows. For example John Strobel definitely appeared in The Fog and Escape From New York (the only two films listed on the IMDB entry, and I have independently verified those) but the rest look very suspicious. But if you remove everything else you are left with a minor actor who has had two minor film roles, so is it worth keeping? Is it really worth wasting valuable time sorting through the mess he has created in order to salvage a couple of articles on semi-notable people? O Fenian (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm zapping a lot as blatant hoaxes. Also uncovered Rodney Dickens (talk · contribs), who created the hoax Keith Parry that the other account linked to. Fences&Windows 00:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also blocked Keith Parry Real (talk · contribs). IP editors to that article were 86.141.253.252 (talk · contribs), 86.141.26.102 (talk · contribs), 86.141.28.94 (talk · contribs), 86.170.238.93 (talk · contribs), 81.129.81.251 (talk · contribs), 86.141.252.125 (talk · contribs), 86.141.25.175 (talk · contribs), I suspect this is the same editor. Fences&Windows 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ted McNeice (talk · contribs) was already blocked in November, created David McKnight that one of the IPs expanded. I think an SPI might be needed to flush out other accounts. Fences&Windows 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs that expanded David McKnight: 81.129.87.6 (talk · contribs), 86.170.237.47 (talk · contribs), 217.43.10.238 (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 01:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One IP in this nest recently edited Havana Heat to add a link to Havana Heat (film), deleted as a hoax: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havana Heat (film). So we can add User:Tony Horden to the list of accounts (already blocked). Fences&Windows 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs connected to User:Tony Horden are 217.42.108.90 (talk · contribs), 76.172.80.18 (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• The revision history of Gerry Skilton connects one of these series of IPs to a banned user, Jake Picasso (talk · contribs)/Jake Duncan (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Picasso#21 December 2010. Fences&Windows 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Goy

We're having a little trouble with an IP at Goy. Looks like he's absolutely determined to add some obviously very bad external links to the article. [94][95][96][97] He's had this explained to him in pretty explicit detail in the talk page (end of first section), but apparently has decided not to understand the explanation. I miscounted my reverts, thinking I had gone over 3rr (which I actually hadn't) and self reverted. (Since it's not blatant vandalism, 3rr does apply.) When I realized that mistake, I figured I'd better leave the article alone and come here. Could someone please semi the article or block the troll or both? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I deal with linkspam a lot (linkspam and NPP go hand in hand), and I should think going over 3RR to keep those links out of the article would be fine; if you have to call it something, just invoke IAR. I think the IP needs an involuntary break for edit warring to keep said linkspamin an article, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The additions were clearly contrary to WP:ELNO, so you shouldn't have trouble finding other to assist with the removals to keep you off 3RR. As a note for the future, there is an external links noticeboard that you can use for reporting these situations, rather than ANI, especially since admin tools usually aren't needed for addressing bad ELs. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a (non-templated) warning on the IP's talk page that they will be blocked if they continue their edit warring over these links. --RL0919 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat from DonnyD97

DonnyD97 (talk · contribs) made this legal threat here. I believe the editor is frustrated and is blowing off steam but their actions are also rather uncivil here and here. This does not appear to be a vandalism account but instead a very enthusiastic and active editor who keeps making the same simple mistakes over and over without responding when other editors attempt to help out. The editor is currently blocked for two weeks (third block) but given the legal threat and colorful language I figured I should report the incident here. SQGibbon (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked, and obviously needs to retract that and calm down. However, please be a bit more careful with accusing editors of vandalism using Twinkle. This final warning for vandalism [98] and this edit summary accusing him of vandalism [99] are referring to this edit [100] which I agree is unhelpful and is his second revert to re-insert the same material, but it is not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND for further info. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. I also got frustrated after vetting hundreds of that editor's edits and while I think I handled it gracefully most of the time at least once I was not so graceful. SQGibbon (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I notice that's from a while ago and has already been pointed out, so I'm sure you're aware of it, but I'll leave the mention of it here just since it may have contributed to his descent into rage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked his work earlier today, and it seems to consist largely of unsourced BLP and other info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This kinda reminds me of Donnylong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same type of behavior, including the vulgar outbursts when he doesn't get his way and legal threats. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A little hard to tell, as his contribs seem to be missing. But if so, it's clear he hasn't learned anything in the last 2 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Donnylong was my first thought the moment I saw the username. N419BH 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are all of his contribs invisible? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to know his history to understand. In any case, if you look at his sockpuppet categories you'll see the kinds of edits he's known for. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lcfrprsh

 Done

I've just indef blocked User:Lcfrprsh for this (admins only I'm afraid). As I didn't go through the full set of warnings and some of their previous edits may have been OK, I'd appreciate a second opinion. ϢereSpielChequers 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be a well-earnt block. The account seems to be nothing but trouble: unexplained blanking, sneaky changes and nonsense. I can't tell what triggered the personal attack on an obscure vandalism-only account after five months away from editing. Perhaps they are the same peron. In any case I'm not inclined to care. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good block. The account's previous edits don't look useful either.  Sandstein  23:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. ϢereSpielChequers 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they know each other from some other community. Either way, good block, as others above me have said. —Soap— 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good block. If they care to explain their rationale they may be unblocked - my view of their past editing is that while not particularly "wholesome" (and I am certainly ambivalent whether that is a bad thing) they were not particularly disruptive. The ball is in their court. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:George Al-Shami

I have nothing against users critizing me, especially if they are able to provide diffs but these attacks, not even trying to give any evidence I feel are not acceptable: [101]. Can an admin remove these unhelpful comments please? Thank you, Pantherskin (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing there that specifically requires removal. It appears to be related to civility, and perhaps some WP:NPA - have you spoken either directly to the user about it, or have you visited WP:WQA for assistance? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked copyvio vandal returns

Blocked copyvio vandal User:ThaiFutsal has returned as User:BooNGerM and is uploading the same images again with bogus claims that he's the author - he was indef blocked for repeatedly adding them last time. He's clearly the same person, as can be seen from his user page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed, BTW - Alison ^❤ 11:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked, and uploaded images deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See also User:Jerdzaa, which appears to be another sockpuppet of the same user. -- The Anome (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that one's the same, as his English seems much poorer - has it been confirmed he's a sock? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't say with any certainty as it'll be  Stale either way. I'd say not, tho' - Alison ^❤ 12:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough to support socking in this case, and I think the block should be reversed - it looks to me like he just happens to be another Thai football fan (of which there are a lot). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just a minute - I've only just seen the name given on his user page infobox. I can't see the deleted user pages of the other two now - but if it's the same name, I guess the sock block is fine (and this user page should probably be deleted too, to protect unconfirmed personal ID) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Useful hint to would-be sockers: don't put your RL name on every sock's userpage :p - Alison ^❤ 12:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, same name; User:BooNGerM sill in Google's cache, & ThaiFutsal was the same. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that seems clear enough. But, ssshh, don't give them hints - it's good of them to make it this easy for us ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should open the nominations for the 2010 Wikipedia award for naivety?  :-) - David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

He's got competition. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unknown user constant revert

Unresolved

User falling under the IP addresses of Special:Contributions/74.198.9.161 and Special:Contributions/74.198.9.234 continues to make constant reverts on topics within the Israel-Palestine arena. Given his/her is an unknown user, discussion related to the matter is nearly impossible. I am sort of new to all of this but I am not sure how to report edit warring of an individual who uses such anonymity. -asad (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/74.198.9.177. The common interests show this IP may have something to do with the discussion now going on at WP:AE. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, maybe it is the n00b in me ... could you explain a bit more? -asad (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, how can I help? TNXMan 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There seem to be a few IPs edit warring, data above.

• 74.198.9.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.198.9.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.198.9.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Chesdovi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - [102]

Do these match up with any of the participants in this thread: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chesdovi? It looks like somebody may be logging out in order to evade scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, checkusers cannot link IPs to named accounts, as per the privacy policy (local and meta). We can link named accounts to named accounts and IPs to IPs, but not named accounts to IPs. Sorry. TNXMan 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you a Checkuser? In my experience checkusers are happy to block named accounts that use IP socks to evade scrutiny, bans or carry on other forbidden activities. I don't mind if you keep the results of the check private, but the problem should be fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Chesdovi is British; those IPs are Canadian. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely from my perspective. -- tariqabjotu 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Further, I'm fairly confident Chesdovi observes Shabbat. He began making edits on December 18 (Saturday) at 19:39 (UTC), which is past sundown in Britain, but not past sundown in most places and for the vast majority of people in Canada. He's almost certainly not in Canada, so I don't think it's him. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, it seems like this is a violation of WP policy. Edit warring between an individual is one thing, but between someone you can't even hold a discussion with about the topic? Can an someone just lock the topics if there is no precendent to ban these addresses? -asad (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

These IPs are Breeins socks [103] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who agrees these topics should be locked to new or unregistered users or that constantly offending IP should be blocked? -asad (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning about former Wikileaks.org domain from spamhaus...

Noted this on an IRC channel - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665

seems genuine, Could some administrators take appropriate action or redirect this discussion?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• You'll probably have to explain what a malefactor-hunting organization outwith Wikipedia labelling another organization outwith Wikipedia as a malefactor has to do with the English Wikipedia, let alone with administrators on the English Wikipedia, first. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 1000 or so links to it. Do these need to be updated now?--Misarxist 15:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can leave it for the moment. http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=wikileaks.info --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But on the other hand, the mirror list at www.wikileaks.fi still doesn't link to it. Maybe updating wouldn't be a bad thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just tried an update run, but the first few I found were deadlinks anyway. I fixed a couple where I could verify the new location, but a straight search-and-replace won't work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Scope at Talk:Libertarianism

Hi,

As a result of continuous edit warring, Talk:Libertarianism has a restriction on discussions of article scope until February 2011. The restriction allows for collapsing article scope discussions.

Two editors (User:North8000, User:Born2cycle) have uncollapsed a scope discussion (Talk:Libertarianism#the_use_of_the_word_libertarian, diff1 diff2).

I would appreciate it if they were very gently reminded of the scope limitation by an outside administrator; and, if an outside administrator would collapse the topic. Both North8000 and Born2cycle are aware of the restriction against scope discussions through long term participation in the article; and, the discussion itself contains the suggestion to read the "warning at the top of this page," as a previously uninvolved editor launched the discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

dismiss no reason to collapse reasonable discussion in talk. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The only behavior requiring admin attention here is the collapsing of reasonable and pertinent ongoing discussion about article content involving half a dozen different editors by User:Fifelfoo and User:BigK HeX [104] [105]. No one needs to be reminded about the scope limitation. Article scope was not even being discussed in the discussion in question here. No article edit warring is going on. The repeated collapsing of productive and appropriate discussion is disruptive and uncivil (disrespectful to those involved), and I welcome an uninvolved admin to evaluate the situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fifelfoo, perhaps you or BigK can explain why you think the discussion you collapsed was about article scope, or was expressing disagreement with the consensus decision that the scope of the article should be the general/broad interpretation of "libertarianism". You can't just declare any discussion as being about scope just so that justifies collapsing it. It should also be noted that the discussion was started by a previously uninvolved editor who probably had no idea about the restriction, not that anything they or anyone else said was in violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(added later) You are right, more than you realize. The "restriction" that you are saying is inapplicable actually doesn't even exist. It was written by one of the participants in a dispute, not by an admin, not by a closer, not by any official WP action. North8000 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. While Fifel wrote the initial restriction, shortly after the third RFC on the same topic, it was completely rewritten by admin Ucucha, who doesn't seem to have otherwise participated in the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Eduen's initial post. Darkstar's combative, and scope revisiting, "notice when you type in "libertarian" in google, the lp party and the wp article appear, but no socialist or anarchist links. my favorite retort will come from the usual suspects…". Fifelfoo (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This could take 5,000 words, but here's the gist of it. IMHO Fiferloo is wrong three times over. First, there is no such restriction. Second, nor should there be, this is germane discussion on development of an important article which seems to have gone dead. . Third, this current discussion (use of the word) is on a very different topic than the previous discussion (where we resolved scope) that Fiferloo is mis-launching from. The only mis-behavior deletion/hiding of talk page content. I have no hard feelings toward fellow editor Fiferloo, and sorry that the briefness of my statement makes it sound a little rough. Sincerely, North8000 12:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On the first of the three points, Fiferloo may have been misled by the wording that someone put in the template. The "prohibition" on talk in the template is not legit. It was written by one of the participants in a dispute, not by an admin, not by a closer, and not by any official WP action. Sincerely North8000 13:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the legitimacy of the notice at the top of Talk:Libertarianism in question -- the notice which supposedly justifies the collapsing of the discussion (and many others) in question -- I suggest it be removed unless someone can provide evidence of its legitimacy. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I already posted a diff showing that it was rewritten by an uninvolved admin, so it's legitimate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment below I think that that point was secondary to the discussion here. I didn't mean that I checked out who wrote it to see if they were an admin. I meant that it did not arise from the (closer or admin of the) RFC process process. I agreed with the results of the RFC, even though it had some issues. Peace came when I asked folks who thought the opposite to "give peace a chance", and that I would temporarily oppose continued discussion while we made a try at moving forward. Nothing about terminating their rights to reopen the discussion. Either way, the current discussion is on a different topic. North8000 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that I rewrote the restriction—to improve its style, not to change its meaning in any way—and the unrelated fact that I happen to be an admin should have any bearing on the legitimacy of the restriction. Ucucha 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We all got mentally worn out and writers cramp after that last bout. Long story short, we had a 3/4 consensus to go with the RFC result (rather than re-opening it) with a portion of the 3/4 (muslef included) conditional on making some progress with the article. The talk section in question is NOT about reopening that issue. So, in this case, that text is causing confusiton, and leading to violation of talk page guidlines.....deleting/hiding of normal talk material. Also, editing on the article has gone to the other extreme.....completely dead. North8000 17:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. It was hard to find due to a lack of edit summary, but it turns it was non-admin and involved editor User:Fifelfoo who placed the notice at the top of the page originally on October 1st! [106]. Then the wording was changed by another non-admin involved editor on October 10th [107]. Here is what it currently says:

General warning regarding disruption: 1 October 2010 03:28 UTC through 1 February 2011 03:28 UTC –

1. An administrator has fully protected this article until February 1, 2011. ...
2. Due to months of disruptions by discussions about the breadth of libertarian ideologies discussed in this article, the community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position, and continuous attempts to dispute this consensus disrupt the encyclopedia. If such discussion occurs despite warnings, editors should feel free to take the matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or to collapse the discussion. The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption, not to prevent editorial opinion. Discussions on due and undue weight for subtopics of the article, backed by reliable sources, are fine. After the sanction expires, editorial opinion on topic and coverage, backed up by policy and reliable sources, will be considered as normal.

My main objection is to the highlighted wording, and how that has been applied indiscriminately to any disliked discussion by a few editors. Of course, true disruption can and should be taken here. But encouraging editors to collapse ongoing relevant discussion about article content (and scope for that matter) is without basis. I really want an uninvolved administrator to weigh in on this, but what I really would like is for those words to be deleted from the notice, and editors warned to cease collapsing (or deleting) discussions that are not in violation of WP policy or guidelines (like WP:NOTAFORUM, for example). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And this mis-fire was an example. This was a good, positive, germane discussion on a topic DIFFERENT from the previous question that the RFC and everything was about. Sincerely, North8000 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with placing a warning at the top of the talk page yourself, and then acting as if it is a binding policy placed by an uninvolved admin. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Except we now have precisely the same revisiting of scope ongoing on the talk page which is disruptive ([108] [109] [110]). And that when such disruptive community behaviour was rife collapsing discussions prevented people running directly to RFC/U over WP:IDHT in editors who are otherwise (from my experience on wikipedia) rational. A variety of kinds of editors have a compulsive problem over Libertarianism and collapsing discussions on the topic worked because it prevented the community of involved editors from picking at their scab. Placing the warning in October, and having repeatedly enforced it myself prior to now, has resulted in two and a half months without continuous daily talk page disruption. If removing the disruption actually improved the encyclopaedia is something to evaluate in February. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provide are not examples of discussions about article scope. If you really believe they are, please quote the specific words that you think makes them be about article scope, and explain why. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The first two diffs I supplied were of uncollapsing.

1. In diff [111] IP 61.… revisits scope explicitly, "The word "libertarian" is almost unanimously considered an ideology which promotes total individualism, both socially and economically."
2. In diff [112] Carolmooredc describes the process leading to the current scope as other users have discussed removing scoped content in entirity, "Hmmm, it seems to me there were a couple of RfCs and a couple of rejected name change moves that showed a clear consensus to not try to delete all material on this topic."
3. In diff [113] Eduen defends the current scope's inclusions, "It is possible that all this might surprise one or more USA citizens or residents present here but in the rest of the world this is something rather trivial actually and the International Libertarian Solidarity organizations all are active and propagandizing in those countries today about class war and anticapitalism."

• The reading is straight forward, but thanks for asking for me to clarify it to you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I hope you don't mind I changed some bullets to numbers for ease of reference.
    1. How is discussion about what the word "libertarian" is usually used to mean a discussion of the scope of the article?
    2. I didn't understand the relevance of Carol's comment to what was being discussed. Anyway, it was discussing some recent history on the talk apge; it was not disputing any consensus which is what the notice prohibits.
    3. Eduen was not even specifically referring to actual article content, or scope, but talking about usage of the term "libertarian" in the world, presumably because it might be useful for the article (he provided many links). Again, there was no kind of dispute here with any kind of consensus.
  • I'm genuinely baffled as to why you object at all to any of this. Your collapsing and ANI filing is far more disruptive than any of the discussions you've collapsed today, none of which have been disruptive at all, except in how you've reacted to it and all that reaction has initiated, including this sentence. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of consensus: While I am unsure of the status of this kind of complaint at this point, I do want to make clear that there is some basis for a consensus to avoid discussion of the scope of the article at least until the Full protection imposed from October 1 to February 1 is over. Unfortunately, recent talk page WP:SOAPBOX makes it clear that the constant disruptions that led to protecting the article in October probably will start up with a vengeance in February. :-(
I saved this list of evidence since I was sure this disruption would start again soon enough:

• This August 27 RfC rejecting just making it about Right wing libertarianism,
• This September 3 successful RfC for removing a tag saying that the article lacked a “single coherent topic” (because it did not have the desired single POV,
• This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (Forms of)".
• This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (Word)".
• This September 18 rejected proposal to revert to the 2005 version which does not include material deletionists do not like does not go to broader community; currently 5 for and 5 against.
• Proposal: remove all references to any ideology never referred to as just "libertarianism" without qualification in English WP:RS, another rejected RfC.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That User:Darkstar1st be restricted from editing Talk:Libertarianism for 23 hours

Being that:

1. User:Darkstar1st is clearly aware of restriction on discussion scope at Talk:Libertarianism due to its disruptive nature as they are a long term contributor
2. That Darkstar1st created a section diff to specifically discuss changing article scope. This can be read in plain language:
   1. "Removing left and right from the article";
      1. Ie: changing the scope of the article by removing currently scoped in content, this is different to other arguments about due weight
   2. "the average user is searching for the same definition they seek on google, which is the modern understanding of libertarian."
      1. Ie: changing the scope of the article by matching a personal definition Darkstar1st holds, and believes that the average user holds by removing currently scoped content
3. This is an example of extreme WP:IDHT, and WP:SOAPBOX and,
4. As collapsing article sections per the warning supported (as indicated above) by an uninvolved admin is not stopping the constant revisting of scope, therefore:

I suggest a minimal editing restriction against Darkstar1st editing Talk:Libertarianism for 23 hours. Such a minimal editing restriction would act as a signal against the behaviour, and, indicate that creating discussions to revisit scope is unacceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The way we resolve conflicts and develop consensus at Wikipedia is through discussion on talk pages, precisely the kind of discussion that Fifelfoo continues to collapse despite this open ANI and our awaiting some kind of resolution from an uninvolved admin. Anyone? Please?

Before anyone is restricted from editing anything, I think we need some clarity on what can and can't be discussed on the article talk page. In particular, it seems to me that a discussion about how much coverage a particular aspect of the topic should get so as to comply with WP:DUE is completely appropriate, and yet that is precisely the discussion that Fifelfoo just collapsed. I will not uncollapse only because this ANI is open, but sincerely hope an intervening admin will do so soon because this nonsense has to stop so that discussion about how to improve the article can proceed without being disrupted like this. Fifelfoo, if you don't want to discuss something, do what I and I countless other editors do... ignore the discussion. You don't own the talk page. It doesn't have to include only discussion that you're interested in or that you think has merit. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st was here when the restriction was imposed, was immediately aware of the restriction due to the presence of the warning on the talk page, and from having contributed to the above discussion. Darkstar1st suggested removing content based on a personally held definition: ie changing scope.

If you have ideas about WP:DUE, don't attach them as a follow up to a scoping discussion. Your contribution to that particular collapsed discussion was about WP:DUE and would (and still would be) be best presented independently of Darkstar1st's attempt to discuss scoping.

As you would be aware, the reason why the article has a limit on scoping discussions is because they were found to have been fundamentally disruptive to article improvement. If you want to revisit the quality of article improvement without the scoping restriction, then feel free to read the archives spanning March through September of 2010. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are engaged in a kind of censorship micro-managed by someone involved in a dispute on an article talk page that is unworkable. I know of no precedent for it. I'm asking you, again, to please stop. If you have legitimate complaints about disruptive behavior in violation of WP policy and guideline, then take it up with the alleged offender and escalate as necessary if that does not work; file an ANI about it if necessary. But unilateral collapsing by an editor involved in a dispute of any discussion that that editor feels is inappropriate is what is the only behavior being discussed here that is clearly inappropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

it was already well escalated over six months. Part of the escalation is freedom to collapse. The gentleness of the escalation given six months of disruption and idht may surprise you. This is as you are aware from October, the natural escalation. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good first step since Darkstar1st is the most disruptive editor. And when he comes back and keeps up his various disruptive techniques, hopefully he'll be permanently banned from editing articles on libertarianism. (Note that he's basically a WP:Single purpose account mostly editing Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States since April 2010.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

disagree i am not a single purpose account and have been in wp longer than anyone editing the article. my interests are broad, as are my edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition about discussing scope, even the ersatz one does not say that, and the current discussion are about terminology, not scope. So Carol ad Fifeloo are wrong on this 2-3 times over, and this is starting to look THEY are warring, where no war exists. Sincerely, North8000 02:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same old pushing of an exclusionary viewpoint (rejected by wiki community) that went on for 5 months before the article was shut down - and there's still 5 weeks before the article is opened. It's just too much deja vu all over again. Maybe we're suffering from PTSD!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

PTSD is no joke: people actually do suffer from it. A Libertarian candidate making a viable run for something like the U.S. Presidency? Now that's funny: considering the last President that wasn't either a Republican or a Democrat was a Whig elected in 1850. Go ahead: waste your vote! Doc talk 05:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, we already decided not to exclude (specific wording per the RFC finding). And I am in your "camp" on that topic. This is a discussion about terminology, not scope or exclusion. You are seeing ghosts!  :-) Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

And this is without even going there that there is no blanket prohibition on discussion of scope. North8000 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my chomping at the bit, once I saw that blocking recommendation. But what is needed at the very least is a warning from Admins not to start up all the WP:SOAPBOX (see Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox) about excluding or nearly all excluding or mostly excluding views not liked by some, while rarely bringing up WP:RS - and regularly dismissing scads of WP:RS presented. This smacks of a political campaign for political purposes, not an attempt to create a balanced article. I warned about future ANIs for this sort of thing and perhaps Fifelfoo jumped the gun and ran over here. But a warning, reminder is most definitively in order to make editing wikipedia a less traumatic experience. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, nobody has started that, so this seems like the exact opposite of AGF. If it happens, I'll be with you,. North8000 15:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since none of that has been going on, I don't see the reason to bring it up now. What has been going on is the censorship of discussion that is not in violation of policy, guidelines or any RFC or anything via collapsing. It's very disruptive and we need a warning from an Admin against that. It just happened again. That was reverted and discussion about content continued[114]. But then that was collapsed too[115].

Please, let's address problems actually occurring on the talk page.... the disruptive edit-warring collapsing has to stop! --Born2cycle (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the page of the collapse template being repeatedly used on the talk page in question is the following warning:

This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

Whether the editing being collapsed is disruptive is exactly what is at issue in this ANI. Obviously it is not unambiguous disruptive editing. Therefore, use of the collapse template to end a discussion over the objections of other editors is in itself disruptive and a violation of the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline. I am leaving appropriate warnings on the user pages of those in violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily endorse a 23-hr block, I will comment that Darkstar1st's thread is EXACTLY the disruption that led to the decisions from numerous editors on scope. BigK HeX (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle is part of the vocal minority involved in the initial disruptive WP:IDHT in regards to scope [see Carol's list of RfC's they failed above]. I find his latest reverts to be along those same lines: [116]. The disregard for consensus was disturbing and disruptive, and a resurrection of that behavior is unlikely to be any more productive. BigK HeX (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive collapsing to end discussion that is not unambiguously disruptive

Even though this is related to another open ANI, it's a very specific question and should be easy to answer.

Can an uninvolved Admin please clarify whether collapsing of article talk page comments that are not "unambiguously disruptive" is a violation of the WP:refactoring guideline, and, if it is, please warn User:BigK HeX and User:Fifelfoo accordingly?

Fifelfoo yesterday, and BigK today, have both repeatedly collapsed such comments for the purpose of ending discussion, while the very question of whether those comments are "disruptive" is being discussed on this page.

The template for collapsing clearly states:

This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

It seems quite obvious to me that since there is objection by a number of editors, and the question of whether the comments being collapsed are disruptive is one of the unresolved issues at the other ANI, these comments are clearly not unambiguous disruptive editing.

I've already warned BigK about this[117], but he apparently disagrees with my interpretation, as he continues to collapse ongoing discussion despite the warning[118], which is why I seek clarification from an uninvolved admin. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Allright, let's untangle this

First there was a huge war (before my time) and some folks might still be viewing everything through that lens. The recent big question (and RFC subject) was inclusion/exclusion of less common variants of Libertarianism in the article. The conclusion of the RFC was to include those that are significant, based on RS's, subject to additional standards such as wp:undue. No finding on restricting discussion. North8000 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The "huge war" was certainly not "before your time". You were involved in those discussions and RfC's, such as this one: [[119]]. BigK HeX (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wording in the Template

One of the combatants wrote in the template that nobody gets to talk about scope for six months, and put the trappings on to make it look like an official statement. I complained. An editor, who happens to be an admin, tweaked it. In their own words:

"I don't think the fact that I rewrote the restriction—to improve its style, not to change its meaning in any way—and the unrelated fact that I happen to be an admin should have any bearing on the legitimacy of the restriction. Ucucha 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)"

I looked and said that it's still wrong (but not as bad) but didn't do anything about it. IMHO, we (or an officially acting admin) should erase that stuff. If anything, put the actual key findings from the RFC.

Current discussions

New discussions are occurring on meanings of terminology, common tenets, etc. which are NOT NOT on the topic that was the subject of the RFC. They are friendly and informative. See for yourself. Fiferloo and BigK keep collapsing those discussions. While the illegitimate notice is certainly contributing to this, to me they seem overly hostile, and massively overreacting, and assuming bad faith with no basis in these actions. Carol has also been overreacting but not collapsing.

IMHO, Fiferlo and BigK should stop collapsing discussions, (maybe an admin check this out and tell them, if they agree) and all three should stop assuming bad faith. If, in the next few months, someone actually does start re-discussing the subject of the RFC finding, then I would back you on ending that discussion. But, so far, such has not occurred. Sincerely, North8000 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your statement: "in the next few months, someone actually does start re-discussing the subject of the RFC finding, then I would back you on ending that discussion. But, so far, such has not occurred

If you're referring to supporting the RfC that closed with the Summary Statement, "'Libertarianism' should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources", then I can't see how your comment is coherent given that Darkstar1st's thread is "Removing left and right [libertarianism] from the article" BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Roughly 3 or 4 persistent -- even tendentious -- editors revisiting a settled topic every few days got us to this point. See:

• the first RfC rejecting the blatant POV from the vocal minority, which is the same POV that User:Darkstar1st with support from one of his fellow vocal minority is again pushing anew,
• The “lacks a single coherent topic” tag placed by the vocal minority is removed,
• Vocal minority proposes a move to "Libertarianism (Forms of)" which is rejected.
• A simultaneous proposal from the vocal minority to move the article to "Libertarianism (Word)" is rejected.
• this asanine RfC proposal from the vocal minority is rejected.

Interesting to note that almost all (except for 1 or 2) of the previously uninvolved editors who weighed in on RfC's and Move Requests nearly unanimously rejected the POV of the vocal minority.

So, while I'm all for legitimate discussion, Darkstar1st popping back up from his wikibreak after a couple of months to stir up his blatant POV is a silly attempt at more of the same WP:IDHT disruption that got us to this point. BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BigK, the newest of those diffs is from last September ! Sincerely, North8000 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the OLDEST one of those many RfC's is from September, too. Which brings us back to my point that constant disruption by the same editors is what got us here. I stated my position on these repetitive WP:IDHT proposals back then. BigK HeX (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from anon at Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Minor legal threat from 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs) [120]: "For a guy who is a Hedge Fund Manager and a best selling Author, He can sue the hell out of guys like John Nagle for making statements such as "Taleb blew up several funds" or "Taleb inflates his returns". Such accusations on this forum can cost him (Taleb) business.The way legalities works in the US (and specially in UK and India and other countries),this gentleman-Nagle- if not careful can spend the rest of life paying legal bills if Taleb is half as headstrong as he comes across to be and decides to pursue legal charges. It appears that Mr Nagle does have all the time for that but money could be a different matter. Ironically The well wishers are robust (cant lose much except credibility or their Wiki editorship) as Taleb would say. The slanderers are very concave (can lose the shirt off their back). Thanks ~JD"

It's from an anon, but a sock check against the parties mentioned in [121] might be worthwhile. (It's surprising how wound up Taleb's team gets over even mild criticism. The worst thing I've said about him is that the financial success of his hedge funds is questionable since he talks about the returns in the best years, but hasn't released audited numbers for the life of the funds. Similar comments have been published elsewhere.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Without investigating this matter, and definitely not defending legal threats, this could also involve a BLP violation. Just a thought. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Shearography Edit War

It has broken out to a edit war on the Shearography page

I can explain the background of the edit war: I created the first version of shearography "Desmoquattro" back in 26 of March 2009. It took some time before another manufacturer of shearography discovered it and completely messed it up just to get some pictures of the own equipment there WITHOUT paying any respect to formatting etc wich suffered a lot:

• please see revision 19:52, 6 June 2010) made by user Shearo.

I re-edited the page (10:01, 14 June 2010 Desmoquattro) to make it look reasonable good again with formatting and everything and also made a compromise that both of our equipments are on display.

• This edit was messed up again from user Shearo (06:42, 30 June 2010 Shearo) without any respect to format, just to bring up pictures of the own producs.

I reseted it again to a clean version. But once again it was destroyed by (15:37, 29 July 2010 Shearo) In Octber 2010, it reached a new level when user shearo (or he/she behind a IP) started to change the hypertext on the external links so "Dantec Dynamics" could not be clicked on for more information. This is in my opinion sever and after this the "war" started. This sever destruction of the hyperlink is done SYSTEMATICALLY every edit... I have tried to keep the page clean and not use it as some marketing tool, and not destroying for any one else editing it for developing it.

• Hope that we can find a solution here and stop such destructive edits done from user Shearo (or the anonomyss IP he/she is using)

I have done some copy edits and will watch-list the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fandom Wank and User:Andrewowen2000

This WP:SPA account has continued to add a G4 speedy deletion tag to this page despite it once being removed by another editor and twice by me. G4 clearly doesn't apply as the page is not "substantially identical" and an attempt has been made to meet the original reason for deletion by the addition of more links. Even if it is a G4 candidate per our deletion policy if there's disagreement over a speedy deletion it should be taken to a discussion. I have pointed this out to the editor in question but they continue to add the G4 tag and I don't want to remove it again because it would be getting close to edit warring. I normally wouldn't report this to ANI this early but, as this user's only edits have been to this page (mostly adding the G4 tag) and their talk page, I smell a sock. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag once Dpmuk explained the right thing to do. Yawn. Andrewowen2000 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is definitely "substantially identical". Kind of a waste to have yet another deletion discussion on such a clear case, but oh well. DreamGuy (talk)

Template fix requires Admin

Resolved

 – Temporary fix applied by RL0919

Can someone fix Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - currently it's saying "You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." - should say "You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so" otherwise editors will look in the wrong place for the discussion. I'd do it myself but that template is fully protected. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this would be a quick fix, but apparently that text is transcluded from Template:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss, which is also transcluded into Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. So it is not so easy to change one without changing the other. --RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you revert back 2 edits, it will go back to the previous version as a temporary fix - though the colour is different if you want to make it the same for consistency. Exxolon (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done that for now since I don't have time at this very moment to do anything about the transcluded page. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Access Denied's bad-hand sock account

Resolved

 – Socks confirmed, user indeffed. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From what I first saw of this editor, he didn't seem too bad. I remember him being brought to this page because another user thought his username violated policy, but community consensus found that it did not. I saw them again a few times, but I've been rather busy as of late, so I don't remember any of those times besides that one. For the most part, the appeared to be a constructive editor.

Now, when I see their user talk page, it seems that they are on an 'indefinite wikibreak'. Today however, I found this to be utterly false, it seems they had created a bad-hand sock account named Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs), which they used to troll several pages including this noticeboard, and then their own talk page.

They were found to be a sock after smelling of one, and being CU'd when I contacted one in regards to the suspicious behavior.

I'm frankly disappointed that this user would do something like this, and I very much await their explanation. Below are two sections transcluded from their talk pages; one from their first user account, Access Denied, and one from their sock account, Wpeditmanbob2. Both master and sock have been notified: [125], [126].— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, I took their behavior to this noticeboard for review.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD's response

Ok, I created that account. I now realize how incredibly stupid that was of me. I was becoming increasingly desperate for a way to enforce my wikibreak and was starting to think that a block was the only way. Of course, it being late at night, I forgot that some admins are willing to block for wikibreak purposes. I never intended to cause so much disruption. I am truly sorry for all the disruption and wasted time this has caused, and I will accept whatever the community decides to do with me. access_denied (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Two of the three confirmed socks were editing on 25 November, before your "retirement" and while you were still actively editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (AD sock thread)

Forgot to place this section here. But anyway, currently AD's main account is blocked for a week due to the socking. I would be lying to say I think that's enough.. the only other thing I want is an explanation.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is another classic false-positive case. There have previously been several false-positive cases. Many trusted users know who Access Denied is. There doesn't seem to be anything that explains why Access Denied, a well-trusted and established user, would operate a bad-hand sock puppet account. I'd like to know how strong the CU evidence is. HeyMid (contribs) 09:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean you're afraid it -could be- a false positive; you don't actually know. And it's  Confirmed, not  Likely or  Possible, but confirmed.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see the technical evidence. Yeah, confirmed is the closest connection possible. HeyMid (contribs) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, can we add some more accounts to the mix. I'm stating that the following accounts are  Confirmed as being related to Access Denied (talk · contribs);

• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Smiling happy pie man (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dkfjb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There are also issues relating to vandalism and block evasion around an IP address which I will not identify at this time. However, and I really feel that I need to state this here, the case is rather unusual in that all these vandalistic socks are created on a mobile device (an iPod Touch) that AD uses. AD also uses a desktop system & interestingly, this system has never created any sock accounts. These edits from the socks are so inane and puerile that I really kinda have to suspect the 'kid brother' card will be invoked here. These socks are mostly on-and-done in around 10 mins or so. I want to hear what AD has to say, though ... - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied was caught in the autoblocks as a result of the blocks of Smiling happy pie man and Dkfjb, so this is correct. We can't exclude that his brother was operating the above accounts; mobile devices may easily be shared by others than the owner. And if AD forgot to turn off the iPod (assuming he owns it), his brother then could create new accounts. The behavior of the above accounts seems to be too abusive to be socks of AD. Why would AD operate vandalism accounts? Also, how could you identify that the accounts edited via an iPod? I, too, am interested in hearing what AD has to say. HeyMid (contribs) 11:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the ipod actually belongs to AD, e.g. do AD logged-in edits come from it? Maybe we're seeing a wifi access point being abused. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same iPod, over multiple disparate domestic IPs so that tells me it's not an abused WiFi node - Alison ^❤ 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the edits all took place in a constrained period of time: Novermber 24 from 19:23-19:51 and December 18 from 1:41 to 2;38. If this has been an inappropriate use of AD's mobile device, perhaps this will help identify who the culprit is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brother would have made an edit like this, which seems too timely to be happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by the fact that the most recent sock (Wpeditmanbob2) was knowledgeable about the help desk, WP:ANI, the blocking policy, and the {{unblock}} template. I'm really wondering how his brother would be that knowledgeable (if we assume that the sock was operated by his brother). Also, this inappropriate revert is interesting. I am fully aware of the fact that AD sometimes makes disruptive headers (see this edit, for example). Also, the "Wp" part in the sock's username (which is an abbreviation of "Wikipedia") is also something worth thinking about. If the three accounts mentioned above were all operated by AD, I'd support an indefinite block of AD. But before taking any further actions, I think we should wait for a response from AD himself. For now, I'd say we don't know either way (whether it was someone else or AD himself). HeyMid (contribs) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all linked in some way with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, but I don't know quite how. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the first impression is TFM. However, the problem here is that CU confirms the sock edited using the same mobile device AD has edited with, and CU has never mentioned TFM. The poor text language in the sock's edits explains why a mobile device was used. It is very difficult to make two edits within 4 minutes using a clean language. Also, in this edit, several users are mentioned. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the TFM account and associated socks were being run through a different device, and the AD account and associate socks were being run through his ipod. The same person could be editing from both a desktop computer and an ipod and easily maintain the subterfuge of being two different people by posting within minutes or seconds of each other. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the CU above (at least as I understood it) the AD account (but not the socks) did use a desktop system. I presume this is not linked to the TFM account although it's possible this was not looked in to specifically. Of course the TFM could be using a different desktop system perhaps in a different location (or just using a proxy or different connection) from the AD account. Note of course if the iPod was used at the same time as the TFM account and if they are the same person the iPod will need to have a wifi connection different from whatever connection the desktop is using or otherwise one of them would need to be using a proxy or whatever or there would I presume be some linkage. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD always struck me as an unnecessarily aggressive editor, though I wouldn't have predicted the socking. Go for a longer block if you want. Trolling that lame from a sock account sounds like a breaching experiment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very curious pattern. I would definitely like to hear from Access Denied over this. I do know that at the time he was asking for the autoblocks to be cleared, he was away from 'his desk' (ie the fixed system) and using the mobile device only. I believe he said he was at his parents. It does sound like an "ooh, can I play with your new iPod" scenario. Will we wait for AD to respond please. No damage is currently being done I believe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well this is extremely disappointing; I agree with others that I didn't expect such behaviour from AD, but nor would I believe a "my brother did it" response given the nature of some of these edits (one edit to ANI was "lol I wish eagles wuz here to see dis", referring to another regular contributor). I suspect AD was trying to see if they could get away with trolling from a sock account, and fortunately they cannot. I note also that while I usually found AD to be a good editor, I did once see cause to leave him a comment about the list of "funny" vandalism on his user page, after viewing a diff he had just added and having to promptly ask User:TFOWR to RevDel it (the diff to which he linked, that is) and asking AD not to feed the trolls by linking to offensive vandalism. If that's the sort of thing AD finds funny, I suppose I can't be too surprised by this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit you're referring to was not made at WP:ANI; it was made at their user talk page while the account was blocked. Also, do you mean you believe AD intentionally created a disruptive account in purpose of getting his main account blocked indefinitely? I do believe AD is aware that CUs can detect sockmasters of sock puppet accounts. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it was indeed the user's talk page. And no, I believe AD intentionally created an account to let off steam anonymously and to see whether or not it'd be traced back to him. Checkusers can and have confirmed the relationship, certainly, but that only happens when there's reason to suspect a connection already, since checkuser isn't used for fishing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How reasonably certain are we that AD is not User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I must admit, when I saw what Wpeditmanbob2 was doing, my mind instantly went to TFM instead of AD for a connection. this comment in particular is interesting, since as far as I know, SandyGeorgia has not yet been involved in this case, but SandyGeorgia WAS an ardent supporter of TFM in the last case. Why the connection drawn here? I know that AD and TFM were seen "fighting" during TFM's most recent block, but given the propensity of both of them to run good-hand/bad-hand accounts, couldn't that have been simply more subterfuge? I'm not sure this is anything more than me just thinking out loud, but has any checkuser been run to investigate THAT connection?--Jayron32 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Spot on what I've been getting at above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

See also User:The Thing That Should Not Be. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the contributions style. This situation seems to be growing like last summer's oil leak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for coming out of retirement to poke my head in, but what does this have to do with me? The fact that we apparently retiredwent on an indefinite wikibreak at nearly the same time seems to be nothing more than a coincidence. The Thing ^T/_C 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Was AD involved in the Bad edits r dumb ban discussion prior to the Fat Man one, Jayron? I'm about to head to bed so I can't check, but wasn't it established that Fat Man = Bad edits? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about AD's involvement in that case, but The Fat Man has himself positively identified that he was Bad edits r dumb. --Jayron32 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no doubt at all that Fat/BErD was one guy. I wonder if his "brother", user Mike R, could shed any light on this saga? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Smiling happy pie man (talk · contribs) account sounds really ducky, as Access Denied (talk · contribs) was renamed from I like pie it tastes good (talk · contribs); you'll also want to block:

• Access Denied's left shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's left sock (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right sock (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mono (talk • contribs) mono 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Those accounts have not edited, so have not been used against policy. Plus, it is pretty obvious they are not trying to hide. If he uses them to avoid his current block, we can block them in turn. But lets not go overboard here... --Jayron32 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• This incident is extremely appalling. Although I've found Access Denied to be an editor who tends to feed the trolls, I never would have expected that he would stoop so low to sock disruptively. I think that Access Denied is disgruntled with the The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) affair. His most significant edit before retirement was a reversion on The Fat Man's talk page. This socking is intended either as a protest, albeit immature, of The Fat Man incident or as an effort to dig a deeper hole for The Fat Man, incriminating him with more socks. If the latter, he probably did not expect a CheckUser to be run due to the ducky nature of the socks and so did it through his own IP/phone. Since Access Denied has shown himself unworthy of the community's trust, I would support a lengthier block, though first I'd seek to hear his account of this. Goodvac (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the kid brother hypothesis...You would be surprised how much information about Wikipedia friends and siblings can learn by knowing someone established on Wikipedia. If one of my close friends had the desire, they could easily cause issues on pages I frequent and with editors I associate with most commonly, as I discuss them offline as well. Sharing of iPods is also easy, as I loaned mine to a friend of mine for up to a month at a time in the past. It is also hypothetically possible that if it was a sibling of Access Denied they could just pick up the iPod and use it when he left it unattended for a bit, quitting their disruptive behavior a few minutes later when they got bored or Access Denied extricated the iPod from their possession. Socking disruptively like this is too far outside Access Denied's character for me to not believe this is a coincidence of unfortunate proportions. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For me the mention of SandyGeorgia in this edit would seem to give the "kid brother" point away. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the allusion to SandyGeorgia would not be coming from a brother. In addition, Access Denied frequently complains about small text and recently increased the text size to 140% in his monobook.css. With his sock account, he complains that "the wikipedia font is so TINY is it almostzImpoSSIBLT2READ". Also, Access Denied seems to be the type of person that follows web evolution (or whatever you call it), explaining his sock's reference to the W3C. Goodvac (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must say I find your theory quite compelling: that AD was trying to imitate TFM, either to get TFM in trouble (less likely) or just plain troll (more likely). I can't say I'm surprised - I don't fully accept the "otherwise good character" statements in this thread. AD was on a downward spiral from the moment his premature RfA closed (refer: posts on TFM's and YellowMonkey's talk pages and involvement in the latter's RfC and RFaR). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh geez, I am suddenly reminded of the Robdurbar incident that occurred a while back. Let's not further speculate on the matter and close down this thread; this entire discussion is already giving the trolls new ammo and more reason to come back, and we should not be doing that. The explanation from AD will come when it will come, so there is no reason to open up a new discussion about it. In the meantime, let the block stay in its place, as perhaps a preventative measure just in case it really is him. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community, of course there will be a thread to discuss the behavior. I'm not sure how many people have AD's talk on their watchlist, but I'm sure there isn't much. There is no guarantee that AD will ever give an explanation, but at least here we can centralize things a bit. Lastly, DNFTT is not a reason to close down a discussion of this type; this was a good-hand-bad-hand case, not a case of a user who has done nothing but troll. I don't really see how you could say DNFTT applies here.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time of writing this, AD's talk page is watched by 58 users, so that's a plenty amount for a non-administrator. HeyMid (contribs) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still can't say for absolute certainty, judging from the dispute above, that whether or not the BROTHER clause does apply to AD, and by extension we lack knowledge of whether or not "an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community" is true. But I am pretty sure that people (me for one) will be watchlisting his talkpage for a response. And the DNFTT case may go both ways; this user, be it AD or not, has trolled with the Wpeditmanbob2 account, and that's a definite no-no, especially when such person responds with stuff like this to ANI. But really, I feel we should move on. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm kind of distressed to infer that Ipods send info identifying the specific device as part of http queries, unless we're talking about a regular browser cookie that AD forget to clear. I'm glad I don't have an Ipod. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UA's(user agents, Firefox for example, is a user agent) are usually unique to the device the browser is used on.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Browsers have a "useragent" which identifies the browser, and I would assume that a iPod's browser is distinct from ones like Internet Explorer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User agents usually don't uniquely identify the specific device. They normally identify the OS and browser version, but not the machine serial number or anything like that. So if you use Firefox under Windows, the UA would be something like "Firefox 3.6.1 Windows Vista SP2". If you had two separate computers both set up like that, the UA string wouldn't be enough to tell them apart. That's why there is controversy over flash cookies and the very existence of Processor Serial Numbers, for example. It could be that the Ipod Touch sends unique info, and that might be handy for sock detection purposes, but it's not welcome news from a general privacy perspective. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OT but if you are concerned about privacy, be aware it's been argued the amount of info your browser gives away including installed plugins, fonts etc can sometimes form a unique (albeit changing over time) fingerprint in some/many? cases [127] [128] [129] Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why would he be abusing multiple accounts since he knows what's right from wrong. I didn't think he would do this until I saw his contributions. He helped me how to install Igloo back in October when I had rollback. He even decided to retire but then he changed it to an indefinite wikibreak. Sometimes people say that they retired but they faked it by still editing. WAYNESLAM 15:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

He mentioned that his grades were falling badly, so I wonder if this is his method of enforcing a wikibreak. I hope it doesn't become common. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

L.O.L., I know. There are other, better ways to enforce a wikibreak, besides making yourself look foolish, such as a script that you set to the wikibreak's end time, and then it will automatically log you out every time you try to log in, until the wikibreak's end time arrives. :-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be really careful about jumping to the conclusion that an account named for an editor was actually created by that editor. There have been sometimes-mysterious trolls (certainly more than one) who have created sock accounts with names similar to other users who are already blocked, just to try to get them into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would agree, but in this case, [130]. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, that not good, Kemo Sabe. I'd like to hear his explanation for that, beyond the fact that he obviously messed up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm very disappointed about what AD had just done, I always saw AD as a good contributor. I could have ever thought that AD would have done something like this. This was uncalled for, and i'm curiously awaiting for AD's explanation on these shenanigans. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Up the block to indef Maybe he's just not on Wikipedia at the moment. Nevertheless, a response from him is required before he can be allowed to resume editing. N419BH 21:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• There are two scenarios that I can see:

1. It was Access Denied. If that is the case, what is the point in spamming his talkpage with "I am very disappointed in you, mister" messages, when, as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, he clearly knows his way around and what the rules are in this place? He knows his right from his wrong, and if he wants to do wrong, we should not encourage him. Right now, by having created controversy and stirring up the ANI noticeboard, he serves as an example to other trolls as a very successful one.
2. It wasn't Access Denied. If that is the case, then he will be very annoyed if/when he comes back to see misguided messages directed at him on his talkpage, when it was not him who done it. As to the second editor, having an ANI discussion about Wpeditmanbob2 was what this troll exactly wanted to accomplish by impersonating a well-known editor, and, as this troll likes attention, he will continue to do so as long as more threads like this spring up about him.

In short, I can see no good that will come out of discussions such as this. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and if he continues this behavior and disrupts the encyclopedia, then perhaps we should move it up to indef, but the week-long block in place seems to do enough prevention for the moment. He knows how to use the unblock template, and his explanation, if/when it comes, should be sufficient to satisfy everyone in explaining his behavior. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Access Denied has now admitted here that he operated the Wpeditmanbob2 account, claiming he did so as a way to enforce a wiki-break. Gwen Gale has extended the block of Access Denied to indefinite. HeyMid (contribs) 19:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess trying to do a good thing (in this case, enforce a wikibreak) the wrong way can later come back and bite you in the butt! Too bad he did not think of better ways to enforce a wikibreak, :-( such as a user script that enforces a wikibreak. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm late to the party. This is all very bizarre, and I can only think of one scenario that would make sense: It was truly Access Denied, who is pretending to be TFM in order for the community to think he has never changed and should be banned. This may be a possible scenario, because he says here "I am indefinitely obese," a play on TFM's banner on his talk page and his username. He mentions here SandyGeorgia being "nice" to him, but Jayron32 and Gwen Gale being "mean." I was also mentioned, and all four of us were involved in the TFM situation. This may also be an attempt for the community to look suspiciously at SandyGeorgia, as the sock attaches himself to her. Access Denied could have also had his account hacked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with The Fat Man

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.

---

I haven't been around much the last few weeks, but I can't for the life of me decipher why TFM is mentioned here, nor what I have to do with any of this. But then, I also don't know why TFM is still blocked for something that was long done with before the insane reblock happened, except that the monkeys are most surely running the asylum now. So, can anyone explain why TFM is mentioned here as "involved" just because AD is trying to post like him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We should try an experiment: All the admins should retire for a week. With complete anarchy, which is apparently what you want, you could see who the real "monkeys" are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1) TFM was mentioned; 2) you were mentioned; 3) the reason for his block was given in the block log; and 4) we aren't sure AD was deliberately trying that. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that I don't know either why TFM was mentioned here in the same breath as AD and his associated socks, as TFM and AD are both geographically very distant indeed; almost as far apart as possible within the US, really. People are really starting to see FatMan socks at every turn - why, I don't know, given that he's not had much propensity for socking. In short, TFM is  Unrelated to AD - Alison ^❤ 06:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TeleCon, for filling me in, but the TFM block still makes no sense to me ... he was blocked for something he had already been cleared for, and then remained blocked for protesting it, in the most discouraging event I've yet seen on Wiki, not a good sign for the future of Wiki. Baseball Bugs, how is it that in only a few years, you have become WAY by FAR the highest single contributor to ANI? Could you possibly go forth and build the encyclopedia, or something? You're not even an admin, yet you weigh in here far more than anyone else in the entire history of the Wiki, almost double the next single highest contributor, who is actually an admin, and three and four times as many edits as a lot of helpful admins. I'm getting the impression you're creating a sizable portion of the ANI drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have over 5,000 items on my watch list, so I have plenty to keep me occupied, and watching those items has led to a lot of vandal-hunting. I don't intentionally create any drama, but I do raise questions that I don't think have been asked and/or which I don't know the answers to. Meanwhile, every time I've seen your name it's got to do with defending some kind of editor misbehavior. I recommend that you focus on wikipedia's value to the public rather than on protecting bad-attitude pals of yours, and focus on your own flaws rather than what you perceive to be mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were paying closer attention to the content building side of Wiki, you'd have seen me around more often: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

???? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Barring further info, it looks to me (as Mkativerata wrote above) "AD was trying to imitate TFM, either to get TFM in trouble (less likely) or just plain troll (more likely)." It looks like deliberate imitation of TFM trolling by AD. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's looking to me as though AD was spoofing as a TFM sock, perhaps only to draw heed away from himself, perhaps to stir up more woe for TFM, or both, or more. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a complaint about that user's ID when they first arrived here, and maybe that should have been a red flag. Not to defend SandyGeorgiaOnMyMind's continual and inexplicable defense of Fat/BErD... but if AccessDenied is at least as guilty of socking as Fat/BErD, whose activities were rather less stealthy, how does AccessDenied qualify for a get-out-of-jail-free-on-Christmas card? Shouldn't that user, as well as its socks, be on ice indefinitely, at least until or if an attempt at an explanation comes forth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This thread has gone on to this length mostly because he hasn't made a peep since the blocks. I don't think he'll be able to quietly begin editing again, he'll be asked to deal with this first. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, could you please either explain your allegations of TFM socking, or understand the difference between using alternate accounts appropriately and socking? This continual misstatement and malignment of TFM, and fixation on him, is wearing thin. Where did he use an alternate account inappropriately as a sock? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about Fat/BErD personally, but his behavior speaks for itself. I think it's you that's fixated on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you didn't explain your allegations. Oh well, carry on as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When I look at BErD's activities, I see a guy who plays cat-and-mouse with those who question him, and who lied about giving up his "previous account". If that's your idea of a good editor, you need to expand your search a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But speaking of Fat/BErD, is this Atlanta-based IP sock actually him, or is it someone trying to impeach him further?12.130.119.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, please lower the fixation. It's Christmas-- people get on planes, many airlines go through or are based in Atlanta, and who do you think has a crystal ball, and what is the harm in that edit? Please, cease the drama mongering about The Fat Man; there are more important things to do on what's left of the Wiki than to overfocus on one editor who brought lots of good cheer to lots of folks who no longer want to conribute here because of the way The Fat Man was treated, and prefer one good content builder to dozens of ANI drama mongers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you think socking is just fine? Surprise, surprise. You're the one who's fixated. And spare your lectures about the way Fat/BErD was treated. He got what he gave, and if his block drove away some malcontents, that's a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IP sock or pretend-sock is now blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

the Atlanta-based IP above is  Unrelated to TFM. Are we done now? - Alison ^❤ 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I immediately raised the possibility it was an impostor. Far as I'm concerned, you could box up this entire sub-section and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's on an airplane's wifi, as the IP claims, then checkuser is pretty much useless anyway... Talk page semi'd. T. Canens (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I request that you review WP:SILVERLOCK and reverse that action immediately. There are no policy grounds for semi-protecting that page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave it semi-protected. The user is blocked. There's no reason for IP's to be editing the page. And there's no rule against protecting a page that's been subject to trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I give it a month until TFM is unblocked. Not that it's any skin off my arse. Looking at his userpage one would have no clue he's currently blocked indefinitely and has used socks for trolling. Whatevs, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Those who tried to post the normal banners were shouted down by his pals. Hence the current ambiguous status. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Baseball Bugs

On admin advice, I'm done with Fat/BErD. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The (mis)characterizations by Baseball Bugs of The Fat Man, colleagues who edited with him on BLPs and Featured Articles, his mischaracterization of Alison's CU post above on both The Fat Man's talk page and others, and his increasing fixation on The Fat Man are becoming a problem. Bugs is taking more time from productive editors with this fixation on removing inoffensive posts than TFM ever did: could we not encourage Baseball Bugs to move along to something more productive? He certainly doesn't seem to understand the nature of either CU or our socking policy, and the drama is going to continue until he is encourage to back off, me thinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I have no fixation about Fat/BErD. Socking by blocked users is not allowed. Fat/BErD chose to get himself indef'd, and chose to sock. He and his anarchist pals are the ones with the fixation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Then perhaps you can explain your constant interference here, in a thread which had nothing to do with you? And your personalization of issues to people who are or have long been (like myself) in contact with TFM, and have worked with him? Or your misunderstanding of CU and mischaracterization of Alison's conclusions? Seriously, BB, you are ANI's leading poster, and you should understand CU by now. Please, with all due respect, move along and let others less uninvolved deal with the non-issues over TFM-- the issue now is your interference and faulty conclusions and logic, not him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) If you find me so "boring",[131] why do you obsess over me so? :) In any case, I'll take Alison's judgment over Fat/BErD's nonsense anytime. As far as "move along" is concerned... I'll stop posting here if you will. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC) By the way, here's the start of another Fat/BErD impostor's verbiage.[132] Reported to AIV, of course, as impostoring and socking are both against the rules, whether the anarchists like it or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC) All Sock-masters & their socks deserve indef-blocks, allways. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I have asked an admin to look at this and tell me if I've gone too far. If he thinks I have, I'll drop the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I have reopened the thread that you closed prematurely. First, you asked the other most involved admin; second, Alison apparently needs to clarify to you how CU works; and finally, I see several of you continuing there to make attacks upon The Fat Man and his other Wiki colleagues. I did not start a section asking, with all due respect, that you and your colleagues stop this drama just for you to close this out without input of others you are misunderstanding and misquoting. Now, not only you, but also HalfShadow and Eagles247 really need to stop maligning other productive Wiki editors and referring to anyone who disagrees with you as trolls or bastards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC) So when Fat Man maligns us, it's funny, but when someone "maligns" him, it's not funny? How funny is that! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. The reasons I asked that admin are two: (1) He had just declined a sock's unblock request, so I knew he was active; and (2) He was in favor of blocking Fat Boy, so I figured if he himself told me to back off, it had some credibility. :) Now, if you want to continue choosing to flog the dead fat pigeon over the subject of what he chose to do, that's up to you. I shall try to back off now. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Is this Fat'person' somebody who's blocked & is currently evading his block? GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, he's blocked; and yes, according to him and his pals, he's evading his block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC) The socks must be tracked down & blocked too. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Certainly. The admins are aware of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Catherine Huebscher

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

Catherine has in the last few months made a long series of edits to Paul Robeson and related articles. With a number of editors on the page, I have tried very patiently to explain NPOV and coatracking to her, but to no avail. She continually interprets sincere efforts as hostility. She may perhaps be willing to listen to User: Malik Shabazz. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello to an administrator, we are currently dealing with the volatile subject of Paul Robeson's history. A subject who has a history riddled with misconceptions and lies put forth by the mass media/US power structure in-combination with an erasure from history due to cold war blacklisting as well as white washing of his Communist affiliations by Leftists. I'm in a Scylla and Charybdis situation as the majority of other editors currently trying to help have not done indepth research required to clear up the aforementioned misconceptions Robeson. Many want to paint in povs to "explain" his very controversial views. I now am being targeted by Itsmejudith who has already sided with two users with a history of behavioral problems on wikipedia (radh and str1977) and who have used/rationalized the usage of racist terms such as "nigger" and "Uncle Tom." Itsmejudith felt calling Robeson an "Uncle Tom" was fine because "Paul Robeson is dead." Str1977 "reworked" the article with a clear anti-Communist bias riddled with factual errors ("Carnegie Hall in the UK", "Robeson's Soviet sympathies", and other povs) then tagged the article and now has vanished. I am willing to go through sentence by sentence to clear up povs and any mistakes including my own. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC

I suggest you provide diffs for some of these allegations --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that Catherine Huebscher has also filed a 3RR report. I'm not sure whether the discussion needs to take place in two separate locations? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

May as well keep it here, as Ms. Hübscher's 3RR report appears to be both incorrectly constructed and incorrect, period. It's the same text as the post made above and is a plea for help more than a 3RR claim. The user appears to be on a crusade, and crusaders' careers at wikipedia tend to be short-lived. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be getting somewhere on the talk page of the article concerned. --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the AN3 report. This looks mainly like a content issue (try an appropriate wikiproject or sourcing noticeboard?), but there may be issues that should be addressed here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowded's interventions have been invaluable, and the atmosphere is more collaborative right at this minute. However, it would still be very useful to have some more people watching the article, particularly admins. Some incivility/assuming bad faith diffs follow. Most were directed at User:Str1977, who has argued his corner while maintaining correct behaviour throughout. [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]. Another diff shows [140] Catherine removing a talk page comment of mine. The point is that Catherine is finding it very hard indeed to stick to norms of WP editing without throwing accusations in all directions. I've already lost my temper with her once. But even though she's being polite now, I'm worried that difficulties could blow up again with other editors, and could get out of hand. User: Jayjg gave her sensible advice on his talk page, but her post in reply shows that it didn't sink in as one would have hoped. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Catherine Huebscher tells a bull-faced lie: str and I are not users with a history of behavioral problems here. Str has from the first behaved absolutely impeccably in all the Robeson debates. One of C. H.'s own "behavioral problems" seems to be the often repeated, always broken, promise to behave. [141] (in which 1 diff-link I provide shows, that I am not a socketpuppet - another of C. H.'s lies).--Radh (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets cool it shall we and follow the request to list claimed POV issues so they can be discussed. Both sides have said things they should not have including you. List the issues and I agree with ItsmeJudith, a few admins placing the article on watch and moving quickly to deal with any incivility would be a good idea. --Snowded ^TALK 09:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but spreading lies about my "general Wikipedia conduct" again, after she agreed [linked above] to let bygones be bygones and being told and shown that the socketpuppet investigation was a joke, has nothing to do with to-do-lists on Paul Robeson. And I stand by every word I said about whitewashers of Stalin's Terror being unfit to edit Wikipedia. I would throw her out, she would throw me out, no problem, but telling blatant untruths about me and User:str1977 ("untruths": until she demonstrates the kind of behavioral problems he is supposed to have) is not OK.--Radh (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say it's amusing to see an editor defending Stalin. That's not something you see every day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen it on this article either. Whitewashers of Stalin's Terror is a little extreme a statement when several editors have pointed out that hindsight is a wonderful thing when it comes to dictators, but at the time it may be more difficult. Radh, we can't make progress if editors demand that other editors are thrown out of the project. It can happen but it requires a persistent unwillingness to try and move things forward. Your call if you want to take part. --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the most famous African-American activists and writers, like W.E.B. Du Bois, Claude MacKay, George Passmore, Richard Wright and Langston Hughes were hard-core communists for a long time. Ralph Ellison defended the Hitler-Stalin pact just like Robeson did. But half of those did not stay Stalinists to the bitter end, Robeson did. There might even be a kind of tragic grandeur in this and being a renegate is not much fun.

There is no need for us, who all have the same hindsight, I guess, to praise the Leninism of Brecht, the Stalinism of Robeson and the Naziism of Benn or Heidegger. The only way foreward on the Robeson article is to break C. H.'s monopoly there. Her hero-worshiping has long ceased to be productive. Nobody wants to delete the good aspect of her work on Robeson, but the article as it now stands and just because of her is a) a poster child for the rightwing critics of Wikipedia, b) communist bullshit.. But this is only my opinion, I am fine with the consensus is to try the to-do list approach.--Radh (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Quack

Réeduck (talk · contribs) registered on December 8, and within 10 days he was tagging sockpuppets of user:GENIUS(4th power) [142], and creating an LTA page as well [143]. If this is a new user I'll eat my hat. Someone's sock, but whose? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw some of those pop up on my watchlist. Réeduck? Genius? Dunno who it is, but yeah, it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Look at the other edits, mostly to Pro Wrestling topics. It's probably ECW500 (talk · contribs). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you see, don't know, but this is so straightforwardly someone's sock, I've blocked. Guess we'll see what that stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Since when is "being a sock" a block-able offence? The information provided here is quite sparse, and while of course I'll go and check, were these edits disruptive in some way? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ever since sockpuppetry became blockable. The edits were quite disruptive, by the way, given the user pages tagged as socks of Genius weren't his socks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for the rhetorical questions. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry directs you, when suspecting a new user, to go to Sockpuppet investigations, and from there it's a few steps to find in the administrator's advice part "Unfairly blocking someone as a sockpuppet is a harm not easily undone." And in there nothing on the person's talk page relating to this thread or to the block? I just hate to see us so casual about it...
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI's will often reject a "duck" case as being sufficiently obvious. And while I've seen cases of users in which SPI's were determined to be baseless, at the moment I can't think of anyone who was actually blocked for sockpuppetry where it wasn't already obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that an editor could be here for almost 5 1/2 years (albeit with some lengthy gaps) and not know that sockpuppetry is forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Incredible! And an admin at that. Time to look at their admin license and see if the watermark is forged. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards for attaining adminship have been dropping over time. If they drop much further, I might run again! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Aaron Brenneman appears to be a long-time admin just recently returned from a two-year Wikibreak. They seem to be having some difficulty because current best practices and policies are not exactly what they were before. It might be a good idea for this admin to stop enforcment actions for a while until they've caught up on how things have evolved in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, personally, it's rather disconcerting to see an admin with a redlinked user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is not good. I had to check the list of admins to confirm he really was an admin. That shouldn't be necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone who was actually blocked for sockpuppetry where it wasn't already obvious. Yeah, every Scibaby DUCK sock was legit afterall right? But yes, he's been gone for 2 years so is probably not used to the "Shoot-first-ask-questions-later" attitude that's become the norm these days. O tempora, O mores! Arakunem^Talk 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not believe in the "duck test", but it usually works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is, of course, absolutely no way to quantify that statement. Also, I never said I don't believe it has its place (in fact, in this case, obvious=obvious), I just said that it is so loosely thrown about these days as to be approaching disturbing levels, as the ARBCC ruling correctly observed. Arakunem^Talk 20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If a truly innocent party is mistakenly blocked, they can get reinstated. As for the ArbCom, maybe they should have to spend a week or two dealing with the endless vandals, trolls, socks and other malcontents that constantly assault wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As one who has done just that, as well as NPP where I've personally witnessed dozens of well-meaning users template-bombed off of the project because their first attempts were A7 (but rather than actually try to school these users, they just received increasingly threatening templates), I would assume that an innocent new user who gets Duck-Sock Blocked is more likely to just quit than protest. In fact, it was some of these user who DID protest that led to the ARBCC finding. As for what Arbcom should or should not be doing, that's sophistry in this context. Arakunem^Talk 20:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If a user does not have a natural instinct or clue for a proper way to work here, I doubt they're going to be of much use to wikipedia. In any case, I trust the admins to do their jobs fairly. The term "sophistry" is usually taken as a personal attack, and I know you wouldn't make a personal attack, so I'll assume you're just being funny. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No personal attack intended. I mentioned an Arbcom ruling, you replied with a comment regarding what they ought to be doing instead (of... arbitrating?). I could re-factor my comment to say that such an argument was plausible though incorrect, and whose presence in the nice discussion we were having would only serve to distract or mislead from the topic at hand (that being the dichotomy of DUCK vs BITE), but there's already a word for all that, so I opted for brevity over circumlocution. But now as our discussion has now become a meta-discussion-about-the-discussion, I respectfully bow out in the name of STAYONTOPIC. Rest assured I will continue to defend the well-intentioned newbies who cross CSD out of ignorance, even if I'm the last one so doing. Regards and pie, Arakunem^Talk 22:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

After doing a quick CheckUser, I can conclude that Reeduck is on an IP range that was used by some socks of User:GENIUS(4th power) in the past. However, since the IP information is long stale, that's all I can conclude. –MuZemike 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding actual facts to an otherwise fairly sterile discussion, noice. Thank you for that. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Aaron Brenneman, you are the one who moved a discussion about a specific situation into a general conversation when you asked "Did I miss something? Since when is "being a sock" a block-able offence?", so your snark is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhiji mass nominating unused templates

This is less of a complaint and more of a notification. This user seems to be hunting down unused templates - something trivially easy to do. I feel this behavior to be a waste of time since unused templates are in fact in use if people review page histories. Also unused templates are often referenced as a resource for people who edit templates regularly - at least I do. It is no big deal of course and it isn't really disruptive, just something you guys may consider reviewing. -- Cat ^chi? 07:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We need focused work like to cut down with backlogs, etc (although this topic wouldn't be my first recommendation for the job). I think what's important to note here is that TfD needs a few more eyes than usual. Many of these are being relisted due to no participation. ThemFromSpace 10:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with white cat, although many of these deletions make sense, others seems senseless. Okip 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the nominations seem to be drive-bys. Templates have been nominated only to have the nomination withdrawn after an editor has explained the purpose of the template. Had Mhiji done just a little investigation first, he might have seen that the nominations were unnecessary, but this is the problem with this editor; He shoots first without asking questions and doesn't check the results of his edits. He got a bee in his bonnet about capitalisation of TV series names and edited {{Infobox television season}} to italicise titles but didn't bother to check the results so articles became fully italicised.[144] Instead of "List of Foo episodes (season x)" you got "List of Foo episodes (season x)". When I pointed out the problem to him, rather than rethink his approach he just reverted my reversion and de-italicised names in articles, which wasn't the ideal approach. It was later fixed properly by another editor making hundreds of his edits redundant. Meanwhile he started mass moving TV season articles from "List of Foo episodes (season x)" to "Foo (season x)" to "fix" the problem, citing WP:NC-TV as justification after he'd misinterpreted that convention. This upset many editors resulting in WT:TV-NC#Massive page moves on season articles by Mhiji. That discussion really got nowhere and stalled around November 18. After some time Mhiji decided on his own "consensus" and started mass moving articles again about five days ago, which re-ignited the anger and the discussion, as well as a discussion on his talk page. None of the moves he made were made with any discussion or consensus and yet those pages he couldn't move, he listed at requested moves as uncontroversial when they were anything but. While discussion at WT:NC-TV goes on he has, for the moment, stopped moving pages and has now set his sights on templates. When he finishes with those, either of his own volition or being told not to continue, I have no doubt he'll move on to something else. He has done similar to this in the past, such as when he decided to modify {{Infobox hospital}}.[145] He failed to check the effects of his edits there and, as a result, the hospital's website appeared twice instead of once. He's too busy "fixing" things to see whether his fixes have broken anything. This is an editor who doesn't seem to want to collaborate. He just does his own thing despite the opinions of others. He'll even resort to changing the rules so they support his opinion.[146] As another editor pointed out, he'll even resort to trying to create a Fait accompli if that helps his case.[147] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the user is chewing more than he could swallow at the moment. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? Templates are just text. Unless they violate copyright or are offensive deleting them has no real net benefit to the site. Deleting them wastes hard drive space as deletion logs (and the RfD itself) wastes twice as much as space. Deletion just hides it from public view. I would argue that having deprecated templates around is good practice since it tells people the right way to do it. -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sunflowergal34 - evaiding block

see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_Consulting_vs._Actual_Paid_Editing.3F

The user admits "We've had so many accounts banned as socks or meatpuppets" - the editor represents a company that has been taking payment for creating articles on wikipedia. As another editor points out "Also, why has no one blocked you for evading the blocks on your other accounts? User:Delicious carbuncle" - it's not clear. please consider this.

(as an aside the user now seems to be blaming wikipedia as a whole because WP:COI doesn't fit with his business plan. As far as I can tell they are just trolling on the Village pump now.)83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's trying to do the right thing now, but is getting frustrated at the contradictory information he's getting. I don't think any admin action is required at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My issue is that the editors new posts almost entirely relate to what their company can or cannot do. That seems to be in contradiction to WP:COI (stated in bold in the first paragraph) Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. To me it doesn't suggest a fresh start at all. I'm also concerned that the aim of the editor's posts on the village pump is basically to get tacit permission to train other editors to break WP:COI etc 'by proxy', and now the editor has gone on the defensive as they have been told that that isn't ok. I'm not seeing an editor that is going to help.83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking wouldn't be correct here. He is attempting to converse with the community but not disrupt. He might be angry but that isn't a reason to block. We have known who he is since he made the confession and intentionally left the current account alone without pursuing blocks. If he uses the chance improperly and begins to disrupt...that would be a different story.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Michelle Malkin

Could someone check out the last few revisions of Michelle Malkin and RevDel as necessary under criteria 2? (smear, violation of BLP policy) The "facts" given by the edits are either fabricated or some kind of misguided erroneous original research - the "source" given apparently refers to some other person of the same name, as the Michelle Malkin who is the article subject is not an attorney. Kelly ^hi! 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A mistake is not a smear. I think we're going far, far overboard with the revision deletion lately. As long as it is reverted...and IMO it is clearly about a different Ms. Malkin altogether...then all is good. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No revdel needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But unfortunately it was just scrubbed by JohnCD anyways. :/ Tarc (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...but done anyway. :-( I'm going to restore the diff text, but leave the edit summaries deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 3)I have revision-deleted. It takes some research to be sure that this is a different person. It seems to me to come under Other defamation/personal information issues, and even if no one looked at the deleted history the edit summaries were still defamatory. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like John's actions were undone by Sarek. Kelly ^hi! 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, I am going to ask that you reverse yourself. In my opinion, doing so without discussion falls under the principle of don't revert BLP enforcement without discussion. NW (Talk) 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This was a marginal enough case that I take no offence at being reverted, though I think the edit summaries should remain hidden. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm willing to do that, but note that Tarc and I had both come to the conclusion that it wasn't covered under the RevDel criteria here before/while JohnCD deleted them, so it wasn't completely without discussion. Should we leave it for now while the next section hammers out where the line should be drawn? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, it is more the principle that I am worried about. In the future, could you not do such a thing without a fair deal more discussion? NW (Talk) 18:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I'm just a bit gunshy on the topic at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Being gunshy about using it yourself should not prompt you to undo others' usage. I would encourage a wider consensus than two editors in agreement before undoing one admin's actions on a BLP basis. Considering the balance of harms, I'd encourage a wider discussion rather than a quick restoration of such material. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel and BLP vios

Just for clarification, what is the threshold for removing/hiding revisions for BLPs under criteria 2? It seemed to me like a bogus assertion of criminal activity would meet that. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RD2 covers "slurs, smears" but explicitly "not mere factual statements." Are accusations which are false statements of fact also excluded? If so, I think the words "even if false" should be added to the policy. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a false statement of fact, when defamatory, would fall under the definition of "smear". Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the threshold should be if actual harm is done to the subject if the revisions remain visible in history. Since the real Malkin is not a lawyer, an article about someone with the same name being disbarred added to her article is more nonsensical than harmful IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As John said above, that's not immediately obvious. I had to some checking around to find out whether she was a lawyer, and in which city she lived. Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The "not mere factual statements" part of the policy seems clearly aimed at factual statements which are verified by reliable sources - otherwise it seems a bit meaningless. So I'd say deleting this content (not just the edit summary) is supported by RevDel and BLP policy, and should be reinstated. In addition, I'll take the opportunity to advertise a suggestion I made at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RD_request_example_library. Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since consensus seems to be that these edits are damaging, not just mistaken, I've redeleted those revisions. I'm still not convinced this is the correct answer, though, so I welcome further opinions (though I won't be restoring if consensus changes). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by a user

Resolved

here--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI in this case. Nakon 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea who that is and why they left me a message? Bulldog123 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most likely just trolling; I wouldn't worry about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Likely semi-random, I have edited many articles in that area, but not (AFAIK) contentiously. I look forward to being awarded massive costs :) Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

I redacted the username from the section head because the name itself is a spam link. Not sure if someone wants to bother renaming the account or just leave it alone. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

IP disruptions on Race (classification of humans)‎

POV pushing from one or several posters switching IPs and user names in the Race (classification of humans) article, an article falling under the umbrella of arb comm's sanctions in Race and intelligence. The latest IPs geolocate to Beijing, and may be related to puppeteer user:Mikemikev(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_China_Electric_Power_University&diff=prev&oldid=188359036). I think semi-protection of the article is needed to quiet things down there. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus has semiprotected the page for 3 months against IPs and newly established accounts, after an obvious sock of Mikemikev edited (Frostbite Alan2 (talk · contribs)); he has submitted that modification under pending changes. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to apply the same level of protection to the talk pages of this article and the principal article. That would resolve a number of issues (cf Frostbite Alan3 (talk · contribs) - can't he watch repeats of Teletubbies?). Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of the present levels of disruption on article talk pages.[148] Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - adding 35 KB to a talk page isn't discussion. I reverted him. Should this uninvolved admin protect the talk pages too? KrakatoaKatie 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Protecting pages to push your own pov agenda would make you the POV pusher. And another, just because someone is an anonymous editor does not make them the bad person. They just remain anonymous for privacy, but they are still law abiding peaceful citizens. 68.96.245.221 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: the IP User talk:68.96.245.221 posting above is evading two long running blocks imposed for the same problem--there may be more.(71.68.251.54 68.222.236.154)Professor marginalia (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP has now broken 3RR on Talk:Race and intelligence to restore archived dsicussion, with five reverts. The user has been warned several times about the terms of WP:ARBR&I on their user talk page. Here he restores archived material [149][150][151][152] as well as deleting another editor's comment.[153] Because of this type of disruptive editing, it is probably now advisable to semiprotect the talk pages of both articles.Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I filed an WP:AN/3RR minutes ago. I recommend semi-protection too - but if a 3RR block is the best we can do, so be it. But the IP's already switched to a new IP in the last 24hrs.[154] Professor marginalia (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy question

A couple of questions have arisen on what a blocked user is allowed to do on his talk page, other than making proper unblock requests. I am unable to find the right policy page. Can someone help? Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING and WP:NOT are probably the closest you'll get to relevant policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the section about not using a userpage to simulate an article is the closest to what I'm looking for. It seems there is a fair amount of flexibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most pages related to them seem to be guidelines rather than policy pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:User pages). There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule - if a blocked user uses their talk page inappropiately it's easy to block access to it if required. Exxolon (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The flexibility can also extend to allowing article improvement on the talk page, though obviously there's also taking the piss. Not knowing what you're referring to I won't guess which it is. But no, there's no such policy as such. Good thing too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had a sort of policy change thought in mind, specifically involving spam accounts. Most spammers post their shill on their talk page. It seems to me that blocking the account doesn't really solve the problem, since they still have access to their talk page and can technically continue (until it gets revoked). Since, as a spam account, it'll never be unblocked anyway, why not revoke talk page access for accounts blocked as spammers? HalfShadow 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think spammers who blatantly spam to their talk page are normally routinely silenced. It's a bit sweeping to class all spamblocked users as irredeemable spambots. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I sorta meant the real obvious ones; the ones that generally get reported to Usernames for Admin Attention, not all spammers in general. HalfShadow 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This one, for example:[155] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The two questions I had were about a sock posting to a blocked user's page (which seems to be resolved now), and about a blocked user being told he cannot set up changes to articles on his talk page. The closest I can see on that is near the "blanking" part of that guideline, where it says that user pages are not supposed to look like articles. But it's possible there's a sanction for the specific user prohibiting him from doing so. A couple of us have asked the admin, but he seems to be offline at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure stuff around this used to be mentioned but can't track it down. I guess the question is what is the purpose of the block and does the talk page behaviour impede that reason. Blocks being used as a method of temporarily removing editing rights due to behavioural problems other than vandalism, may not be that effective if the person can continue more or less unimpeded by merely editing their talk page such that it's a copy and paste when the block expires i.e. their enforced "timeout" isn't as effective. OTOH if the block is because of vandalism encouraging them to create positive contribution (standard offer?) may actually be an effective reinforcement of the reason for the block. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand the motive for the policy, for block are meaningless if not enforced, but in my opinion, the policy is unenforceable against anyone determined enough to make and use socks, and thus causes yet more complicated trouble; it is paradoxically only effective against those with relative good will towards the encyclopedia. I have no replacement to suggest that would effect the purpose, and can therefore only suggest that we refrain from using the utmost possible rigor in enforcing it. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"refrain from using... rigor?" Huh? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very much context sensitive, who the person is, the reason for the block, the length of the block etc. If it's a lengthy block then yes they may believe they have little to lose by socking etc. A shortish block perhaps not so. On the other side if it's a case of war of attrition - keep at it until one party gets bored, I guess there is a question of if the community views the behaviour as disruptive enough that they'll happily chase down the socks, revert, reset block lengths etc. I suspect your comments is really more towards the banned user rather than the short term block, I'd also suspect that there are a large number of banned users who have returned in one guise or another but due to changing their behaviour etc there is no obvious connection and we have no real problem with them now. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ive always felt that chasing down stocks, revert, reset block lenghts etc. was all unecessary in terms of sockpuppeteeringtry. there is functionaryl no diference between two individual spambots operatin independently and one individual operating 2 seprate accounts. we wouldnt treat either of them differently irregardless whether or not they were 1 person or 2. a sockhunt is a waste of attempt. User:Smith Jones 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Offline conversations with admins about socks and so forth have led me to pretty much agree with what you're saying. Vandalism and trolling are vandalism and trolling. Sometimes socking is so obvious it jumps off the page at you - and then you have to be careful that it's not an impostor trying to get the blockee in further trouble, which has been known to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• On the original point: I agree that it is a case-by-case type of thing. If the user is blocked for a day for edit warring, no harm is done by letting them use their talk page as a sandbox provided they don't violate any other policies by doing so. If they are long-term or indefinitely blocked and are trying to use their talk page to get others to proxy for them, that's different, and can lead to revocation of the talk page along with re-setting, extending, or hardening the block. (insert dick joke here) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Work

Resolved

 – User now on ice until the spring thaw.

Hi all. What work shall I do today? Should I do some RC patrolling? Or maybe I should go round fixing grammar and formatting? Or perhaps I should even be creative and write some new articles, or do some research so I can add new material and verify sources. Actually, should I just do vandalism/trolling? I tell you what, I'll let the community decide!

Please vote below with your preferred option. Thanks! 93.97.59.17 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My vote is that you be given a long block for making a legal threat.[156] Have a nice day. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I retracted that threat! :( 93.97.59.17 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no statute of limitations for legal threats on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't retract. His last edit before today, a month ago, was the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok well I definitely retract it now. Btw, the "vandalism/trolling" option was kinda a joke, just in case you didn't realise. I do genuinely want to be constructive, and just want opinions on what you think I'd be better off doing. :) 93.97.59.17 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that you lied about retracting, you're not off to a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't trust ya, 93.97.59.17 IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If only you had trusted me, I would have been a useful editor. But you didn't trust me. So I'll vandalise instead. 89.168.109.117 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thereby demonstrating why you can't be trusted. Not that it matters. There are many of us and only one of you. Knock yourself out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, actually there are quite a few of us as well. Furthermore, this is asymmetric warfare in our favour :) 86.136.10.29 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One by one each IP will be blocked. Sadly, you're making a bad name for those IP who are constructive. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the old days we had a saying about assertions like what the IP just made: "Son, you lie like a rug!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If one was going to block-evade, why would he/she announce it. Go figure. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sadly, you making a bad name for those IP who can be trusted." - GOOD. 89.168.109.117 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"If one was going to block-evade, why would he/she announce it." - For lulz, obviously. 89.168.109.117 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well actually I'm not intending to do any "work" from here, I'm just letting you know what the situation is. Indeed I'm quite happy for you to ask me questions, be civil, all that. No doubt I will be blocked, but your call of course. 86.136.10.29 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's your call. You've made the choice to be a troll. No one forced you to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And for "lulz", I love shooting down vandals, trolls, and other useless creations. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Intel 8086

Hi, admins. I wish for an administrator to keep an eye on this page. See the history here. There's an anon IP and a logged-in user who are editing back and forth with sternly-worded edit summaries. I can't find a specific policy that's been breached - I simply request that an admin keep an eye on this page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I woulkd say the most likely problem would be edit warring. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Feast on my Soul

Resolved

 – Blocked as a sock

Feast on my Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user who apparently thinks he's stumbled across a variant on Facebook. No harm that I've seen, just weirdness. Maybe an expert could take a glance at its contribs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see any red flags, though it is a bit odd for someone to come onto Wikipedia and not make any edits at all to start with. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ricky Simms

I noticed User:Ricky Simms editing Ricky Simms which is an obvious COI. Also, all his contributions seem to be to promote his own business. As some of these pages (e.g. Usain Bolt) should be quite heavily watched, I was reluctant to revert it all, so I'm bringing it here for your discretion. --Muhandes (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He only made two edits - I removed the multiple links to the companies web site and got rid of some promotional language. Not sure he is notable though, needs someone who works on Athletics BLPs to get involved. --Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's at most half the issue, he added himself to 50ish other articles. There's also the issue of determining if this is a promotion only account or a legitimate addition of information. --Muhandes (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition of an external link to a large number of pages virtually simultaneously is spamming (and these were added into the text as well as the EL sections, along with a namedrop). I've rolled back all the edits I could easily get at and I'll leave some additional advice on Ricky Simms's userpage. EyeSerene^talk 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also taken the article to AfD. EyeSerene^talk 14:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well done. I'm happy I took this to ANI rather than try to handle it myself, as you did a job far superior to what I would have done. --Muhandes (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to update, I've started an article for the management company, PACE Sports Management, as I think they're certainly notable enough to have one. I'll include a brief sourced bio of Mr Simms in that article (I've found a brief source), so hopefully everyone will be reasonably happy. EyeSerene^talk 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Off wiki canvasing

Not sure if this is the right place but here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STNNNG an off wiki artciel has been linked to that blatantly asks people to come and vote to keep the page http://www.avclub.com/twincities/articles/music-notes-internet-to-determine-how-notable-stnn,48816/. I don't know who is responsible (so cannot inform them of this), nor what could actualy be done. but it does mean that the AFD could be undermined.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The coverage appears sufficient for a keep, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. If anyone wants to tag it with the external canvassing template, that couldn't hurt. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added {{Not a ballot}}. This sometimes happens with band articles, doesn't often sway the outcome either way, though, since "votes" from SPA editors and anons aren't likely to get much heed. As SOV says, looks like it'll be kept anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way for my company to be included in Wikipedia?

Resolved

 – Well, this is one of the nicest posts regarding a company being included in the encyclopedia...thanks for that. The short answer is the company must meet WP:N before an article can be created, and moreover WP:COI strongly discourages (but does not outright prohibit) individuals from contributing to articles where they have a conflict of interest. Closing as no admin attention required. N419BH 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been a fan of Wikipedia for some time and use it regularly, as it is a great source of information. I have a cleaning company in Britain with numerous local offices. Is there any way that I can have a listing in Wikipedia? I understand that Wikipedia is not designed as an advertising forum, but how could I have an article published?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

Peter <blanked> www.nationwidecleaners.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterm1972 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is, as you say, not a forum for advertising. You are correct that the Internet can be a wonderful place to share a business with the world, but you will be able to do that more effectively by creating a truly awesome web site for your business. I am not aware of many local cleaning companies that would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but if yours is one of them, it is inevitable that other people will create an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Go to my talk page and show me some WP:Reliable sources that talk about the company. If you can show me enough information that the article would pass the WP:CORP guidelines, I'll set the page up for you myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If someday your company becomes notable enough to get a Wikipedia article, you wouldn't be able to edit it per WP:COI. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. But if this company is truly notable then I'll offer to write the article myself. Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is correct. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:CORP would be very helpful here. I think under it If it's just a local company it's not notable enough as it needs to be national before we can even consider it to be notable for an article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A company need not be national to be notable, coverage is most of the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FAQ/Organizations has a lot of useful information, too. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:J Milburn and Pink Floyd articles

J Milburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been, against concensus, repeatedly removing .ogg files from featured articles. These files have a fair use rationale attached to them (see here and here), but the editor in question has repeatedly asserted in their summaries that "there is not." A fancy optical illusion that I'm seeing perhaps?

Despite several reversions by other editors, JMilburn continued. About ten minutes ago, I reverted the most recent edit, instructing in the summary to "take it to talk or WP:FUR". I even started a comment on one of the talk pages outlining the reasoning behind it.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason

• 1st edit by Jmilburn "No rationale for this use"
• Reverted by ParrotOfDoom "there clearly is a rationale"
• Reverted by JMilburn "No, there really isn't.
• Reverted by ParrotOfDoom "take it to talk"
• Reverted by JMilburn (default summary)
• Reverted by Floydian "Take it to talk or WP:FUR. Next revert goes to WP:ANI"
• Reverted by JMilburn "There is nothing to discuss. There is no rationale, and so it may not be used. End of discussion. You'd be told the same thing if you went to ANI."

The history is pretty much mirrored at The Division Bell, with an extra two editors challenging JMilburn's reversions.

• 1st edit by J Milburn "No rationale for this use"
• Reverted by Parrot of Doom "erm, there is"
• Reverted by J Milburn (default summary)
• Reverted by Gwen-Chan "there is a rationale appended to that file."
• Reverted by J Milburn "No, there isn't. This isn't complicated."
• Reverted by Parrot Of Doom "youre right, it isn't complicated"
• Reverted by J Milburn "No, there isn't. This is black and white."
• Reverted by Parrot Of Doom "take it to talk"
• Reverted by J Milburn (default summary)
• Reverted by Floydian "Take it to talk or WP:FUR. Next revert goes to WP:ANI"
• Reverted by J Milburn "There is nothing to discuss. There is no rationale, and so it may not be used. End of discussion. You'd be told the same thing if you went to ANI."
• Reverted by Friginator "Like Floydian said, take it to WP:FUR. Stop edit warring over something so trivial."
• Reverted by J Milburn "The use of the file does not meet our NFCC- that's not trivial, and is explicitly listed as something which can be "edit warred" over. Please respect our NFCC."

Speaks for itself - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. JMilburn doesn't seem to have a case (the file meets all criteria I've seen), yet has continued ad-nauseum. Friginator (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The non-free content criteria are quite clear, and can not simply be overcome by a "consensus" that they do not apply. The files lack a rationale, as I have explained repeatedly. This is not difficult. This kind of thing is explicitly exempt from the three revert rule. Could you please have some respect for our NFCC? J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be completely right, but there are easier ways to take care of problems like this, that don't involve an ANI thread and a fifth as many reverts as we're seeing here. I mean, no harm no foul, but there are much smoother ways of proceeding... -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. File:Pink floyd learning to fly.ogg and File:Pink floyd wearing the inside out.ogg have an FUR for Pink Floyd, but not for the two articles concerned here. The file pages need a rationale for these two articles, in addition to the one for the main Pink Floyd article. Courcelles 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem. The files must have a FUR. Despite the protestations above they clearly do not and never have. Either write FURs for the additional uses (would probably need someone with knowledge of the topic area to make a compelling case) or stop putting them back in. CIreland (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see it's been fixed. Expect the double use to be challenged though. Historically, using the same piece of NFC in the band article and the album article has often been considered unacceptable. CIreland (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merely a temporary fix to stop content dispute. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, we can pull them out of the PF article, unless there's some compelling reason they're better there than the album pages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's been added DC 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, an edit summary of "No, that FUR is for the Pink Floyd article" would have quickly and painlessly avoided this complication. Nobody is a mind reader people; our writing is all we have to go by. Be good little engineers and make note of everything. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

^ Yes. Communicate. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone would have pointed out the problem I would have fixed it. Saying "there's nothing to discuss" is never helpful to any dispute. Friginator (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to communicate- and sorry, but there wasn't anything to discuss, there was no rationale. Very tiring affair- I had to revert some five or six long-term editors, as well as face threats and abuse over what is, quite simply, a black and white issue. I sometimes wonder why I bother. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As is pointed out fairly clearly above, there were rationales -- they were just for a different article. If you had pointed that out, once, instead of reverting 4 or more times on multiple articles, there would have been a heck of a lot less dramahs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, J Milburn, but GTBacchus is right, as well as others, like SarekOfVulcan, who is logical, and even compelling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly thought the distinction was obvious, and I did try to point out the issue. This is the problem with people edit warring when they do not understand the first thing about the policy they are referring to... J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Plainly there was a failure of communication here. Wasn't that obvious? And could have been so easily resolved by approaching this matter in different way. Live and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn said: "This is the problem with people edit warring when they do not understand...". Yes. That's why edit-warring back is a bad idea. Skip the reverts and cut straight to the conversation, even if you think it should have been obvious. Edit-warring is always a sub-optimal solution, no matter how right you are.

It's all good, though. We all live and learn. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User: 81.155.65.6

81.155.65.6 (talk · contribs) is an ip which keeps adding chat to article talk pages. I have issued a couple of warnings, as have others in recent days, but these have been ignored. I know the general thought on ips is that they go stale after a while as some are quite dynamic, but this seems to be a stable one. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Blocked for a little while, few days at most. It's not a major concern, but hopefully this will put a stop to it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious actions of User:Megaphone Duck

"Curious actions" seems mundane now thats all been explained. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

After giving an "only warning" for repeatedly blanking several articles,[172] I checked the edit history of Megaphone Duck (talk · contribs) and noticed that he/she has been creating several pages in User:Rich Farmbrough's user space. In fact, almost all of the edits before the article blanking were in Rich Farmbrough's user space. With the blanking of several main space articles, this appears to be a vandal only account. Something very fishy is going on here. —Farix (t | c) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC) It's an alternate account of Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). Nakon 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Is it compromised? Why is Rich Farmbrough's alternate account blanking pages and Rich reverting it?[173] Doc talk 23:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC) If its an Alt account doing wierd things lets block it and sort out from there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Almost certainly an unapproved bot running without approval on the mainspace (pre-approved bots are however permitted with-in one's own userspace prior to approval, which is what was going on before). No need to block, edits are stale, Rich is aware of the problem and has clearly stopped this for now. However, why this happened in the first place is intriguing. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC) And he's aware of this thread, as I have notified him of it. I thought bots were supposed to have "bot" in their name so users quickly know it's a bot and not a human editor. To avoid confusion... Doc talk 23:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) In general yes. Rich was previously doing these edits (the ones to his userspace) from his main account, and I asked him to switch to doing it from a separate account to keep things more tidy (and in-line with bot policy and AWB rules of use). Since the fully-automated part of this is only permitted with-in his userspace there wasn't a problem. Of course, it might cause confusion when outside the userspace (where it's more visible), but then it's not permitted to make bot edits outside the userspace anyway, and for semi-automated alternate accounts it's not required to have bot in the name (under the bot policy). Of course, there is a bit of a problem if it's making fully-automated edits outside the userspace, but I think the username is a rather small part of that, in this case. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Title for a new Sherlock episode. Yes just some semi-automated stuff that didn't do what it was supposed to, all reverted quickly, and tidy, SmackBot now running on perl (at least in part). Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC). Semi-automated? Then why did you approve those edits? You sure you don't mean fully-automated? Anyway, I don't really feel any admin action is required here, but Rich really needs to be more careful about this kind of thing in the future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

Unresolved

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[174] appears bogus[175] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[176] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[177] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is that SergeWoodzing is introducing anglicized names for Swedish places and people that do not really exist, according to his own ideas of what the anglicized (or Latin) form should be. "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland"; "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", "the Smallands" are not current. There is no basis for pages like Carl of Vermillandia. The second problem is that Woodzing tends to makes discussions very personal and dramatic, see Talk:Värmland#"Wermelandia" as Latin ? and Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Small_lands_equals_Smallands?, User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska/Archive_2#Accusation, etcetera. (And I have no recollection of interaction with the ip-number above, who seems to be keeping tabs on me.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Vermland" is just your invention, I will remove it and "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland" are not the same thing; do you understand why the difference shows that your interaction style has a problem? I'm not keeping tabs on you. I remember from one discussion involving Physchim62 that I linked above. The other stuff I found by clicking around, looking into SergeWoodzing's complaint after he made it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This suggested it was an invention, based on Woodzing's taste alone; "will look for sources later" is not appropriate editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your diff shows collegial editing on your part. Deciding that "Vermland" was a Woodzing invention without bothering with a Google search shows serious lack of AGF. "[Famous athlete so-and-so] is gay (will look for sources later)" needs instant reversion. Treating this Vermland thing with the same urgency shows unnecessary combativeness on your part. It's better to talk it out, and explain your view with more tact, as you did here. My usual suggestion in wiki-disputes is to try to write neutrally to the other person, as if you were writing for article space, no matter how badly you think they are acting. If you find yourself reacting sharply, slow down and rewrite to cool things down. I think you're a good contributor so I wish you wouldn't find it so difficult to follow our norms. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I had become a bit too irritated after Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Removal_of_cross-reference. I suspect that terms like "Elsinland" may be hoaxes, to say it very bluntly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see some problems with SergeWoodzing's editing at that page. I can't find any English-language sources for "Elsinland" including in the OED. Google book search finds "Elsin land" is mentioned in The Faerie Queene and one other very old book, so Elsinland is either an error or a rare archaic word. Pieter, you seem to think SergeWoodzing is pushing some political POV about Swedish royalty. Is this some content dispute transplanted from svwiki to here? Anyway, getting into "street fights" across multiple projects isn't the way to handle such disputes. It's better to make a matter-of-fact complaint including some diffs, that uninvolved editors can look into. In this case we may need some help from uninvolved Swedish speakers--are any available here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing's anglicizations of Swedish names is mostly a local issue here on enwp. When this is about the names of ancient or mythical royalty, I am not really interested (which did not prevent Woodzing to start discussing me here anyway). But now he is introducing new names (or re-introducing antiquated names) of places and regions in Wikipedia that then spread over the internet. I find that undesirable. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden is a good place to find uninvolved editors that are interested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let's discuss the bulk of these details about exonyms and such on the talk pages of those articles! If Kuiper feels he has a general case against me as disruptive or detrimental to the project with such or other things there are other ways for him to bring that to the attention of the community.

What I am asking for here is a further investigation into Kuiper's behavior and of mine. He is currently active on English WP only to nitpick and try to irritate an always easily irritated SergeWoodzing. Since Kupier is currently blocked for uncivil behavior on Commons (where he does most of his work asking for image deletions), in a way he is circumventing that block by attacking me here with his usual sarcasm and ridicule, as he considers me to be one of the several users there who have complained about him "for no reason" (as he always sees it).

I am glad to admit - again and again - that I make mistakes like everybody else and am truly grateful for the assistance of any constructive, civil user in correcting same. There is a big difference between that and the always abusive Pieter Kuiper, whose behavior has proven to be incorrigible (or I would never have asked this) and makes me lose sleep, even get physically sick at times - literally. I am over 60 years of age and have never in my entire life been subjected to anywhere near the amount of instances of sheer cruelty that this Pieter Kuiper has subjected me to. Not to mention the way he treats many other users, one of whom I know (above mentioned Eikner). That has nothing to do with the work issues on WP - just attitude and behavior.

There is sufficient evidence, I feel, to substantiate that that behavior stems from a very strong and thus scary personal animosity that developed long ago in Kuiper toward Emil Eikner, me, the Southerly Clubs and anyone else associated with that organization, for reasons that are unclear to us, perhaps political (wrongly assumed, if so). That animosity isn't going to go away.

So, again, what I would like administrators to investigate and neutral users to discuss here is whether or not we can get a permanent ban of this kind:

• Kuiper will not edit or comment on the talk pages of articles where I or my predecessor Emil Eikner (but not Kuiper) have done a lot of work, and I will not edit or comment on articles where he (not I) has done a lot of work.
• Kuiper and I well never complain about each others work except if we start a thread about it in this kind of forum.
• Kuiper will not comment on any other discussions where I became/become involved before him, and I will not comment on any discussions where he became/becomes involved before me, except where the behavior of either of us may be an issue, and then never on the talk pages of articles.
• Kuiper will not enlist known friends of his to represent him in circumventing the agreement, and I will not enlist any such people of mine to do so either.
• Kuiper and I will stay off each other's talk pages.

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS If and when we continue to discuss them elsewhere, it is unlikely that many "uninvolved Swedish speakers" exist to discuss the issues of English exonyms and such - by nature and nationality they cannot be uninvolved. I am a professional expert on this subject, and I think such matters must be determined by editors who are qualifed to realistically assess the reactions to those items of all the readers of English (not just Swedes) who visit this project. Not many Swedes are qualified to do that, when it comes to matters Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of SergeWoodzing being a "professional expert". And on wikipedia, also acknowledged academic experts will get banned when they believe that arguing from "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal sources" can replace proper referencing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SergeWoodzing (SW's participation at Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong#Double_epithet_interpreted is pretty tendentious, enough that I wondered for a brief moment whether Ottava Rima spoke Swedish. He got considerable pushback from other users there too. This (after a disagreement with that user over another Swedish name) seems rather pointy. SW's enwiki edits are almost exclusively about European royalty (mostly Swedish, including historical/legendary kings like Styrbjörn the Strong), maybe making him unfamiliar with wider enwiki editing customs. He has 2390 mainspace edits to 890 articles, with 5 or more edits to 143 articles, and 20 or more edits to just 7 articles (a lot of the rest are minor stylistic edits). In the content debates I've looked at between him and Peter Kuiper (PK) so far, it seems to me that PK's arguments usually make more sense, and SW in some instances may be messing up wiki content. So removing one of SW's opponents via an interaction ban doesn't seem like a great idea on that basis. PK and SW have been / are in conflict on Commons (I haven't looked into that much yet), so maybe that is spilling over here. Short of a content RFC about SW's edits that would probably interest very few editors, I don't have bright ideas what to do next. PK, are there other issues with SW's editing that you want to bring up here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, this stuff about testing the reactions of English speakers isn't how we do things here--it is considered wp:original research and not allowed. When there is an issue, we go by published sources. I looked over the Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong discussion and I didn't find your "native English speaker" argument to be even slightly convincing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS: In this section, can we PLEASE discuss Kuiper's uncivil manners as I see them - which is what I started it for - and start separate threads about any possible misdeeds of mine in article content? If they need to be addressed, what I am asking is that that is done by editors who do not go out of their way to insult me personally every time. Is that too much too ask? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do next here. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. I guess I can ask at WP:SWEDEN for uninvolved editor comments to Talk:Värmland etc. I'm a bit sleepy right now but I'll see if I can post a few more suggestions later. Pieter Kuiper has only edited at that page once since commenting here, and his post was within reasonable bounds of civility.[178] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have quieted down, which I guess is always good. It will probably get archived soon; please feel free to open a new thread if issues arise again. Some general requests/advice:

• (Mostly to SergeWoodzing): it's not worth getting stressed out (Wikistress) about editing conflicts. Of course it happens to everyone anyway if they edit enough, and it builds up over time. The most effective cure is to quit Wikipedia completely for a while (Wikibreak). I've done that many times. A lesser measure is to switch temporarily to editing a different set of topic areas. But there are various sources of annoyance in Wikipedia that simply never go away; editing healthily is partly a matter of learning to get used to and/or avoid such annoyances, rather than burning out trying to fight them. Also, while you've been around for a while, almost all your editing has been focused in one very narrow area, which makes you in some ways like a new and inexperienced editor. It could help your understanding if you were to branch out into other areas.
• (Mostly to Peter Kuiper): Thank you for being somewhat more diplomatic than before; please keep it up.
• (To both): My suggestion is that the two of you agree to never revert the other in the same article more than once, and any revert should be accompanied by brief discussion on the talk page which should be kept polite. If you don't reach agreement fairly quickly, ask for help from other editors at WT:SWEDEN (I'm presuming this would still be on Swedish-related articles) and accept their consensus. If that doesn't work, try content RFC's.

Let me know if the above sounds helpful. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I promise you sincerely, IP user 67.117.130.143, that I am always interested in learning as long as the working climate is humanely civil.

Thought I was right to contribute mainly in areas (Scandinavian history, entertainment, language) where I mainly know what I an writing/doing?

As far as thanking someone for being "somewhat more diplomatic" now, would you say this hoax accusation fits that bill?

My long and extensive experience of Kuiper is that he never is interested in being "somewhat more diplomatic". If I thought otherwise, why would I have started this discussion?

Why does not any administrator reply here? I thought that was what this page was all about. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Resonse to 67.117.130.143: I have not done that many reverts anyway, I mainly limited myself to questioning Woodzing's anglicizations on Talk:Duchies in Sweden and Talk:Carl of Vermillandia. Woodzing's responses have been high on rhetoric. He is still introducing names like "Elsinland", for which he has no evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, the stuff about hoaxes is not nice. As far as I can tell, SW is at worst making some well-intentioned errors. Please, AGF, be civil, etc. Why do you find that so difficult? SW, please be aware of Wikipedia's concept of undue weight. Just because there is some tiny mention of a name or place in some obscure source, doesn't mean it's appropriate to make it the subject of a WP page or of a lot of prominence in an existing page. A passing reference is about the most that can be appropriate. Also: an interaction ban of the type you're asking for would (I believe) require reaching some kind of consensus for it in a discussion. Nobody but me seems to even be responding to this issue.

And both of you: persistent fighting on random talk pages over this type of dispute is completely inappropriate. It's best to seek feedback about the content from other editors (e.g. WP:SWEDEN) but if you feel you have to pursue behavioral complaints, since ANI hasn't done anything, the next step would be a user conduct RFC. If either one of you does file an RFC, I will certify it but I think a second certifier is required. My comments on it (if it opens) will be approx. the same stuff I've said here. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just added an unresolved tag to this thread, in the hopes of getting more people to comment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your kind attention to this matter, IP 67.117.130.143, and your good advice!

I am very disappointed that not one administrator has commented here and hope one or more will soon.

I have not started any articles (that I know of) named with lesser known exonyms. Have attempted a few article name changes and failed as per consensus. Have also been supported in other debates. The disambiguations pages' talk pages speak for themselves (already or in future) re: my good faith intentions of making it easy to find people by any and all names used in English literature, where I feel I am free to choose which existing exonymns to cover and leave it to others to cover such exonymns as I choose not to cover. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making up names like "Carl of Vermillandia", and that's a problem of original research or even WP:MADEUP. Please stop editing according to your whims, and start using how English sources refer to things and people. If someone is repeatedly objecting to this kind of thing, that's not wikistalking, that's normal scrutiny of problematic edits. Fences&Windows 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fences and windows: I have not made up anything and am trying to prove it.

More importantly that is not the issue here. The issue reported concerns Kuiper's uncivil behavior, notwithstaning article content or any possible mistakes of mine in that regard. Please address that issue if you are going to comment here! No matter what good faith errors I may have made, Kuiper's habitual cruelty in manner is not justifiable. I reported that here. It is not I who have been reported. Thank you for looking at this anyway! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very very sad about this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the template here.. they do not go in section titles.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

Unresolved

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[179] appears bogus[180] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[181] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[182] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is that SergeWoodzing is introducing anglicized names for Swedish places and people that do not really exist, according to his own ideas of what the anglicized (or Latin) form should be. "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland"; "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", "the Smallands" are not current. There is no basis for pages like Carl of Vermillandia. The second problem is that Woodzing tends to makes discussions very personal and dramatic, see Talk:Värmland#"Wermelandia" as Latin ? and Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Small_lands_equals_Smallands?, User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska/Archive_2#Accusation, etcetera. (And I have no recollection of interaction with the ip-number above, who seems to be keeping tabs on me.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Vermland" is just your invention, I will remove it and "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland" are not the same thing; do you understand why the difference shows that your interaction style has a problem? I'm not keeping tabs on you. I remember from one discussion involving Physchim62 that I linked above. The other stuff I found by clicking around, looking into SergeWoodzing's complaint after he made it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This suggested it was an invention, based on Woodzing's taste alone; "will look for sources later" is not appropriate editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your diff shows collegial editing on your part. Deciding that "Vermland" was a Woodzing invention without bothering with a Google search shows serious lack of AGF. "[Famous athlete so-and-so] is gay (will look for sources later)" needs instant reversion. Treating this Vermland thing with the same urgency shows unnecessary combativeness on your part. It's better to talk it out, and explain your view with more tact, as you did here. My usual suggestion in wiki-disputes is to try to write neutrally to the other person, as if you were writing for article space, no matter how badly you think they are acting. If you find yourself reacting sharply, slow down and rewrite to cool things down. I think you're a good contributor so I wish you wouldn't find it so difficult to follow our norms. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I had become a bit too irritated after Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Removal_of_cross-reference. I suspect that terms like "Elsinland" may be hoaxes, to say it very bluntly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see some problems with SergeWoodzing's editing at that page. I can't find any English-language sources for "Elsinland" including in the OED. Google book search finds "Elsin land" is mentioned in The Faerie Queene and one other very old book, so Elsinland is either an error or a rare archaic word. Pieter, you seem to think SergeWoodzing is pushing some political POV about Swedish royalty. Is this some content dispute transplanted from svwiki to here? Anyway, getting into "street fights" across multiple projects isn't the way to handle such disputes. It's better to make a matter-of-fact complaint including some diffs, that uninvolved editors can look into. In this case we may need some help from uninvolved Swedish speakers--are any available here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing's anglicizations of Swedish names is mostly a local issue here on enwp. When this is about the names of ancient or mythical royalty, I am not really interested (which did not prevent Woodzing to start discussing me here anyway). But now he is introducing new names (or re-introducing antiquated names) of places and regions in Wikipedia that then spread over the internet. I find that undesirable. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden is a good place to find uninvolved editors that are interested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let's discuss the bulk of these details about exonyms and such on the talk pages of those articles! If Kuiper feels he has a general case against me as disruptive or detrimental to the project with such or other things there are other ways for him to bring that to the attention of the community.

What I am asking for here is a further investigation into Kuiper's behavior and of mine. He is currently active on English WP only to nitpick and try to irritate an always easily irritated SergeWoodzing. Since Kupier is currently blocked for uncivil behavior on Commons (where he does most of his work asking for image deletions), in a way he is circumventing that block by attacking me here with his usual sarcasm and ridicule, as he considers me to be one of the several users there who have complained about him "for no reason" (as he always sees it).

I am glad to admit - again and again - that I make mistakes like everybody else and am truly grateful for the assistance of any constructive, civil user in correcting same. There is a big difference between that and the always abusive Pieter Kuiper, whose behavior has proven to be incorrigible (or I would never have asked this) and makes me lose sleep, even get physically sick at times - literally. I am over 60 years of age and have never in my entire life been subjected to anywhere near the amount of instances of sheer cruelty that this Pieter Kuiper has subjected me to. Not to mention the way he treats many other users, one of whom I know (above mentioned Eikner). That has nothing to do with the work issues on WP - just attitude and behavior.

There is sufficient evidence, I feel, to substantiate that that behavior stems from a very strong and thus scary personal animosity that developed long ago in Kuiper toward Emil Eikner, me, the Southerly Clubs and anyone else associated with that organization, for reasons that are unclear to us, perhaps political (wrongly assumed, if so). That animosity isn't going to go away.

So, again, what I would like administrators to investigate and neutral users to discuss here is whether or not we can get a permanent ban of this kind:

• Kuiper will not edit or comment on the talk pages of articles where I or my predecessor Emil Eikner (but not Kuiper) have done a lot of work, and I will not edit or comment on articles where he (not I) has done a lot of work.
• Kuiper and I well never complain about each others work except if we start a thread about it in this kind of forum.
• Kuiper will not comment on any other discussions where I became/become involved before him, and I will not comment on any discussions where he became/becomes involved before me, except where the behavior of either of us may be an issue, and then never on the talk pages of articles.
• Kuiper will not enlist known friends of his to represent him in circumventing the agreement, and I will not enlist any such people of mine to do so either.
• Kuiper and I will stay off each other's talk pages.

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS If and when we continue to discuss them elsewhere, it is unlikely that many "uninvolved Swedish speakers" exist to discuss the issues of English exonyms and such - by nature and nationality they cannot be uninvolved. I am a professional expert on this subject, and I think such matters must be determined by editors who are qualifed to realistically assess the reactions to those items of all the readers of English (not just Swedes) who visit this project. Not many Swedes are qualified to do that, when it comes to matters Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of SergeWoodzing being a "professional expert". And on wikipedia, also acknowledged academic experts will get banned when they believe that arguing from "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal sources" can replace proper referencing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SergeWoodzing (SW's participation at Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong#Double_epithet_interpreted is pretty tendentious, enough that I wondered for a brief moment whether Ottava Rima spoke Swedish. He got considerable pushback from other users there too. This (after a disagreement with that user over another Swedish name) seems rather pointy. SW's enwiki edits are almost exclusively about European royalty (mostly Swedish, including historical/legendary kings like Styrbjörn the Strong), maybe making him unfamiliar with wider enwiki editing customs. He has 2390 mainspace edits to 890 articles, with 5 or more edits to 143 articles, and 20 or more edits to just 7 articles (a lot of the rest are minor stylistic edits). In the content debates I've looked at between him and Peter Kuiper (PK) so far, it seems to me that PK's arguments usually make more sense, and SW in some instances may be messing up wiki content. So removing one of SW's opponents via an interaction ban doesn't seem like a great idea on that basis. PK and SW have been / are in conflict on Commons (I haven't looked into that much yet), so maybe that is spilling over here. Short of a content RFC about SW's edits that would probably interest very few editors, I don't have bright ideas what to do next. PK, are there other issues with SW's editing that you want to bring up here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, this stuff about testing the reactions of English speakers isn't how we do things here--it is considered wp:original research and not allowed. When there is an issue, we go by published sources. I looked over the Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong discussion and I didn't find your "native English speaker" argument to be even slightly convincing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS: In this section, can we PLEASE discuss Kuiper's uncivil manners as I see them - which is what I started it for - and start separate threads about any possible misdeeds of mine in article content? If they need to be addressed, what I am asking is that that is done by editors who do not go out of their way to insult me personally every time. Is that too much too ask? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do next here. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. I guess I can ask at WP:SWEDEN for uninvolved editor comments to Talk:Värmland etc. I'm a bit sleepy right now but I'll see if I can post a few more suggestions later. Pieter Kuiper has only edited at that page once since commenting here, and his post was within reasonable bounds of civility.[183] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have quieted down, which I guess is always good. It will probably get archived soon; please feel free to open a new thread if issues arise again. Some general requests/advice:

• (Mostly to SergeWoodzing): it's not worth getting stressed out (Wikistress) about editing conflicts. Of course it happens to everyone anyway if they edit enough, and it builds up over time. The most effective cure is to quit Wikipedia completely for a while (Wikibreak). I've done that many times. A lesser measure is to switch temporarily to editing a different set of topic areas. But there are various sources of annoyance in Wikipedia that simply never go away; editing healthily is partly a matter of learning to get used to and/or avoid such annoyances, rather than burning out trying to fight them. Also, while you've been around for a while, almost all your editing has been focused in one very narrow area, which makes you in some ways like a new and inexperienced editor. It could help your understanding if you were to branch out into other areas.
• (Mostly to Peter Kuiper): Thank you for being somewhat more diplomatic than before; please keep it up.
• (To both): My suggestion is that the two of you agree to never revert the other in the same article more than once, and any revert should be accompanied by brief discussion on the talk page which should be kept polite. If you don't reach agreement fairly quickly, ask for help from other editors at WT:SWEDEN (I'm presuming this would still be on Swedish-related articles) and accept their consensus. If that doesn't work, try content RFC's.

Let me know if the above sounds helpful. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I promise you sincerely, IP user 67.117.130.143, that I am always interested in learning as long as the working climate is humanely civil.

Thought I was right to contribute mainly in areas (Scandinavian history, entertainment, language) where I mainly know what I an writing/doing?

As far as thanking someone for being "somewhat more diplomatic" now, would you say this hoax accusation fits that bill?

My long and extensive experience of Kuiper is that he never is interested in being "somewhat more diplomatic". If I thought otherwise, why would I have started this discussion?

Why does not any administrator reply here? I thought that was what this page was all about. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Resonse to 67.117.130.143: I have not done that many reverts anyway, I mainly limited myself to questioning Woodzing's anglicizations on Talk:Duchies in Sweden and Talk:Carl of Vermillandia. Woodzing's responses have been high on rhetoric. He is still introducing names like "Elsinland", for which he has no evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, the stuff about hoaxes is not nice. As far as I can tell, SW is at worst making some well-intentioned errors. Please, AGF, be civil, etc. Why do you find that so difficult? SW, please be aware of Wikipedia's concept of undue weight. Just because there is some tiny mention of a name or place in some obscure source, doesn't mean it's appropriate to make it the subject of a WP page or of a lot of prominence in an existing page. A passing reference is about the most that can be appropriate. Also: an interaction ban of the type you're asking for would (I believe) require reaching some kind of consensus for it in a discussion. Nobody but me seems to even be responding to this issue.

And both of you: persistent fighting on random talk pages over this type of dispute is completely inappropriate. It's best to seek feedback about the content from other editors (e.g. WP:SWEDEN) but if you feel you have to pursue behavioral complaints, since ANI hasn't done anything, the next step would be a user conduct RFC. If either one of you does file an RFC, I will certify it but I think a second certifier is required. My comments on it (if it opens) will be approx. the same stuff I've said here. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just added an unresolved tag to this thread, in the hopes of getting more people to comment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your kind attention to this matter, IP 67.117.130.143, and your good advice!

I am very disappointed that not one administrator has commented here and hope one or more will soon.

I have not started any articles (that I know of) named with lesser known exonyms. Have attempted a few article name changes and failed as per consensus. Have also been supported in other debates. The disambiguations pages' talk pages speak for themselves (already or in future) re: my good faith intentions of making it easy to find people by any and all names used in English literature, where I feel I am free to choose which existing exonymns to cover and leave it to others to cover such exonymns as I choose not to cover. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making up names like "Carl of Vermillandia", and that's a problem of original research or even WP:MADEUP. Please stop editing according to your whims, and start using how English sources refer to things and people. If someone is repeatedly objecting to this kind of thing, that's not wikistalking, that's normal scrutiny of problematic edits. Fences&Windows 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fences and windows: I have not made up anything and am trying to prove it.

More importantly that is not the issue here. The issue reported concerns Kuiper's uncivil behavior, notwithstaning article content or any possible mistakes of mine in that regard. Please address that issue if you are going to comment here! No matter what good faith errors I may have made, Kuiper's habitual cruelty in manner is not justifiable. I reported that here. It is not I who have been reported. Thank you for looking at this anyway! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very very sad about this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the template here.. they do not go in section titles.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)