Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530

Checkuser help, please

Resolved

 – thanks Nishkid64

Could a CU contact me via email concerning [1], please? Acroterion _(talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Improperly formed AfD

Resolved

A relatively new user started what appears to be a good faith, but ad hoc Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Armour Dunham without any proper notifications or listings other than the tag on the article page. Can someone straighten this out and let him know how to proceed? Thanks. Tvoz/talk 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what admin action you'd like. Seems like anyone can drop the user a friendly note with helpful advice.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky. Since I disagree with the nominator on the matter I thought it was better for someone uninvolved to fix it. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Associated Vertigo

Hey. I started editing on this page after giving a 3O, and tried to defuse a situation. Basically, Studio34 has been harassing Julcal for adding spam links into this article awhile back. Julcal is most certainly a COI, and the article might be a coatrack. Either way, Julcal just blanked the page and has repeatedly claimed that Studio34 has been stalking her. I thought about escalating this through DR, but the problems seem to be rather heated. I'm not quite sure where to go from here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• support banning Julcal as advertising only account. His activities extent to other articles, e.g. [Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo]. in contrast, I see only 1 edit of Studio34 on the article, but similar good reversions of spam elsewhere. Her editing shows she is following a subject, not an editor. I notified Julcal and Studioi 34 of this discussion, as seems only fair. DGG (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with DGG. This user has at least two problems: WP:COI and WP:BATTLE. [2] and [3] are evidence of seriously disruptive tendencies. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interests. It only talks about MAV. I originally posted a support section at the bottom with a link to my forum (which has no indirect or direct link to my business) because the way I found my first MAV forum was through an external link on Wikipedia to Studio34's forum. Regarding the battling, Studio34 provoked me by accusing me of being a "known spammer." And as HelloAnnyong says, he keeps harassing me.--Julcal (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

  Quick note: unless you are refereing to something else I don't see, it's not "your page". It's an article on Wikipedia and that is a direct violation of WP:OWN. Padillah (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the COI here either. It might have been there in the first revisions, but as of right now it's nothing more than an artice about a medical condition. I don't know if only admins have a vote here, but I don't see a reason for a ban. -- Aeluwas (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As best as I can tell, the COI exists because Julcal is somehow involved with the subject of the article by being the host of a forum aimed at selling products for the disease. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The forum is not for selling any product. It is a support forum for sufferers of MAV. Have you seen the forum? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, but as long as the article remains encyclopaedic, I don't see the problem. It's a very real disease, and it ought to have an article (Ménière's disease is far less prevalent than MAV yet has had an article for a long time). Julcal created the page to fill that void, and while there was a COI at the start, there isn't now. -- Aeluwas (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem doesn't exist with the article, but the link that was added to the article by the user. It was certainly an advertisement for his forum. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that I broke a rule, unknowingly, by adding an external link to a forum. But the forum has nothing to do with selling a product. It's simply a support forum for MAV sufferers and does not link directly nor indirectly to any product. I found my first MAV forum through an external link on Wikipedia. The link was removed in less than 24 hours of publication. Regarding the battling, as HelloAnnyong points out in her opening statement, Studio34 "keeps harassing me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • His statement, than you. And I only wrote that because you repeatedly wrote it. Can you give us some information on how you feel as if you're being stalked? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I can. "S" Googles me to death, (I know that because he posts on his own forum all of the places I have an internet presence.) He watches my forum closely, follows the links I post to my members where they can find more information on MAV and related disorders. (This article being one of them). I have an internet presence on many sites where you can post comments. (I'd rather not point them out by name, so as not to give him more info) Whenever "S" can find me, he degrades me, I have to watch very closely just to delete his posts. You're probably wondering how I know it's him. He only has "one joke."--Julcal (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments above about COI and disruptive editing and think that a block is certainly in order. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have taken another look through the history, and i do not feel the amount of advertising warrant an actual ban, just a clear warning. The link to the user's commercial site for a remedy against this syndrome was extremely indirect. But I note that the forum linked to seemed inappropriate, as it is quite small and not a major resource. I do hope there's something better. DGG (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As things have settled down I don't think a block seems to be warranted at this point. I'll post a formal warning on Julcal's talk page and that should do it. Shall we call it settled at this point? Icestorm815 • Talk 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for looking at my forum! It's only been live for a week. I have 9 members already so that's not too bad. I also have a lot of knowlege about the condition and a lot to give to people. The forum will grow. Thanks again for looking at it! --Julcal (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

that illustrates the rationale for our rule about not using Wikipedia for promotion. We link top what is a significant resource, not to what someone hopes will become one. DGG (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I expected you would say that and I understand completely. An unfortunate misunderstanding of rules. As I said, I found my first MAV forum, Studio34's forum, through an external link on Wikipedia. It's hard, the first time doing an article, at age 55, to retain all the rules in my head. I wrote the page to fill a void. There are articles on virtually all the other dizzy illnesses, but none on MAV. Whether or not I will be allowed to be involved in it, I will be feel good about putting it out there. I hope it turns out to be a great article someday. MAV sufferers need it - badly. This is a wicked illness.--Julcal (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

• My only problem with Julcal was an external link she had inserted into the Migraine Associated Vertigo (MAV), the BPPV, and the Meniere's article. In all cases the link pointed to her forum. She is involved in an MLM company called Enzacta selling an expensive bogus product she claims cures dizziness with numerous links pointing to the sales site from the forum. It is a conflict of interest and it's spam. I simply left a comment in the discussion over at the MAV article asking members to keep a watch for any newly inserted outbound links to her sites. Apparently my editing out the links and changing her "support" title to "migraine link" in two of the articles constitutes "cyberstalking" in her eyes. This is absurd. The above comments about "Googling her to death" etc are complete nonsense.studio34 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • on the forum, http://mav-forum.com/, there's the text: "This is a link to a Wiki article I wrote on MAV. " You may say what you please outside Wikipedia, of course, but it does give a false impression. I've removed the resolved label on this section, because there are continuing copyright concerns: much of the text of the article is a copy of that. DGG (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there enough justification to ban Julcal for that? This article probably shouldn't be deleted since it is an actual disease; it just needs to be heavily rewritten. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, the article should definitely remain; it is a real and disabling illness. Is there justification for banning Julcal? I believe so. Although she states "I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interest" and "The forum is not for selling any product", she clearly states the following on the Migraine-associated Migraine discussion board: "I actually don't mind the free advertising. My website is great and it's a great product." Does anyone need any more evidence than that?studio34 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • why was Julcal not at least given a formal warning? The evidence is clear yet I see no warning on her discussion page. studio34 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: vulgar, nasty, and obscene language

Resolved

 – Vandalism has since been reverted. Nothing much to be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.118.154.35 (talk) at 01:47, 15 January 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:47, 15 January 2009 by 24.118.154.35 (talk) (diff) ← Previous revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

think of the children Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My vAGINA IS NICE AS FUCK!!!!!!!!! FUCK MY CLIT BITCH. KESHONS A PUNK AND SUCKS MY DICK!! YEAH YOUNG JEEZY!!! WELL I WAS WALKING 2DAY AND KESHON CAME UP AND SUCKED MY DICK SO HARD CUM ALL OVER HIS MOUTH IT WAS HOT!! i HAVE A 25 MILLION INCH COCK SO CALL ME YOU KNOW MY NUMBER 1-800-FUCK-ME-HARD LICK DICK SICK IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!?!>! Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informant"

This material that is posted here is very vulgar and obscene and i find very offensive and this should be looked into. There are children who come on this site to look things up for school and they shouldnt have to see this kind of nasty language posted. i think this person should be blocked and not allowed back on wikepedia.com for this purpose of the vulgar and nasty language. I cant even come on here to do research because of the nastiness that i just saw and i sure wouldnt want my children seeing this kind of stuff.

Thanks Alysah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysah (talk • contribs)

• Though Wikipedia is not censored, what you encountered was vandalism. That particular bit of vandalism was removed within a minute of its going up, so I'm not exactly sure why you're seeing this. --Dynaflow babble 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• That version is 3 months old and has been fixed many times over. How did you even find it? It also was by an anonymous IP user, not an identifiable person. Encountering material like that is a risk you run in any open forum anywhere. As long as we want to keep Wikipedia open, there is nothing we can do about this. You have to weight the benefit you gain from any form of research versus the risks to encounter unpleasant material. That's a personal decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else find it odd that a brand new user's (Alysah (talk · contribs) first troll edit was to post this here?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3)Very odd. The style - upright clean-living and outraged mom who doesn't know WP very well protecting her children - is all too reminiscent of one of the avatars of a certain sockpuppeteer, recently banned for 18 months (with their IP blocked for 6). As that IP is blocked there's no point in a CU, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. (Wait, now that I think about it)... It's a valid concern, and there isn't much discussion of readers going through the history, anywho.

← A quick digression, for Alysah: if the flagged revisions feature is implemented, it will be entirely unlikely for readers to see vandalism on the current revision (the current revision is the page you see). Going through any page's history will yield this kind of behavior from vandals, however. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This brand new user with not a single edit to their credit was so offended that they figured out where the highest traffic place on Wikipedia was, made a beeline for it and reproduced the offending material in full -- then didn't stick around 5 minutes to see how it was handled. I'm reminded of the old lady who complains the couple across the alley are engaging in "lewd" acts, for all the world to see in front of their window. She calls the cops. They come into her home and look out the window -- and see nothing. "You can't see them from here, they say. "Well, you can if you push that chest over by the window and stand on top of it, she says.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd. I just feel obliged to tell you that. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ta.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter target my quacking friend? (school holidays continued...)

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I reported a loud quacking noise here a few days ago. Alas, Scottish schools insist on longish holidays, and my quacking friend has returned as Breakinguptheboy (talk · contribs). The MO is the same: create or recreate articles on the minutiae of Scottish music (this time around focussing on Goodbye Mr. Mackenzie) and undo past reversions of other Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) socks.

So, my plea is much as before: could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter deal with Breakinguptheboy as humanely as possible?

Thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that was fast! Many thanks, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"X-Y" relations stubs

Resolved

 – user got blocked for threatening to vandalise articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 15 April 2009 (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.

---

Extended content

Hilary T (talk · contribs) has created 16 stubs of the type Greece-Nepal relations [5] since April 1, when the account went live. These stubs are controversial; many editors (like me) consider them in most cases content forks from, say Foreign relations of Nepal. The editor has been made aware of this, yet continues to create such stubs (it appears at an accelerating rate -- Mongolia-Vietnam relations Australia–Vietnam relations and Egypt-India relations all created today, while the editor also removed a prod from France–Nauru relations). The intervention i'm seeking is an admonishment to stop creating such stubs, until we got some kind of RFC/consensus building mechanism in place to determine the conditions under which bilateral relationships are considered encyclopedically notable and useful (i must admit some editors think all of this stuff is worth having, it is a matter of dispute). But for now the serial stub creation (most without inline citations or reliable sources) is becoming disruptive. Here's a discussion of this sort of issue from earlier this year involving Groubani (talk · contribs) which seemed to yield a very clear consensus that such serial stub creation was disruptive and should stop [6].Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I am creating stubs on notable topics. They all have reliable sources, and the new ones even have inline citations. They also seem to have a reasonable survival rate at AFD. I'm fully aware that people like Bali ultimate don't like them, too bad. Hilary T (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC) And can someone please tell Bali ultimate that my articles do have sources, since he won't listen to me. Hilary T (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) My two cents: ignoring the prior precedent, Hilary T, keep on creating them if you wish and people like Bali will keep on listing them for deletion. The smarter strategy for both of you (especially Hilary) is to wait on a few of the AFD nominations and see what sort of precedent we have (not all get deleted but clearly most aren't staying). I don't care either way but Hilary T is the one who is going to be wasting the most time at this. Spend more than a few minutes at each one and you may have a few saved. I say take the same attitude here we do with our most famous serial stub creator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The only constructive solution here is for Bali (being the only one really concerned as I see it) to draft up WP:Notability (bi-lateral relations), defining what a bi-lateral article should contain to satisfy WP:NOTE, and then take it into the field and start quoting it at Afd, to force people to read it, and edit it if they disagree with it, or say in afd why they disagree with it. It's obvious this editor is not going to give up while consensus is in limbo, and he's not going to get banned simply because it is in limbo (although obviously, there is a line between working in a vacuum of consensus, and editting tendentiously). A good start to get underway would be to simply start the page, cut and paste all prior discussions onto the proposal's talk page, and then start to distill the arguments into proposal content for the main page. What I do know is arguing the toss every time at Afd or at AN/I is a pure waste of time. At the very least, a proposed guideline that becomes a train wreck is still a usefull archive record. At the very least Bali, it will save you repeating yourself at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Ricky gives sage advice. Just keep creating and nominate as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Mick, I don't think anyone is going to create a specific notability argument for bi-lateral relations, as it's just too specific. Let a few of the AFDs settle into place, and consensus will form (wasn't that how fiction, porn bios and other specific ones came about?). If anyone is really interested, I'd suggest a couple of user-space tables of all the various incarnation of bi-lateral relations, so that both sides can see what's red and what's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The advice above to continue this conflict does not make much sense to me if meant seriously. Hilary, though deletion processes can be unpredictable, there is no chance whatever that these articles will stand unless there is more material than just their mutual ambassadors--even when they have ambassadors, which is not the case for all of them. If you want to establish an actual precedent for articles like this, then work on strong ones and strong ones only. Once you have established these, then try some somewhat lesser ones and see the reaction. When creating, it pays to start at the top (and when deleting, at the bottom, which by and large Bali is in fact doing, appropriately. I saw a number of prods, & as I don't think the articles have a chance, I'm not going to deprod them.) DGG (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I don't do "mutual ambassadors" articles, that was someone else. Hilary T (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC) You have been doing ones with similarly sparse material, such as a single visit of foreign ministers and nothing else--and where there are not even mutual embassies. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I think what is more important that the presence or absence of embassies, especially when one of the countries is extremely poor, is the question of whether or not their relationship "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think you are confirming my suspicion that these articles are being deleted just because they short, and/or to punish that guy (and now me) for creating them. But because there is no policy that says you can delete articles for being short or in order to punish someone, I see all kinds of ridiculous distortions of your actual policies, like "sourced to newspaper articles = fails WP:News". Hilary T (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC) You do realize that regardless of how you view notability, DGG's views (and the views of others) are more in line with general consensus and as such will probably survive over time? Unless your plan is to just create articles and argue the same points in AFD after AFD until you find yourself blocked or topic banned, I'd say try another tact. Some articles are surviving, others aren't. Again, try to figure out what is acceptable and work on those, leaving the more fringe ones for later. You should add in reference tags, and other minor details but generally I have no problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) If the general consensus is completely different from your written policies perhaps you should think about updating them. Hilary T (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) (od) Wikipedia:Starting an article specifies that articles should only be created if the notability of the topic can be verified through reliable sources. User:Hilary T is participating in the current AfD discussions of obscure bilateral relations stubs and is aware that the notability of these relationships needs to be demonstrated. As such, it seems to be disruptive for her to create further stubs with no real attempt to demonstrate WP:N is met at the time of their creation, even allowing for her newness. The most charitable interpretation of this behavior is that she's relying on other people to bring her articles up to the required minimum standard, which is fairly unhelpful behavior. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I'm aware of that. It's clear that some of his article are worth keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations is going his way), so I'm not sure a blanket ban on creation is appropriate nor really is warning. He has a reasonable interpretation of notability that possibly could survive here and in my opinion, I don't see it as vandalism or even WP:POINTy-ness. I'm not saying he's new or not. I'm saying I think it's reasonable interpretation. Again, if we allow a certain user to create dozens of unsourced articles like Carl Eugen Keel and Albert von Keller, what's wrong with relations between nations? Both of which are on a case-by-case basis debatable. Look, if he was just creating completely moronic things like relationships between micronations or dead civilizations with literally nothing there, I'd have a different tune, but some of these are actually useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. While a lot of these articles simply have no way to expand, a blanket ban would harm some notable subjects. However, it would be better for everyone to devise a notability guideline, since WP:N tends to be too generic to allow for easy immediate evaluation of the new article. —Admiral Norton (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) This comment from Hilary T is rather unsettling: "I'm going create as many articles he [BlueRaven] doesn't like as possible for as long as possible". Promising to go on a spree of creating non-notable articles just to spite another editor is not very constructive. - Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC) They aren't non-notable. Hilary T (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) That's not the point. Creating articles simply out of spite is highly inappropriate and you'll see a complete block for that, not just a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Well I'm not prepared to just accept these edit summaries so you can go ahead and block me now. Hilary T (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Even more unsettling stuff from Hilary T: here, she turns her user page into an attack page, declaring herself "motivated by hate", while here she says, "I just want revenge now". Do we really want someone with those motivations going on an editing spree? - Biruitorul Talk 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not thinking "spree", I'm thinking long-term here. Hilary T (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) In the interest of full disclosure, my input was requested. Anyway, here are my thoughts: The two diffs cited by Birutorul that mention the other editor are a bit unsettling as userspace should not be used to critique other editors. Concerning the main topic, I don't think creating the articles on relations is really a problem so long as they can cited through reliable sources. We are after all an encyclopedia/almanac and foreign relations are unquestionably an encyclopedic/almanacic topic and something people have an obvious and valid interest in. I can easily see someone thinking, "You know, I wonder if France ever had any significant foreign relations with (insert random country)" and coming here to find out. Many of these AfDs seem premature, i.e. not adequately taking into account WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and that may be a bigger concern. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not saying no such articles should be created, and in any case that doesn't require intervention on this board. What is troubling is that the user is promising to create articles just out of hatred for another user. That seems a little dangerous. - Biruitorul Talk 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) That's a bit of a paradox, then, because I agree that if the motivation is to annoy aother user, then it is misplaced motivation, but if the articles themselves are worthwhile, then what? If someone started an article on (pick random president), because he hates that person and wants to annoy people, well, we wouldn't keep the article redlinked, because American presidents are encyclopedic topics, so it's a riddle here. The reason for creating the aricles is questionable, yet the articles themselves seem worthwhile. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Good point, although the close proximity of these users (as opposed to, say, a user and a President) makes the bad blood between them more likely to have a corrosive effect. Regardless, it's a situation to be watched. - Biruitorul Talk 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) In my view, regardless of the quality of a user's content, that sort of incivility should not be tolerated, and as such, I am removing it from his user page as an G10 attack page and am warning Hilary. I could care less about the dispute but this sort of conduct will not be tolerated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) How come you tolerate edit summaries like "burn with fire" anyhow? Hilary T (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Because burn with fire is a view about an article, not a specific editor. Also, he isn't the first to use language like and honestly most people don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Most people don't care, do they? Perhaps your sample is disorted by the fact that almost everyone who does care just leaves. Hilary T (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Similar behavior Didn't we have someone creating similar "X-Y Relations" articles last year? Anyone recall what the result of that drama was? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) User:Groubani was banned and his sockpuppet User:Plumoyr has been inactive since February. He was annoying, but at least he didn't make threats of the sort Hilary T made just above (he didn't know English). - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't make any threats, I just explained what I am doing and why. Hilary T (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC) My response to the announcement of a plan of revenge was: "If you act on that basis, you will soon be blocked from contributing, and very rightly so. You may accept that, but it will also harm the possibility of anyone working on these articles, because such actions will taint them". I regard he attempts to introduce the articles in exactly the same way as I do the campaign to delete a large number of articles of the same time, some but not all of which ought to be deleted. We will lose some good articles, which is not unusual at Wikipedia, and also tie up Wikipedia process in our trying to sort it out with as little damage as possible. The temptation is of course for us to respond by deleting all the articles, just as we delete everything submitted by a banned user. If there is any way to turn her into a responsible contributor, I do not know, but certainly I would not proceed in the absence of further disruption. If there is, I suggest another checkuser. The first was declined Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumoyr/Archive as for the content issue, I suggest my usual remedy--combination articles until expanded. DGG (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Actually the first IP check was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilyD/Archive. If you don't want to create disgruntled users, you could try not insulting them by calling them "meat puppet", not lying about their contributions to "help get them deleted", not ignoring everying they say in 9 different debates and lacking the decency to admit it, and not deleting good faith contributions with edit summaries like "kill it, burn it, then kill it again". Most sensible people would have left after first one, I'm just too ornery to be driven away. Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) You should take a look at the "combination articles" which exist at the moment. What does Foreign relations of Pakistan say about Pakistan's relationship with Japan? What does Foreign relations of Japan say about the same thing? Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Well, generally, I would say we should be looking for there to be enough information until it's necessary to split it and create a separate article. That's the way I think about articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) This might be part of the problem. People like you think "In general we should do this", and they vote that way, without actually responding to the specific objections that have been raised. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Editors who believe that bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable are going to use whatever tricks they can to get you banned Hilary. Certainly you've already seen specious sockpuppetting allegations, misrepresentation of the facts in your case, et cetera. Similar silliness has been flung at me. Here, you have to just take the high road. Create your articles, source them impeccably so no one can plauisbly argue they fail WP:N, make the cases at AFD when they're nominated regardless, and be nice. If you don't misbehave, there's nothing that'll get done to you, so be good. Don't worry that some editors want you banned, and don't give them fodder they need to see you banned. WilyD 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry WilyD, I don't have to take the high road, because Wikipedia's interests are not my priority any more. I know what they want will result in a broken encylopedia but I really don't care. Initially I started creating these articles because I saw you complaining ablout being flooded and I thought it was a good way to give him an incentive to slow down. However I didn't realize how much it hurts when people who don't even read your arguments, like BlueRavenSquadron, get your contributions deleted with that kind of thinking. BlueRavenSquadron is obviously about 10 years old so I hold Wikipedia responsible for this. Now I'm thinking "what will give Wikipedia an incentive not to allow this kind of thing?" and I'm thinking a vivid imagination combined with that nice "cite book" template someone taught me. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Depends on what you want, of course. If you want to get banned, sink to their level and beyond. If you want to create a bunch of useful, encyclopaedic articles and have them kept around, let them expose themselves. 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) What I want is to feel better about my relationship with Wikipedia. Getting banned is somewhat irrevelant to a strategy of creating fake articles, they would obviously all need different logins and IP's. Hilary T (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not sure I can speak to that. I write for the readership, and that I'm working in their interests, and some other accounts are working against their interests, I can't find solace in. I have to content myself with working for the readership, and benefitting it. If that's not enough, there may not be enough. WilyD 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I've been trying to figure out the proportion of good Wikipedians, who follow the deletion policy, google for sources and try to improve articles, compared to the ones who lie to get articles deleted like Biruiturol, the one's who are driven by hatred and vote without having the decency to read what anyone else has said like BlueRavenSquadron, the ones using AFD as a instrument of punishment like The Hand That Feeds You, etc etc. I thought you were in a minority of one, frankly, but there do seem to be some other decent people here too and so it's possible this project has a viable future. On this basis, if I don't get banned I might not start my campaign of fake article writing. Hilary T (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Whether or not we have these articles will not break Wikipedia. What will hurt Wikipedia a little is concentration upon issues of what should be separate articles instead of writing content. Those who think these articles important should try to write some more good ones one at a time. BTW, my idea of a combination article is : "foreign relations of Nepal with countries in the Americas;", with a paragraph for each, until someone writes more. DGG (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) DGG it's broken right now, try to pay attention to what I say. Hilary T (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I have another question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? To punish me for creating it, no? Hilary T (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations, you would need to ask User:Juliancolton. And you can keep on playing the victim here if you want but the truth is, people have made suggestions as to how to proceed and you've instead reverted to the same arguments, which aren't in the majority. Does everyone who supports you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations now punishing someone else? I would guess that Julian, upon review of the discussion, did not think that you and User:User:WilyD had the arguments that indicated consensus the best, but you can ask him. Now, if you would like, there is Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the decision was improper or I would be willing to move a copy into your userspace until a suitable version is completed. There are options available and they don't include insult other users who have a different view than yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) What arguments have I reverted to? Hilary T (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) And I think I'd better repeat this question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? Hilary T (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) WP:POINT comes to mind. And User:Juliancolton deleted the article so, as stated above, ask him. We didn't make that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) If you deleted it instead of merging it because I created it to make a point (the point at the time being that WilyD was already overwhelmed with deletion nominations), I interpret that as punishing me and I have no need to "play" the victim, I am one. Hilary T (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) That sounds rather backwards to me. It's hard to claim to be a victim when you intentionally set out to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, you are right. I deserved my punishment. So sorry. Hilary T (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) BlueRaven is still doing it, and I've decided it willl be too stressful to have any interaction with him, so I'm going to go with Plan B. Sorry Wily etc. Hilary T (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I suppose it doesn't make much difference now, but I have yet another grievance: You are closing debates like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Paraguay relations within 2 days, not even giving anyone a chance to look for sources. I can add false information and tell you immediately, and just make you run around looking for it, or I can add false information and tell you a month later, or never. Hilary T (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC) And can someone tell BlueSquadronRaven not to violate my right to attribution under the GDFL, as he did here [7] Hilary T (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) What part of "speak to the specific administratior" don't you understand? There is no magic "we" deciding whether to keep, delete, or whatever out to get you. I don't even know what exactly you are mad at User:BlueSquadronRaven about. He voted to delete, like a number of others, and is actually adding details to Foreign relations of Australia. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this complaining from you. I'd like an outside view but I'm close to enforcing a break just for general disruption. If you want to start adding false information, see how long you last before we block you and move on. Oh, and tell him yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not planning on using this IP, dumbass. Hilary T (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I had got as far as leaving a final warning onm Hilar y T's talk page to find that Fut Perf had beaten me to it with a 48 hour block. That works for me to. Endorse block. Will also archive this. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

Unresolved

Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody due to size issues and for proper recording to polls by MBisanz ^talk 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling at Phaistos Disc

"grapheus" is a well-known usenet troll who made an appearance at Phaistos Disc in 2006 and ended up permabanned over trying to cause real-life difficulties for another editor. This chap can be extremely tenacious, and is known to have pressed legal charges against other usenet users over flamewars. He is now back with a vengeance and appears to have picked me as his new arch-nemesis.[8] He is using Luxembourg IPs, and the only way to keep him under the lid is issuing short rangeblocks to his provider. I would be obliged if some admins could keep an eye on Phaistos Disc for the next couple of days and slap the IPs with blocks as they come in. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also making attacks off-Wiki, which is no surprise. [9] and [10]. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, someone needs to get a life -- & to belabor the obvious I am not talking about Dab or Dougweller. -- llywrch (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruption by User:Tennis expert

Help please in dealing with childish, disruptive behavior by Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As many of you know, there has been an ArbCom proceeding on date linking and date autoformatting here at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll.

Throughout the course of this, I and the other members of our group have maintained a page in my userspace here at User:Greg_L/Delinking links. I’ve had to provide a historical link because here is what the article looks like now: User:Greg_L/Delinking links

User:Tennis expert started doing malicious edits on my personal userspace page (see Revision history).

As you can see, my Wikifriends (other editors who are members of a team on de-linking), reverted him numerous times. Tennis Expert editwarred with them and ignored them. All this occurred when I wasn’t aware of it. Finally members who were trying to restore the page to the way we wanted e-mailed me to alert me that this was occurring on my own userspace subpage.

I informed Tennis expert here on his talk page that his edits were not welcome in my userspace. His response was as follows: OK. I will pursue rapid deletion of your biased subpage.

And he carried through with his petty threat here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg L/Delinking links. As you can see, many editors have patiently started jumping through the hoops to do a good-faith effort at opposing this disruption. It is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and we shouldn’t have had to do this since what Tennis expert did was not in good faith.

This subpage in my userspace is a list of links pertaining to date linking and autoformatting. There were so many relevant sites that we couldn’t keep them all straight in our heads. So I started this page and my friends on our team added to it. It has been a valuable resource. It is not supposed to be “unbiased” or “biased” or whatever Tennis expert desires. It is a resource we have and continue to use.

Tennis expert’s move is just mean-spirited disruption. I ask that he be blocked for this move. He knows full well what he is doing. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've snowballed the MfD and warned TE, please let me or any admin know if he does something like this again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I think a trout would achieve more than a block at this, um, point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Gwen. You and I both know that what TE did was malicious and intentional and he knew better. Please take a look at all the time wasted by good-faith editors trying to deal with this disruption. This stunt was pure, unadulterated, purposeful disruption. Tennis expert deserves much more than a warning for this. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came so close to blocking him for 12-24 hours. I've banned him from your user space (until you say it's ok for him to edit there, if ever) owing to the disruption, he's now been warned, let us know if he tries to game things again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it looked like a handy page of links, until you get to the bottom sections, when it starts to resemble an open ended evidence gathering exercise against multiple users, which I am quite sure violates WP:USER. As for Greg now giving the impression he has taken the collation of that sekrit info off site, for the purposes of coordination and collaboration with a select group of users, I am quite sure that sort of thing is not looked on favourably at all. Anyway, now it is speedy closed and moved off site, there is no good reason for the user page to remain in its current state (except of course ironically as a revision history for any action TE might want to take over this quite blatant baiting of another user). MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn’t moved off of Wikipedia. The site is a pure resource that is a writing aid for the benefit of editors who have a common objective. It is in my userspace. I moved it to another location in Wikipedia userspace where TE can’t find it but where it is still in my userspace. Without going into details, everything I’ve done is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It is unfortunate that TE’s stunt required this. It’s the first time I had to resort to it. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Had TE thought strategically, his group would have created their own page with similar links to facilitate their efforts in promoting date linking and autoformatting. I doubt it would have helped, since the community was dead-set against both practices. But the efforts of the pro-linking crowd would have been better coordinated. Better yet, TE (or “they”) could have simply used my page as a resource for them to use rather than duplicate it. As far as I know, it would have been in accordance for TE to have done a wholesale copy of my entire page and modified it in his userspace as he saw fit to better serve their objectives. Or he could have transcluded my page into his userspace to serve as a resource. I put it right out in the open in my userspace and all those on our team edited it while still logged in. The page was easy to discover and was available for all to use equally once discovered. Instead, TE saw fit to simply vandalize it. That was tantamount to spray painting graffiti on a store font. Now the page is history. Greg L (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Or you could drop the whole battleground mentality and making a fuss about 'your pages' (they aren't yours, you are just given the privelage of using them for activities that benefit the pedia, which hopefully dovetail with the interests of you and your 'wikifriends'). I personaly cannot see what justification there is for maintaining 'handy links' to multiple other users block logs. Are you actually saying these are hard to find? Open ended evidence collection is a violation of WP:USER, period. Talking in terms of off site coordination against other users is definitely a violation. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: Or you could drop the whole battleground mentality. Look who’s talking? I’m done here with you. Try looking at the MfD results. Are you seeing a pattern where anyone went to Tennis expert’s defense for this stunt? I’m sure plenty of people can Wikilawyer until the cows come home as to how some of the links on that (now hidden) page were offensive to someone. Get over it. The site was a very valuable resource used in the promotion of new policies that have now been adopted through consensus by the community. All this effort was necessary because a certain few editors insisted it on having their way and Wikilawyered about how prior RfCs (which were landslides) were flawed and weren’t a true measure of the community’s views.

  And I don’t need you to remind me that no one “owns” their pages. Who do you think you’re talking to? Do you think I just fell of a turnip truck? You don’t own your page either. And you and I both know there are certain permitted practices depending on whether content is in userspace or articlespace. Very different policies and practices. I will no longer respond to you. It’s over. It’s all over. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Greg chose to say at the MfD, "P.S. Tennis Expert: I’ve created a duplicate page in a place you will never, ever find. Only my Wikifriends know where to look for it. And they have all been instructed to not edit it unless logged out. It is unfortunate we have to go to these lengths to circumvent your vandalism and disruption to Wikipedia. I’ll be addressing this soon. I suggest you show some contrition at this point and apologize for being a pain in the ass and wasting other editor’s good-faith time trying to deal with your childishness. And, for the record: YOU do not have permission to edit in my userspace. Only my Wikifriends have such privileges and you ain’t one of my Wikifriends. Comprender? " I do not find this helpful, especially the point on advising editing by what amount to special purpose socks. DGG (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • User:Rimisherim. Didn't break a sweat. --Kbdank71 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thank you very much. That is most helpful. Thanks for your help to make Wikipedia a better, less stressful, less vandalized place. Keep up the good work, Kbdank71. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg L asked me to delete both pages, which I have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• TE didn’t even get blocked for his purposeful disruption. So I utterly reject your kooky notion of what you thin isn’t “helpful.” It’s pretty unfortunate that I had to do this, but it is entirely TE’s making. He couldn’t leave it alone where it was available to all. So it’s in a place where he can’t vandalize it anymore. Simple as that. Since he hasn’t been blocked, I trust him as far as I can drool. And I am busy in real life working on a medical implant. I’ve already wasted enough time this morning on this horsecrap. I won’t leave myself vulnerable to one more spec of this crap. As for “socks” I suggest you know what you are talking about before you make a fallacious accusation. I don’t use separate accounts for sock puppetry purposes. I use the other account for writing lengthy posts where I can make lots and lots of saves and not have it fill up my Greg L account with a ridiculous amount of history. I will no longer respond to you either. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I understood it, unless you have a genuine fear of TE harassing or outing you, there is no excuse for using alternate accounts like Rimisherim to segregate edits. And if you are using said account merely for administrative convenvience, it requires identification with your main account, so that posts like this are not confusing to others. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest, now that Greg has recreated the page at the same title, that it instead be undeleted properly, because the ANI discussion above and Mfd, and any talk page discussions, now make no sense to any observer, as it all refers to deleted page revisions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All of you have just witnessed a small sample of the vicious back-&-forth that has come to characterize the discussion around Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. It has gotten to the point where one can only conclude that Ryan Postlethwaite has the patience of a saint, & wonder why we can't simply lock all of the participants in a room where they can kill each other & leave the rest of us alone to write an encyclopedia. (And if I'm included as one of the participants, I'll galdly submit to a lengthy ban just to purge this poisonous interaction from Wikipedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

we would have the typical dilemma, of needing to bury the bodies. But it appears that some aspects of the poll may be decisive. Those who do not accept the outcome, whatever it may be, then your suggestion might be worth the messy cleanup. DGG (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Englishprince posing as admin, apparently getting passwords this way

Resolved

Englishprince (talk · contribs) is posing as an admin and has been asking for and apparaently getting passwords from other new users. I am off to warn the people he has conned, but wanted to give a heads up. Should the compromised accounts be blocked? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have indef blocked Englishprince for now. Despite the more extensive list on Ep's talk page, he only asked for passwords on three accounts and only one was fooled: Daffodils333 (talk · contribs). Daffodils333 has been a vandalism only account, but claims to have had a change of heart. I would be fine with blocking it too, but would like to hear what others think fist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm wondering if it wasn't his sock, the "apology" sounding somewhat over the top. yandman 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I agree with Yandman. Is it a coincidence that Daffodil vandalised Prince Philip, and EnglishPrince asked for passwords? I wonder if Daffodils333 'gave' his password out so that others would see that it had been done, and think it was OK? --GedUK  13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looked like quite a coincidence that most of the others on the list were indef blocked users from the past few months, and the one truly "duped" editor has such a strange history as well. I AGF'ed in my actions so far, but if people want to block daffodil as well and/or checkuser EnglishPrince to see if there is any connection with some of the other named editors, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interim, again under AGF, I have fully suppressed the edits that revealed the purported password as a security measure. I too have some overall concerns here related to trolling. Risker (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Fram and Risker. I already am watching Daffodil and had had the same sock suspiscions. I will indef block as a vandalsim only account at the next such edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Englishprince got lucky once, I would imagine they will be back to try again. -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As a Good Faith gesture, here's my password: ****** Does that show up properly? I can't tell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My password is hunter2. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, who knew that Bugs and I would have the exact same password!!! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My password is the same as the combination on my luggage. MuZemike 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're all heretics. The One True Password is Ken sent me. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the frequency that I finally got Ken to divulge. Deor (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Would someone please remind me what I'm doing wrong in editing lately? Don't hold back; let me know exactly what I've been doing wrong. Besides getting involved in the wrong side of discussions with Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and doxTxob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and mistakenly starting a discussion about featured list status for National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), what the hell else am I doing so wrong around here?

Is it even useful for me to be contributing to this stupid encyclopedia any more? Does anyone even care about a bunch of useless historic buildings? DoxTxob (talk · contribs) doesn't think so. In fact, Doxtxob was quite glad that I lost admin status in January and is still seeking further punishment against me. I'm not sure even what else he's hoping to have done, unless he wants to see me blocked and/or banned. (See this discussion.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean! (I love that title.) --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's got to the point where you're questioning the validity of the subjects you're interested in then you need to take a break. Go watch some bad movies, listen to some decent music, eat something not entirely low in fat/salt/sugar/taste and/or go for a walk, preferably with a personal music player to keep you in rhythm. You will be extremely hard pushed to find any subject which is suitable for Wikipedia that nobody is interested in. So it might not be flavour of the month, so what, this isn't an intellectual popularity contest. Sharing your interests with others should be a pleasant experience, until it is again take some time off. Someoneanother 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elkman, chances are quite good that you have done nothing wrong. Except maybe caring too much in a place where doing that will get you nothing but WikiBurnout & heartburn. (I suspect the first person to encounter WikiBurnout is Larry Sanger, & his latest actions are proof that he still hasn't recovered from it. But wouldn't be the last.) Follow Someone another's advice -- take a break from this infuriating hobby. It's not worth the aggravation -- or the heartburn. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill man. If you're telling the truth and you genuinely think you've done nothing wrong, you probably haven't done anything wrong. If those users are deliberately stirring up trouble, they'll be seen to in due course... C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just relax and spend a few days looking at what real life is like (if that helps). The worst will soon be over. A very small number of people are panicking because an editor who tends to agree with global consensus more often than with their local consensus is running for adminship. But Orlady's RfA has only 3 hours left. If the situation doesn't improve afterwards, we will need a few user RfCs. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-Site harrassement by User:Norse Am Legend

This editor posted a personal attack at Talk:Dragon Ball attacking myself and other editors.[11] I removed and warned. His response was that it wasn't a personal attack[12] but another editor also agreed it was and reiterated the warning.[13] Norse is now proceeding to harrass me off-wiki, leaving a comment on my YouTube profile of "Obnoxious cow." and leaving a long, ranty comment on my anime/manga review blog (and he makes no effort to hide it is him). I can provide the copies of emails to an admin offsite if desired. The comment on my blog includes his email address and IP address for confirmation, if needed. This is not his first time being incivil, though as far as I know it is his first time taking it off wiki. Administrative advice and action would be much appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you email links and email copies to me via my user email link? I'll investigate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Received and reviewed. Not the worst off wiki harrassment I have seen but not great behavior. Warning left on Norse Am Legend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) talk page. Hopefully this is the last we have to do about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he still thinks he is justified because "she's worse then I am."[14] --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist and simplify my words. She's not "worse than I am", we're very different people with incomparable "issues". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this diff has already been posted, but I feel the need to note a few particular sentences: Hell, maybe she's just secretly the most devoted and effective Internet troll ever not to mention: She deserved all two words of that amazing insult on her character I made. Someone please block this user, they have made it blatantly clear they don't care about our WP:NPA policy. Responding to a warning against insults with an insult? As I said above, there is no signs he's going to stop, or even sees what is wrong with his off-wiki-harassment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree. A block is the best way to go here, as it seems the user's behavior isn't going to change. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 05:33

Final warning left. AGF that it will be taken as intended. If not, the rope's out as far as it should go, I think.

I have no idea and no opinion on the wider question raised, of whether Collectonian needs to be looked at. Someone else may want to review. One example given was 6 months old and stale - if there's anything newer someone may want to follow up there. But even if there is, Norse Am Legend is responsible for his actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't intend on "continuing" anything. It's true I'm often disgruntled by the actions of my peers here, but being the intelligent and rational person that I am I just brush it off and go do something else. Really, other than my handful of small-time conflicts with Collectonian I'm an unobtrusive, constructive editor(a fact that seems to have been overlooked in favor of making me appear as a raging troll with NPA issues 100% of the time). Hell, I don't even hold any such immature, moral grudges against her as you might expect. She works hard and is fairly competent at what she does, the only issues I have with her are of her attitude used when socializing and cooperating with other users, and after seeing another all-too-familiar discussion involving her on an article's talk page I got a little too annoyed and flew off the handle a bit, something I don't intend on doing again since it really is just a pointless course of action. Now if you guys don't mind, I'd like to continue my "Wikignoming" in peace. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "intelligent and rational" bits don't seem valid here when there's off-site harassment as outlined above. If you take your own advice, there's no issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ReNeSmEe BlAcK CuLlEn

There's a slew of very bizarre new user names showing up on the log, including this one. Lots of non-Camel Case names like User:Light my fire, light my fire, etc. There's at least one other reference to "Richard Cullen." I've seen this before, but I don't know who the sock master is. Any objections to my blocking any suspect names? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I say let them start screwing around before we act. Might be something silly like a bunch of kids in school coming up with names. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't really see anything bizarre about the username Light my fire, light my fire :S C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty innocuous (a José Feliciano fan?), but I also notice another admin has blocked them as a sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Light my fire" is a vandal creating sleeper accounts, I don't know if the "Cullen" usernames are sockpuppets of anyone although one has made this edit which I've reverted as it looks like vandalism. —Snigbrook 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational

Resolved. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D}

This editor has some serious civility issues, and refuses to follow various core MoS guidelines, he has been warned more than a handful of times on his talk page, yet he still continues to edit in the same vein. He does have a history (and a block) for edit warring regarding his interpretation of the MoS, but no longer seems to war on the same scale. I have compiled a few diffs below to illustrate my points.

Civility issues: blatant inappropriate sarcasm, inappropriate comments, biting another editor, inappropriate sarcasm, more inappropriate sarcasm, attack towards other editors, attack towards myself

Not adhering to the MoS despite many warnings from several users including yourself: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

A block may probably inappropriate at this point, but how long should an editor be allowed to be so subtly disruptive before some form of action is taken? Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very long, at least. I'll gently leave a note. Nothing to make one quake in their boots, as it isn't anything too bad; and to be fair, you've returned the sarcastic manner a few times. See his talk page for more, I guess. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do apologise for my replies, with hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to handle things, I should have really noted something here sooner rather than reply as I did. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just hope you can work things out without things becoming messy. Let me know if you need anything else! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat Made

Resolved

 – Indef blocked for WP:LEGAL -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a little help on this post. An employee from WSLK Radio has made a legal threat via a new account. Since legal threats are frowned upon, could the appropriate action be taken, please? Thanks....NeutralHomer • Talk • April 15, 2009 @ 20:50

• Indef. A clear enough threat. No strong opinion on the background content dispute, though I note that the article doesn't seem to have any real sources beyond the station's own website. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody investigate this?

Resolved

I think an admin needs to investigate these diffs [20] [21] [22].

It is a comment made by a user who claims to be Grawp, but I'm not sure who the user is though, if it is a user. Can somebody please investigate? Given the diffs, it seems to me like a case of harassment. —Mythdon t/c 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just WP:DENY. No reason to investigate such blatant cases in any way. SoWhy 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We are, but the socks are flying in from every which way. Poor NawlinWiki is, as usual, their target as am I to a lesser degree. Could someone give me a hand on the user creation log page? I can't stay online much longer. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just got clobbered by another one. I'm done for the day, gang. I'm temporarily locking down my talk page. I'd be grateful if someone could monitor the new user page. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked sock of banned user

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. Icewedge (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 blocked User:Bart the Bear's Glowball as a banned user, but one of his socks escaped notice:

• 17:19, 10 April 2009 Bart the Bear's Glowball (talk | contribs) created new account User:Blast from the Past Guy (talk | contribs)

(Since the account was created by a banned user, I didn't see the point in requesting an SPI and thought the quickest way to the point would be to post here.)

--Rrburke^(talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Child's personal info

Resolved

 – Userpage deleted, request sent for oversight. --Dynaflow babble 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

At User:Akeelah2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a self-admitted 12 year old has revealed what I would presume is her real name, her home city and school, and her cell phone number. I left the standard "not MySpace" notice on her Talk page, but I think the userpage probably needs to go: not just blanked but deleted. Is anyone with The Tools willing to second that and carry out the deletion? --Dynaflow babble 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Should probably be oversighted too, per WP:OVERSIGHT. – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since it has a phone number, but I have removed the stuff from general review and left a hopefully helpful note on the editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's non-recoverable by non-sysop users, it should be fine. I'm also unsure if oversight policy would call for oversighting in this case (oversight of personal information is explicitly called for only when it is being used to "out" someone else who wishes to maintain anonymity). --Dynaflow babble 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that this is a case for it (especially considering the age we're talking about here).  GARDEN  21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent off a request for oversight referencing this discussion. --Dynaflow babble 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears oversight has been performed. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Long time tendentious editor violates terms of unblock and continues edit-warring

Resolved

 – Question of edit warring referred back to proper channels; now at WP:ANEW. --Dynaflow babble 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I opened a RFC about User:Collect. However, I just noticed that in addition to everything else, he also violated terms of his unblock. Is it ok to bring this up here as well? I dont want him blocked, he should be able to participate in his RFC, I just request admin attention to this.

• After getting blocked, User:Collect had agreed to 1RR or less for at least a month on 3 March 2009. [23] And he got unblocked. [24]

• Violates these terms on 13 March 2009.

• • Adds an OR tag 07:29, 13 March 2009. Restores the tag (1st revert): 12:00, 13 March 2009

• • Adds another OR tag: 07:32, 13 March 2009. Restores that tag again (2nd revert): 12:22, 13 March 2009

• Latest edit war: 13 April 2009, deleting "collectivist" on Fascism

17:21, 13 April 200917:37, 13 April 200912:04, 14 April 2009 (now deleting it eventho it's sourced)18:22, 14 April 2009

• Technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. First revert 17:21, 13 April 2009, latest 18:22, 14 April 2009, gaming the system with less than an hour and he knows this: [25].
• Again, technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. But note the long edit-warring history (among others) of this user here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs)

Blocks are preventive, not punitive, so if the flouting of unblock sanctions a month ago wasn't caught at the time, it should be considered water under the bridge. However, should Collect be blocked again and request an unblock, this may be something for the involved admins to keep in mind. 3RR isn't an allowance for three reverts a day; it just sets the three revert rule as an absolute boundary. Edit warring is edit warring, and edit warring is Bad. I would suggest taking this to WP:ANEW. --Dynaflow babble 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok to bring this up there while Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect is ongoing? Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only not 3RR, nor 2RR nor even 1RR -- the first is insertion of a tag which was not in before, hence not a revert. The next two edits are CONSECUTIVE (the Drudge Report edits) I guess I violated a minus one RR rule for him?

As to the Fascism edits (Pof9 is searching every single edit I made as he promised he would) the removal was fully discussed on the Talk page, and only one person insisted on including it. He also said the US is fascist because we had the fasces on the dime. Apparently Pof9 is wikilawyering here, or else he believes the US is fascist because of the dime?

What we have is a person seeking to take multiple bites of the apple by forum shopping . Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I encourage Phoenix of9 to take the edit-warring complaint to the appropriate forum, WP:ANEW, where allegations can be laid out systematically evaluated objectively. Whatever else is in dispute is best addressed at the RFC. An ANI thread is not an appropriate forum for these issues; ANEW and the RFC are. --Dynaflow babble 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Collect also promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more. I shall also avoid the Drudge Report article for at least a week...[26] But he was back to editing it just three days later: [27][28][29] As Dynaflow points out, that's water under the bridge, but it does mean that future promises should be viewed with scepticism. The latest edit warring is of greater concern. That should be addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. RFCs are for handling general problems rather than straight edit-warring.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted in passing that, having taken a cursory look at the page history for Drudge Report, Collect does seem to have adhered to 1RR on 13 March. --Dynaflow babble 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How come? He added two tags seperately and reverted them seperately. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, are we going to block a user for edits made 1 month ago, OR for more recent edits made after his sanctions expired. Which is it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's blocking anybody here. If Phoenix of9 wants to take his or her allegations of edit warring to WP:ANEW, and the consensus there decides that the accusation has merit, appropriate sanctions can be decided upon there. --Dynaflow babble 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANEW, but making four reverts in 25 hours is sufficient cause for a block, especially for someone who's been blocked for edit warring twice before.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I reported this at WP:ANEW [30] Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That shows 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean violation of 3rr (in 25 hrs)? Yea. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

REPEAT fraudulent edits/vandalism by 206.162.140.52

Resolved

 – Anon user warned to go forth and sin no more. --Dynaflow babble 03:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User connecting from the IP address 206.162.140.52 has made constant and repeated fraudulent edits to a number of pages. In particular, the user changes names of people or actors. Example:

On List of characters in Chuck changing Matthew Bomer to Maxime Trépanier Hétu, or Yvonne Strahovski to Kathleen Chagnon. The user has made these changes SEVERAL times.

I've reviewed the user's past edits and he's been doing the same thing on other pages as well. On his talk page there have been several warnings issued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambaryer (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

206.162.140.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now has a final warning. If they do it again, report them to WP:AIV and they will be satisfyingly blocked. If they heed the warning and don't do it again, so much the better. --Dynaflow babble 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again

Resolved

Closing discussion, AFD is closed.

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.

---

Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Wikipedia these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside admin intervention needed

I've just withdrew my nomination to have it deleted, as consensus is clearly merged, only now it appears to be turning into a lame edit-war. Looking since the start of the debate:

1. Closed @ 23:44, 13 April 2009, reopened @ 12:19, 14 April 2009.
2. Closed @ 13:26, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 14:46, 14 April 2009
3. Closed @ 16:21, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 16:39, 14 April 2009
4. I withdrew the nomination at 13:06, 15 April 2009, as consensus was clearly emerging (although this was called inappropriate by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
5. Closed @ 14:52, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 14:56, 15 April 2009
6. Closed @ 15:07, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 15:26, 15 April 2009

I think we need an uninvolved admin to step in (and when it does get closed properly to fully-protect the page to avoid someone reopening it). D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• When you discount the IP votes, and the keeps from brand new users who have not given a policy based argument, then the argument is pretty even. But that is beside the point, because withdrawing after that many votes and three days, when it is clearly not a case of SNOW, is simply innappropriate. If you are confident in the apparent consensus, where is the harm in leaving it open for the full term? MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, when I previously enquired about a nom withdrawing a nomination, the consensus was that if the debate is well underway, it belong to the community and the withdrawal is *not* a reason for closing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, it's probably be best to let the AfD run its full course even if it's pointless and forget about it. From WP:SNOW: "the snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Now WP:SNOW was rejected, however, we still do not need to get tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic meta discussions about it all. Equendil Talk 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• With all do respect, it is an obvious keep and the re-opens look like a WP:POINT violation. Can anyone in their right mind imagine closing this as a delete without a lot of wikidrama? Further, although the "delete" opinion is respectable (albeit in my opinion a misunderstanding of policy), the claim that delete wins because it has the better argument and everyone who thinks otherwise does not count is basically a rejection of the consensus approach. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case of "the merges have it", prolonging the debate is unnecessary so anyone (including the nominator) could perform a non-admin close as no consensus and then either boldly merge or start a merge debate. WP:BLP1E supports merge, but that's a content issue as this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it looks like I'm making a POINT, but as the guidelines for AfD closing just changed, I think this is an appropriate time to insist on the full AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's disruptive to keep closing a non-unanimous discussion in the face of guidelines specifically saying not to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle seems to have plenty more keeps than deletes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• If I had to close the AfD now, I would do so as no consensus to delete. Setting aside the keep arguments based not on policy but on popularity / public interest, several contributors believe that the coverage in multiple reliable sources is a demonstration of notability. However, there is no pressing need to close the AfD now. It seems to me that the most likely result of prolonging the discussion will be the writing, publishing and discovery of more source material, thus reinforcing the case for a Keep result. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that many editors will offer their opinions that this is a BLP1E case and as such not encyclopaedic material, regardless of the amount of media coverage. Perhaps that will be sufficient to constitute a consensus to Delete; perhaps not. Rather than attempt to predict the outcome, I support keeping the AfD open, in line with policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

What part of "all" is unclear here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And sometimes our rush to close debates causes a pile of drama, which is a common theme with these one event tv show contestants. Lacking a unanimous concensus, I would rather the debate simply ran its course. There is no harm in letting it run, but obviously there was a lot of nonsense created by closing it early. Resolute 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • As one of the people who has most strongly been urging the extension of time from 5 days, for years now, actually, I think nobody intended that there would not be common-sense exceptions, if necessary justified by IAR in the absence of something more specific. But this is not one of those times. When two responsible editors both urge SNOW closes, but different SNOW closes, it would seem that this is not the time to use IAR, of which SNOW is a special case. DGG (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Without revealing my position on how AfD's should be handled, that sentence is awful from a basic logic standpoint. Someone go rewrite the policy to say "AfD discussions generally run for at least 7 days. However tktktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not completely pointless

• Being the optimist here, the prolonged AfD is not a complete waste of time. It is giving new and previously uninvolved editors a chance to learn about policy. Spirits do seem high and very civil for such a hotly opposed deletion nomination, and supporters of the article will be very happy with a "keep" outcome or else they will get much craved melodrama with a "delete" result. The danger of course is that easy cases make bad law... if the article is kept it is not a repudiation of BLP1E, it is either an exception, or a decision that the case simply does not fit BLP1E. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, when an early close upsets people, then it was a poor choice for an early close. However, Wikipedia "rules" tend not to deal in absolutes, and an interpretation that AfDs can only be closed early by satisfying certain rigid criteria is... inaccurate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless and increasingly dangerous

We now learn that she grew up with learning disabilities -- so now we have a deletion template on an article about somebody the whole world sees as a story of hope and inspiration. Our article has been doubling its readership every day, and got almost 48,000 page views yesterday. The AfD has 3 more days to run. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that you think it's "dangerous" to keep this AfD open? Lychosis ^T/C 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best if I don't explain, per WP:BEANS (maybe being paranoid). Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now

I closed the AFD, and just expanded my close rationale:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle

Feel free to DRV/throw tomatoes, etc. rootology (C)(T) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Arson threat?

That's enough about arson, and enough arson about. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Good faith edits by IP, just poorly written HalfShadow 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure if this edit [31] is intended as an arson threat or not. I checked the local newspaper and TV websites and couldn't find anything that states that the school caught on fire.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Doesn't really look like an arson threat, more of just some silly vandalism by a student. Might be good to check it out for a bit though. Matty (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I once plotted to burn down my high school using a lit cigarette, but they had a rule against smoking in the building. There's always some catch to any plan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, Bugs, please.....--Caspian blue 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I live near this school. It DID catch fire during the night, in the boiler room, and it is being investigated as arson. See [32]. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Added to article; marking as resolved. Edits were in good faith, just badly written HalfShadow 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) It's a textbook case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) One might even call it elementary. HalfShadow 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC) oy. any more puns like that, and I'm going to burn down wikipedia. but wait, first I have to use wikipedia to find the best way to set fire to my laptop. hang on... --Ludwigs2 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP comments at Dreamhost

There have been problems on the Dreamhost page for several days now, although it seems to be being worked out on the talk page, which is good to see. However, in the last few days, IP 194.144.90.118 (talk · contribs) has popped up to seemingly disrupt. He has added his personal story of deciding not to use Dreamhost because of what he read on the wikipedia talk page. He's been reverted several times as per WP:SOAPBOX by several editors including me, but he has readded the material every time [33] [34] [35] [36]. He's now also calling anyone who disagrees with him as Dreamhost employees and attacking the company on the page[37][38].

I hate to see this subject get caught up again, as it had seemed to cool down on the talk page into a discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with the IP? I've tried to discuss it with the IP on his talk page, but all I got was "I will not be denied my right to have my say." That doesn't sound too productive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, this IP appears to leave no signature on his talk page comments. I didn't even know that was possible. It makes his edits and responses hard to track. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's alot of things that you don't know, for example that wikipedia ads those ip signatures on its own. Please do not make untruthfull remarks, only one of my remarks has been reverted a remark on a talk page and the only one to revert my edit has been you.

It is also untrue that I am attacking that company or any other company for that matter. It is strange that this fellow would hate to see this subject tackled and that he'd prefer to see it in a frozen state when the article in question is clearly extremely biased and the discussions are not leading anywhere. I suggest that the poor fellow find something more productive to spend his time on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Dreamhost opinion has been reverted by me, and also here [39] by The SerialComma. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As to the anon's comment "I will not be denied my right to have my say.", you do not have any such rights here on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post your opinions on any subject. Wikipedia talk pages should be used only to discuss edits to the article, and for nothing else. If there is anything you want to add to the article, you may do so with suitable reliable sources to back up those claims. But please don't post your opinions on the article talk page. Chamal ^talk 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The usefulness and therefor the right of the words to stay where they were written has been clearly been demonstrated by the fact that archiving was enabled for the talkpage as a consequence of them being written. If my words will not be allowed to stand then any and all references to them should not be allowed to either and archiving should be disabled in the spirit of fairplay. --194.144.90.118 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"fairplay"? Wassat? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving is usually done to prevent talk pages from cluttering up, and has nothing to do with hiding stuff. Why do you want to stop archiving the discussions there? Anyway, did you even read the pages that I gave the links to? Because it looks like you're still lost about your "rights". You do not have a right to post your personal opinions here. The place for that would be a blog, and this is not it. When something that does not belong in a talk page (according to the talk page guidelines, original research policy etc.) we remove it. That has nothing to do with hiding your personal views, but just removing them because they do not belong here in the first place. But apparently some of these comments are not removed and are still on the talk page. Chamal ^talk 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. And yes, I'm an involved editor, but it seems that they have no intention of stopping until blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support block by SarekOfVulcan. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz removing rollback facility for inactive users

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• see user rights log

I don't like the idea of admins removing facilities for a particular user if users happen to be inactive... it is not like they have "abused" that particular tool. I don't think there has been any discussion about this... we don't remove admin rights for a user if they are inactive, so what is different here? OK, they could request it once/if they come back, but it just seems to create more unneeded hassle. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not especially bad, and the rights can be restored without an issue if the user returns. I've removed the accountcreator flag from various users myself when it hasn't been used, as an account with that flag is particularly troublesome if compromised. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to have asked him first? --GedUK  12:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem, honestly. But to echo the above, you should have asked him about it, or at the very least, notified him of this thread, which I've done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move. In general, security privileges should be removed from inactive accounts on any system. Plain Wikipedia accounts can't cause much trouble, so it's not necessary to do much about unprivileged accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a poor practice. There is no real additional risk with rollback- anyone with a normal account can do just as much damage, so the security argument doesn't hold much water.. This is a little bit like deleting user pages for absent users- sure, it can be easily undone, but it's less work to simply not do it in the first place. Let's not make busywork for ourselves for no good reason. Friday (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty pointless to me to remove rollback from inactive users, since you can't do any damage whatsoever with it, but if you don't have anything else to do with your free time.. hey, why not? --Conti|✉ 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Friday: there's no need to remove rollback from inactive accounts (they're no more dangerous than non-rollbacked accounts, and certainly less dangerous than inactive admin accounts). Rollback is normally removed when the tool is abused: there's need to create extra work and/or give users rollback right removal logs in their userrights logs just because they're inactive. I note that MBisanz hasn't left any courtesy notices on the talk pages of said users either. Acalamari 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah....seems like busy work that will just create more work for someone down the road. At least put a note on the effected userpage but I don't see any point in doing it in the first place. RxS (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I started doing it when I realized some of the inactive accounts with rollback were not just inactive, but had actively retired (see Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) and AGKbot (talk · contribs)) or were permanently disabled like Mercury (talk · contribs) or were indef blocked like NKbot (talk · contribs) and Aitias (alternate account) (talk · contribs) as it seemed like simple housecleaning. Some of my more recent deflags were of accounts that had very few edits ever or were retired for a very long time. I was very careful to not deflag alt accounts of active users such as DB II (talk · contribs) unless I contacted the person (usually privately) to ask if they needed the account in the long term or unless it was obvious the account was a test account like SoxZilla (talk · contribs).

I can go back and leave notes for them, but I do think it is uncontroversial housekeeping to remove an easily grantable userright if only to help maintain the list of rollbackers. Picking out things like indef blocked accounts and re-activated accounts that could be compromised (remember CSCWEM?) becomes harder as there are piles of inactive accounts laying around. I guess I'll go start a thread to gain consensus on this, since it is not clearly uncontroversial anymore. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much of a problem with removing rollback from nactive/retired users. I don't necessarily think it's poor form. They can simply request it back when they return editing. This really isn't such a big deal either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I dunno. I'll put myself in the shoes of one of these inactive editors; if I returned from a lengthy wikibreak to find some of my permissions had been stripped for no real reason, I might be pretty annoyed and be tempted to make the break a permanent one. Reyk _YO! 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think something like this would be controversial either. I'm used to seeing rights (any rights) being removed when a user becomes inactive. As noted by Stifle; he removed my ACC flag when I became inactive in that area, and when I wanted to help again, it was granted back. No harm, no foul. Anyone that put off by having their rollback removed for inactivity probably thinks too highly of this small feature. I think this is a complaint for complaints sake. Neither has consensus, but one has potential for misuse. If you don't want to re-grant these editors rollback when and if they return, you don't have to. I can't imagine that this area is so understaffed that it will create some large workload (as if its difficult to grant it in the first place). Synergy 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the dilemma, as I see it: A user's rollback is taken away. Maybe a nice little note is left, maybe citing the reason - the only reason I can think of is somehow the account gets compromised. So then the account logs on and politely asks for his rollback back, and gets it. Trouble is, it was a compromised account, and he proceeds to wreak havoc. So what good did taking it away do? Just wondering. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hopefully the admin who grants it, and the other admins who watch the RFP page would see that user and then put 2 and 2 together when the account starts doing weird things, as opposed to a totally inactive account re-activating itself and doing weird things (yes it hinges on admins being wise enough to notice trends, I know this is a stretch of faith). MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any meaningful increase in security here, and this seemingly pointless action puts roadblocks in the way of people who might start to contribute again. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tim - rollback is hardly a security risk and we need to be prioritising the keeping of goodwill with new editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TimVickers and Casliber. There's no compelling reason to do it, and it isn't really even "housekeeping", because it's not a mess causing any inconvenience. (I mean, it isn't... is it?) The risk of alienating contributors outweighs any gain, which is unclear anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning we have been doing this for over a year with Bots and since they were created, with Account Creator, and IPBE. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But there's a big difference between the rollback flag and the bot/account creator flags, isn't there? The latter could create lots of trouble if abused, the former.. not so much. --Conti|✉ 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also worth pointing at Wikipedia_talk:Rollback_feature#Housekeeping. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal threats from IP - 71.193.118.38 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – blocked Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP user has posted personal threats on my user talk page: <quote>Go ahead and block me you fucking disrespectful prick.....You will be blocking Wiki editing for the entire campus of Western Michigan University, but go right ahead you stupid fuck. Besides, I can always run a proxy scramble and get around your "ban", so FUCK YOU. Why don't you just let the edit stand, as it is correct and useful knowledge for people. (Unsourced defamatory material redacted per WP:BLP) - SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) You do know about this American show, right, you pathetic Euro Fucktard ? Keep fucking with me and not only will I keep restoring the truth, but I may just feel compelled to hunt you down and put my fist down your ignorant fucking skull.</quote>

What am I supposed to do? He's already been blocked for a couple of days, but isn't this sufficient for a permanent ban, or if possible, contacting this university, if the IP really does belong to that, to track the user? Regards, Thrane (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's just coming from one IP then it looks like a classic case of WP:RBI to me, just ask for the block to be extended. As for the actual threats themselves, I know it's easy for me not being the target, but trust me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that their IP address has reverse DNS of c-71-193-118-38.hsd1.in.comcast.net. served by NET-71-193-96-0-1 (71.193.96.0/19) net name SOUTHBEND-7, and is thus unlikely to be originating from the WMU's own network. Since traffic to SOUTHBEND-7 appears to be routed via te-3-1-ur01.mishawaka.in.sbend.comcast.net., I think it's reasonable to assume the location is in South Bend, Indiana. -- The Anome (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above quote should be removed as a BLP violation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Recurring edit war on articles related to Piedmont, California

There has been an ongoing edit war on three articles related to the city of Piedmont, California, USA:

• Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piedmont Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since at least January 2008, Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs), now-indef blocked sockpuppet Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs), and a couple of IP addresses (one from California State University, Hayward) have been adding blatant POV content to all three of these articles, indicating that the city, the district, and the high school are all extremely liberal and intolerant of conservatism. They began as unsourced POV edits ([40]) that eventually led to the city article getting protected for two weeks (verify using "logs" link above). The same edit war came back in September 2008 and again in March 2009. The more recent edits ([41], [42]) have cited an Alameda County, California election results map that shows that Piedmont residents voted for Democratic Party candidates in 2008, and stretches it to argue that it supports the view that the city, district administration, and high school administration are extremely partisan.

I first became involved in this at the beginning of April 2009 on the high school article and at the time had no idea of the lengthy edit war that had been going on on the city article. I tried to offer a middle ground with this message on the talk page, which was met with this edit to the article (note the edit summary) that still cited the election results map and stretched the argument even further. Then he decided that I was okay with this wording without asking me ([43]). Shortly after I made several edits ([44], [45], [46]) in an attempt to downplay the importance of the POV without completely removing it, my talk page was vandalized by a CSU Hayward IP ([47]). He went away for nearly two weeks until this edit which was conveniently called "minor housekeeping" in the edit summary.

I tried resolving this myself without bringing it here by trying to find a middle ground, but this user's actions are ridiculous and indicate that he has some grudge against Piedmont's city government and school district, and wants to use Wikipedia as a sandbox soapbox for expressing that grudge. The best part was, this guy had the audacity to nominate himself at RFA, which failed miserably but allowed me to find this RPP request. Ideally I would like to see this guy indef'd but a ban from editing all articles related to this city would suffice. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that guy had already been indef'd. It was only for 3 days. Time for someone with some authority to do something about that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the block log (don't know why I didn't before). He was 24-hour blocked in February 2008, then indef'd 3 days later but was unblocked a week after. The most recent 3-day block seems to have expired at the same time that I got involved in this. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, as soon as the block expired he went back to it. Someone could have reported that to WP:AIV - unless they did, but no action was taken, as happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since these are all clearly the same editor, and are equally clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, I have done the following; blocked User:Akhamenehpour indefinitely, blocked User:76.102.193.102 for a month, and rangeblocked 134.154.118.0/24 and 134.154.254.0/24 for a month. If the user strays out of those ranges, contact me and I will extend the rangeblock, as the collateral from even blocking the whole 134.154.0.0/16 range would be minimal. Black Kite 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It has long being established that the user has used 76.102.193.102 to edit, I discussed it with him/her and apparently (s)he needed to use that IP occasionally for technical reasons, hence a notice was added to the top of the IPs talk page, so that particular one was not really sock puppetry (at least while his main account was unblocked). He was indef blocked previously for disruption on the same articles, including using sock puppets Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs) and Akhamenehpour2 (talk · contribs). However his main account was unblocked (plus his/her approved IP) when he agreed to edit constructively. Akhamenehpour recently returned from inactivity but (s)he appears to still have a temper that (s)he has not learnt to control, so I have no objection to re-indef blocking. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)On a related note, I've removed the extremely liberal line from the article (diff). I had initially hoped Akhamenehpour would specify an article or page to check against from the print source, but with their blocking I've just pulled the reference. The improper synthesis and edit warring on the voting map source, and the print source being from right after the election makes me think the print source will also be improper synthesis. If someone specifies an article, or another source that backs up the liberal assertion we can re-examine this. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected the three article pages for one week, feel free to change. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One giant copyright violation machine

Apblowe (talk · contribs) - please see the image uploads by this user, [48] along with the blatantly false licensing data. This is worse than vandalism in my book. User has been warned a-plenty. What is the next step? JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see loads of copyright/deletion templates on that talk page, but no-one seems to have warned this user that they may be blocked if they continue. That would be the obvious next step in my opinion. Thereafter a block (whether they should be given a second chance or not would be up to the blocking admin). C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 07:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the files. I suggest a non-templated warning. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a hard-line "if you upload an image using improper licensing again without having learned what to do, you will be blocked until you acknowledge the problem." Some people don't care about anything other than getting the pictures they want. It's especially concerning when articles like Laurie Anderson had an free image up there and now nobody knows about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned the user. [49]. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Debresser

Resolved

 – Blocked by Gwen Gale for 24 hours. --Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) personal attacks against other editors on talk pages [50] and in edit summaries, standard warnings only bring further such attacks, last attack [51] was after final warning. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention to this. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Attacks continue on his userpage after block. See this diff: [52] Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to template a blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Unblocked by BD2412 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for BD2412.. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'll take care not to offend Wuhwuzdat in the future. I'm happy to continue working on making Wikipedia even better. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is to be hoped that you will take care not to offend anyone. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I try. But if helps if people have a sense of humor (and use it), and don't make an elephant out of a mouse. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of unblock

It seems that Debresser, after being blocked for personal attacks, was unblocked for saying essentially that they've done nothing wrong because their comments were correct (a position which has been restated here). Am I missing something, or should we update the guide to appealing blocks? (ETA: I am not seeking sanctions against anyone involved, but a clarification of how appealing/unblocking should work.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I read it as Debresser saying that they were not indulging in personal attacks by their references either to WP:DICK or by referring to the other party as "lazy". It is an arguable point, but sufficient to allow them to repeat it on the basis that is was not intended as an attack. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If this helps in the discussion: it was not intended as an attack. I am a social animal. And excersize my sense of humor once in a while (see my user page). This incident was blown up out of proportion, IMHO. I was glad the unblocking editor came to that same conclusion. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If editors are to blocked for referring to DICK or calling other editors lazy, can we please start with those admins who routinely do that sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to both Debresser and DuncanHill; not violating the word of the policy is one thing - but continuing to use phrases and terminology once it is apparent that the other party has a problem with it is another (and one that certain admins are also guilty of). If referring to another person as ginger irritates them (no matter if they have red tinted hair) then those practiced in social intercourse either move the discussion on or find another way of saying it that is acceptable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Debresser not only referred Wuhwuzdat to WP:DICK, he straightgforwardly called Wuhwuzdat a dick, along with "lazy," "funny" and "poor guy," then carried on even after the editor peppered him with many warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, can we start with those admins who routinely do this sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not a personal attack (and ok) to call another editor, in a stream of adjectives, a "dick," "lazy," "funny" and "poor guy"? Are you saying I should be blocked? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I am saying it is hypocritical for admins to expect far higher standards of behaviour from non-admins than they do from admins. If you behave in a way which you would block a non-admin for, then yes, you should be blocked and lose the tools as well. If you don't behave in such a hypocritical way, then that's good and please carry on. You well know Gwen that there are plenty of admins who routinely use much more blatant personal attacks as part of their schtick, and yet I don't see you or anyone else blocking them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell yet if you're saying I've been hypocritical (diffs please) or if this is a sweeping comment about surly admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that what I said was perfectly clear. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to consider it a blocking offense to call someone a dick, perhaps we ought not have a policy titled "Don't be a dick". The latter implies, and by this validation invites, the former. As for "lazy", that is entirely subjective. I'm sure there is someone out there who would label me as lazy for only having made 15,000 edits last month. bd2412 T 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not a policy, and frankly it's not actually on en.wikipedia. It's an essay on meta. Pedro :  Chat  15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not in any way a policy and there are many admins (myself among them) who won't link to it, because doing so seems so snarky, like a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's one of the most frequently cited essays, by admins and otherwise (I have done so very rarely, and probably won't at all in the future). It actually originated here and was transwikied to meta aeons ago - but we still maintain a "soft redirect" to it, so for practical discourse, it might as well be here. It certainly is snarky, but it's also part of our culture, and if it ought to be excised than that is something for a larger discussion. bd2412 T 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

He didn't only link to the essay, he called him a dick in an edit summary, I still think that's a personal attack, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but there's very little distance between invoking WP:DICK and just using the word. Consider the context, as well - Debresser has a long record as a good and useful contributor, and is not one of the troublemakers who skate along the edge of policy to stir up controversy for their own amusement. bd2412 T 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, which is why I don't link to that essay :) I'm ok with how this has spun out. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am less concerned about the reasons for the block/unblock than the unblocking admins disregard for process with respect to the blocking admin, and their discourteous response to that admin when asked about it - and the obstacles for reviewing the blocking admins talkpage history(It appears there are some server issues, I am getting some funny messages when linking to some pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I did find it worrisome, the unblocking admin at last told me he'd keep what I said about how he handled that in mind the next time, which was enough for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Debresser- I'm happy to accept that you thought your remarks fell short of being personal attacks, and I'm happy to believe that you'll be more polite in future.

Gwen and LHvU- I share your concerns about the unblock, and I trust that the admin in question is going to learn from this.

DuncanHill- please start an "all admins are bastards""unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins" thread elsewhere, if that's what you want to talk about, but provide some diffs or it's going nowhere but flamesville.

To all- I have added some advice to WP:GAB which I think needed saying. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "all admins are bastards". Mind you, the ones who misrepresent what has been said are in with a shout. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you weren't here to make general, unsubstantiated accusations.Sorry, my mistake. You were here to make unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins; you just didn't say "all admins are bastards". I'm sure everyone here will agree that our policies and guidelines should apply equally to admins and non-admins. But if you want to discuss problems unrelated to Debresser's block, unblock, etc, then please start a new thread with diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain I would be blocked if I did compile a list of such admin behaviour on wiki, even if it started with just your dishonest behaviour above (mischaracterizing my complaint as "all admins are bastards"). DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly? Do you feel that making vague unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins is the most productive course of action you can take, because providing diffs will result in persecution? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add that it is very hard to provide diffs of admins doing nothing, their usual response to other admins personally attacking non-admins. On my userpage is a list of some of the things that I have been accused on-wiki of being. All those attacks were made by admins, none resulted in any other admins complaining, and only one resulted in an apology from the admin who made it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I've found that an editor who self-identifies on this website as rather much anything is likely to be smeared for it by someone sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Which of course makes it OK? In any case Gwen, the attacks on me weren't related to any self-identification that I have made. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, not ok at all, no way. I'll look at your user page again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, it would be pointless to apologize for the actions of others, but I feel compelled to anyway. I am an admin, and have myself more than once passed on saying or doing anything regarding what another administrator has done or said based on the assumption that that other admin knew the person involved better than I did and was acting in a way that they thought would be most effective in dealing with another editor. Also, unfortunately, as others on this page would probably know more about, there is a lot more administrator work around than there are admins to do it, and that may have been involved in other instances in which outside admins chose not to be involved. Not trying to make excuses, just trying to point out possible reasons, adequate or not. In any event, I cannot and would not condone such abuse. None of us are perfect, admins included, and at times we need to be told that. However, if you should ever feel unjustly put upon by another admin, please send me an e-mail or leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to try to produce reasonably satisfying results. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• John, it is by no means pointless to apologize for the actions of others - indeed, such an action is exactly why I don't say that "all admins are bastards". Some very clearly do their best, and a good best at that. To have the strength to apologize for the action of a colleague, even when one cannot correct it oneself, does much to restore faith in the human spirit and the ability of RfA to sometimes produce good results. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I have documentary evidence from a reliable source that my mother was married to my father before my birth. I am also, however, a cantakerous git and very rude at times. However it's very likely I have never cut you up on the motorway. Where do I sit in respect of this? :) Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I have ever called any admin a bastard. I've called various admins rude, unethical, dishonest, obstructive, bigoted, incompetent and steaming piles of shit (not all at the same time, but all with justification), but not bastards. It's never got me a block (though I was once given a cool down block when I had been rude to an anonymous vandal, and once for reporting a vandal, but in that case the admin had pressed the wrong button and apologized promptly and very decently). DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (especially considering my current RfA status LOL), but I am, indeed, a bastard - at least "genetically". Personally, not so much. I will not, however, be pleased to be referred to as one unless I know you well, or we're drinking beer and I just beat you at darts/pool/poker/getting-that-cute-girl-in-the-corner's-phone-number. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You daft bugger! said in the friendly British wayDuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Amadeo Barletta Barletta

I created a page Amadeo Barletta Barletta who was an honorary consul from Italy in the Dominican Republic during Benito Mussolini regime. This page is well referenced with links to Time Magazine and others. I placed the name of Barletta Barletta in the article of Mussolini in section See Also so that Barletta´s article is not an orphan. user Brutaldeluxe undid my revision without a summary or explanation. I can revert what he did, but because I do not want to engage in a discussion I would someone to review this. Please advise. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask User:Brutaldeluxe why they undid your edit? -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• No I did not. I read this coment made by User:Brutaldeluxe about another article and where he says he wont tolerate, made me think he is an administrator with rights to these reverts with no summary.

comment It's OK you deleted the dead link, I undid your edits because I took time and effort to correct and improve the article, and to translate from websites operated by governmental agencies of San Marino. Although I'm not from RSM, I'm the closest thing you could find, as I was born and raised in the shadow of Monte Titano. Where were you when it wrongly stated that San Marino declared war on other countries? I intend to add a lot more to the article in the future, I'll welcome your corrections, but I won't tolerate arbitrary deletion of whole sentences. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please advise. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you contact him on his talk page and ask the reason for the revert. User:Brutaldeluxe is not an admin, and nor do you need to be one to revert an edit. Anyone can revert an edit if there is a good reason. It is not required to include a summary, but this is usually done so that others can understand why you did it. Anyway, ask him the reason and discuss with him whether the link should be added or not. There's nothing at all here that requires admin intervention (at least not now). Chamal ^talk 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Juliaaltagracia, it's usually best to try and resolve issues on the article talkpage first. If you have an issue with a specific user's actions, it's then best to take it up directly on their page first. Each "incident" is unique, so the response for one situation is (hopefully) different from the response to another. Happy editing! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of annotated unresolved issue tags

Resolved

 – Article protected, further discussions should be on article talk henrik•talk 05:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjwong deleted twice issue tags clearly annotated: [53] then [54] and playing dumb.[55] (The whole article is sourced with two 900-year-old books, only in Chinese, hosted on Chinese Wikisource, often with a single cite at the end of whole paragraphs full of claims, and has no lead to speak of.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG user Little Blue Frog is just confused (if not lost). He does not understand that the best sources are often the 900 year old book originals. This user needs to be removed of any administrative duties. That page has 13 references and is better than 90% of the historical articles out there. This user is possibly too young to know what he is doing. Most of this material does NOT exist in English. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: [56] 3rd removal of all issue tags and {{fact}} requests. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The material is already sourced. What are you doing???? Stop it. Benjwong (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. [57] 4th blanket removal of annotated issue and fact tags. The reported user considers that posting anything here allows him to go on removing tags. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note; See T:TDYK#Articles created/Fexpanded on April 4diff in case for archive and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ancient_Chinese_sources

  This issue stems from the ongoing debate on Chinese ancient sources to have used by admin Nlu (talk · contribs) for his created articles and WP:DYK. He also removed the tag from articles; Cheng Yi (Tang Dynasty)[58], Linghu Chu[59], Huangfu Bo[60] and Li Yong (Tang Dynasty)[61]. I think the removal of the tags that show unresolved issues is unwise.--Caspian blue 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is practically a stub or start class. Now if it was going GA, then you can ask for all the references. You don't need to count my reverts. Do you guys understand that the aggressive tagging style is unrealistic. Most of these ancient stuff do not translate to a 1-to-1 word-to-word basis. On a start class article, this is pretty good. Lighten up please. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of article length and status quo, our "encyclopedia" should be referenced by "reliable sources". In the diffs, I agree that The Little Blue Frog's tagging is aggressive, and just should've tagged {{primarysource}} at the top. However you were edit warring over the tagging even as violating 3RR? More unwise.--Caspian blue 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow I wish that wasn't a closed archive at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ancient_Chinese_sources. Do people realise there are as little as 1 or 2 text about a particular ancient topic. This is not 21st century material like Bill Clinton has 5000 magazines writing about him, and anyone of them could be legitimate 3rd party source. Nor is Cui Qun popular enough to be like the bible. You are talking the book of Tang maybe the only book available that co-existed with the biography subject. These wiki reference rules need to get fixed. Benjwong (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• [62] 5th removal of all issue and Fact tags. From the start they are clearly annotated about the many problems at many levels: Wikisource is NOT a source. Creating new historical synthesis from 900-year-old primary sources is OR. Using exclusively Chinese-language sources without any modern English-language backup on the basics is not reliable. Writing is presented as factual instead of "according to...", this is like using the Bible to write a description of Parting the Red Sea. Most paras have a single note at the end instead of multiple notes for each claim. Etc., etc. (cf. the annotations visible in the removal diff: at this point the user is in bad faith because he can't ignore the nature and extent of the problems. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Now both violated 3RR.--Caspian blue 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that I do not consider my reverting vandalism, such as blanket removal of clearly annotated issue tags, to be covered by 3RR. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok you guys are bending the rules again. Translations are NOT original research. People in other language encyclopedias are translating. No where in wikipedia policy does it say ONLY ENGLISH references are legit. That is the most ridiculously concept. The editors are not the ones with the problems. The current rules clearly discourage primary sources. Which I understand for some things like corporate self-marketing and advertisements. But like I said because a 900-year old source maybe the ONLY source that coexisted with the living subject, it has to be allowed. Not every subject has 5000 3rd party sources. Benjwong (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1) If the subject is WP:NOTABLE enough, then there are certainly modern scholars who have produced modern secondary sources about him, after at least critically cross-examining those only sources, in order to produce reliable material – even if they eventually accepted or concurred with the original source, their expert work at reaching that conclusion is what will make them a reliable source, as opposed to 900-year-old documents written to please an Emperor that could execute anybody and whose text can have been tampered with any number of times.
• 2) "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - Jimmy Wales in Wikipedia:Verifiability — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• On number 1. That is completely biased. You are under the assumption that modern scholars have already studied everything. Eastern materials probably have the biggest gap in terms of "unstudied" materials. Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• On number 2. There is no misleading information if you are looking at the ONE AND ONLY original source. What better than the 900 year piece. The definition of false information is pushing it. Is like readers actually prefer a 3rd party tabloid magazine over a direct translation??!! Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Number 1 is answered by number 2, if there are no good sources yet then it's maybe too early for an article. Number 2 was another annotated problem: readers are never made aware they only read an OR synthesis translating a 900yo primary source that has not been cross-examined, they are presented the appearance of a factual, modern scholarly truth. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This definition of "good source" and "bad source" is not a problem. Last I checked, the book of Tang is good enough to build a university curriculum around. They don't call it 24 histories for nothing. Is like that's all there is left. Use it or there is nothing else. Maybe it is best if you show me where I can go change the rules. I can see you are trying to help in good faith by following these rules, but the rules just don't fit the situation here. Benjwong (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition to using either old or non-English sources. There's no requirement that sources be accessible on-line either, though it of course makes verification more convenient. The Little Blue Frog, do you have any specific objections to this source; a reason to think this particular book is unreliable other than it being in the general class of old Chinese books? henrik•talk 05:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to expand the existing rules to allow classical texts. If not, this issue will come back again. Really this can go for shakespeare and whatever else that is considered old. If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you've both violated WP:3RR I'm mindful to block you both. I've instead opted to protect the article for a short while and urge you to please read my note on the talk page - the discussion about the issue should continue there, preferably with a bit less personal animosity please. henrik•talk 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I will continue this tomorrow. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean the discussion and not the edit warring. :) Please continue it over at the article talk page. henrik•talk 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@Benjwong: "If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think." Here's the crux of the problem. That's not crazy, that's the whole central point of secondary sources in modern history and of Wikipedia's policies too, as provided in the tags you removed and the links noted above.

@Henrik: There may be no prohibition for complementing with foreign SECONDARY sources, but I don't think that writing an entire article entirely based on both foreign and primary sources is allowed. Even if modern scholarly sources are slim, they should provide the reliable skeleton for an article, possibly expanded and complemented by irreplaceable Tang sources, duly quoted or noted as "according to..." instead of stated as modern scholarly facts. (As it's done for Biblical reports, or for the life of Casanova from his Memoirs vs. the scant historical record about him.) Not to mention, among various problems, that WIKISOURCE is not a source (one of my deleted annotation asked for a stable mirror such as Gutenberg et al.) The editors's attitude (Nlu, Benjwong) as seen here and at DYK for weeks, is another large factor. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 06:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When you tag an article having 13 legitimate references as having no reference, that kind of aggressive tagging is going to get some responses. I wouldn't call it an attitude because most users will respond the same way. The discussion continues at Talk:Cui Qun. Benjwong (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

GA nom vandalism on E-mail spam?

Three days ago, an anon IP (199.125.109.74) nominated E-mail spam as a good article. The article isn't even remotely close to being a GA, and not surprisingly, it failed an hour later. Today, a very similar IP, 199.125.109.76, replaced the failed notice with another nomination. I've since reverted that edit because it seems like vandalism. One editor noted that anon IPs aren't even be allowed to nominate articles for GA; I can't find any proof of that, but it seems like it should be true. So should I just warn the IP to stop attempting to nominate the page, or does further action need to be taken here? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Warn the IPs and if it continues, report at AIV. I'm not sure what the rules are in re IPs and GA nominations, so I can't say anything about the appropriateness of the initial nom (but the second one is clearly someone trying to kid us). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not myself sure that an IP can't nominate an article. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines explicitly says "Articles can be nominated by anyone...". Regarding the latter point, I would suggest that the Ip request a peer review by adding the Template:PR, and hopefully that will resolve the situation. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominating an article is one thing, getting it approved is another - and by so nominating, it could end up with the article being substantially improved. Where's the harm in that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem there is that it was nominated 3 days ago already, turned down, and was then nominated again. I guess there wasn't any real change since the last nomination. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. The anon IP gave an explanation for their actions on Talk:E-mail spam/GA1, if that helps. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Grant.Alpaugh

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week

Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of blocks for edit warring [63], most recently on the 14th. Since being unblocked he has continued edit warring across multiple articles, undoing others edits with no consideration for what else might have been added, simply because he does not like them, despite consensus on the talk page in favor of the other edits. He has made three four reverts in the last three hours at 2009 Major League Soccer season ([64], [65], [66] [67]). He also went back to 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, the article resulting in the block, and reverted [68], [69] the exact same edits he was warring on the at the MLS article, and at that article before blocked. With this revert, he removed several other constructive edits as well, with no consideration for what they were, simply because I made them. Consensus on the talk page was to use a template so that that bit of information (in this case league standings) could be used on the league season article, as well as the few club season articles that there are. His edit warring results simply from the fact that he doesn't like the templates. Given his past history, I feel Grant is more than eligible for another (extensive) edit warring block, or atleast a very stern warring from an admin that his behavior and ownership is unacceptable. Grsz¹¹ 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the reversion of other edits, I have since corrected my mistake. I have left the 2009 Major League Soccer season article at the wrong version, and attempted to start discussion. A punitive block would be counter productive to that end, and I ask that the discussion I have attempted to start be allowed to continue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What discussion, and what have you let stay? Grsz¹¹ 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's quite enough. I have notified Grant.Alpaugh that he is on revert parole. If he continues to revert articles, he may be blocked. In the past four hours he has committed multiple reverts (2 or 3) on at least 3 different articles. He must use the discussion pages, and seek the consent of others before continueing to edit in this manner. That is quite enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like my constructive edits back in the articles, but should I refrain from doing so per 3RR? Grsz¹¹ 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to talk and do it in a few days if nobody objects. The article will not explode if it goes without update for 48 hours, as I've begged Grant to understand in the past. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been at talk, where only Grant disagreed. I also made other constructive edits unrelated to the dicussion that Grant blindly reverted, presumedly because he didn't feel like sorting them out. Grsz¹¹ 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that didn't last long, did it? [70]Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd second what Chris Cunningham has said, Grsz, you are dangerously close to 3RR yourself here, and the situation could use some calmer heads. Seek consensus on the talk pages, let it rest for a day or two. Ask for some outside comments or a WP:3O. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm done now. Two at each article. Grsz¹¹ 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And, he just past the fourth revert of the soccer article. Given a 1 week vacation for that effort. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good block, this editor is a chronic edit warier. Tiptoety ^talk 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

201.209.224.71

Resolved

 – A month's holiday for him- and us, unless he commits to WP:RS Rodhullandemu 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked twice for persistent insertion of bad charts into Katy Perry articles. He made a few good edits since his block expired, but has started again with false data. It's obviously intentional, as he repeated it after receiving a warning from Kiac. Note that neither the licensed Italian chart archive nor the most commonly used bad chart for Italy show that this song has charted at all in Italy, so it's hard to believe that this edit has any good-faith foundation. I think it's time for a month-long block.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article

After proper nomination and discussion, an article created by VonFeigenblatt on the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (first entitled “Journal of Alternative Pespectives [sic] in the Social Sciences”, then moved to “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences”) was deleted on 1 November 2008.

It was unilaterally re-created as “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” by VonFeigenblatt on 15 November. It was speedily deleted and VonFeigenblatt was warned against such unilateral re-creation and told how to have a deletion reviewed.

It was again re-created as “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” by VonFeigenblatt on 15 April 2009. It was speedily deleted (for copyright violation).

Can we please have “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” and “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” salted? —SlamDiego_←T 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Salting is in order. A block for User:VonFeigenblatt may be in order as well for not following the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 00:09

Please be sure to notify the user of this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that he should be notified, then by all means notify him. He was notified of the AfD discussion, and didn't choose to participate. His talk page is filled with comments from various users contacting him about the problems with this article; he hasn't responded to them. Even with the pages salted, he can still start a discussion at Deletion Review, if he believes that he can make a case for over-turning the deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the salting, if he's bright enough to run a journal, he's bright enough to understand why we keep deleting it and should engage in discussion before trying to recreate it yet again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've salted both for 2 weeks, allowing the user time to create a deletion review or other advice. If they're recreated after that without further discussion then a block may be in order. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was doing very similar at the same time -- I have restored your protection levels. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As the admin that originally closed the AfD, I agree with the above that all of these various names should be salted. Also, as the account VonFeigenblatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been warned [71], [72], quite clearly, about this, admin action with regard to the user would also be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use {{subst:ani}} to do so). It is incumbent on the person placing the grievance here to notify the user in question, it is not the responsibility of disinterested bystanders. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am plainly not in agreement with the notion that I should have bothered to notify him, nor with the notion that, if you felt that he should be notified, you should not yourself have notified him. I do not find bald reïteration of your claim persuasive. —SlamDiego_←T 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a surprise move here...

Resolved

 – Notice given - further discussion at Talk:Macedonia please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (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 just noticed that Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia and the previous content of the page, which was basically a longer dab, seems to have disappeared. The person who did the move, User:ChrisO, cites policy as being the basis for the move, as per the Talk:Macedonia page. I don't know that anyone was given any prior notice of his intention to move the page, however. Just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion on the Boards regarding the proper name, mostly about Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (or similar?) being preferred by no-one except Greek Nationalists. I don't know the outcome of the discussion, but the move may have been the result of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous content of the page is now at Macedonia (disambiguation). The naming now follows the standard pattern used for every other country, and is specifically based on Luxembourg (with Luxembourg (disambiguation) and Azerbaijan (with Azerbaijan (disambiguation). In answer to the (I suppose implicit) question here, this is a unilateral administrative action but one that is based firmly on policy. As the rationale on the talk page explains, all attempts at consensus-forming over the past seven years have failed due to a strongly nationalist Greek block of editors - policy and standard practice has simply been ignored. This is an unashamedly bold attempt to break a seven-year deadlock and enforce a form of naming that is standard for every other country article. Some of our Greek editors will doubtless object but cutting Gordian Knots is, after all, a Macedonian tradition. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I very definitely agree with the "Bold" part. I was in fact a regular part of the discussion on the Talk:Greece page for some time now, but the discussion there was about whether "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was the preferable name to use in that article. I do not remember there having ever been any discussion of even using in that article, let alone rename the central article itself, to the simpler name "Macedonia". In fact, I seem to remember that in the discussion there was virtually unanimous agreement that the article on the country would stay at Republic of Macedonia. I wonder whether such a destabilization of what was an at least reluctantly acceptable situation by both sides of the discussion, particularly without any sort of prior approval or agreement that I can see, is really the wisest move here. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the likes of Republic of Ireland who self identify as Ireland.? It may have a slightly different argument but if as you say it's standard practice to use the self identifying name then it's not standard practice across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think The Republic of Ireland is a very common name in English (especially in Britain), and I dont know about the hit counts, but from what's been shown on the talk page, ROM for Macedonia was a clear, clear primary topic, but some, what was it 10x hits than Macedonia (Greece) and 5 times the hits of the second choice chandler ··· 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been *seven years* of discussion. The article was the subject of edit wars and disputes within days of its creation way back in 2002. There is in fact no stability on this issue; nationalist vandalism relating to the naming issue is continuous and endemic across Wikipedia, as this abuse filter demonstrates. When President of the Republic of Macedonia was on the "In the news" section of the Main Page last week, it was twice vandalised by someone editing from the Greek Parliament. Leave aside the procedural niceties: I've set out the policy rationale on Talk:Macedonia. The issue at hand is whether this move is validated by policy. I'd say it's clear-cut. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was time for a third option. If there was a stalemate between the advocates of the different "Republic" titles then the new one should suffice until there is an agreement - this may be a stimulus, given that if neither side like the most recent rename then there is at least one thing they agree on, toward arriving at a consensus. In that light, I suggest that there is no undoing of the move until such a consensus is arrived at? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what specific part of the policy was used to make the change. Jack forbes (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all outlined on Talk:Macedonia chandler ··· 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the same logic, People's Republic of China should take the China (3fold hits, incoming links, common usages etc). I smell more dramas coming from the too bold move.--Caspian blue 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC vs Taiwan is a territorial dispute - two states disputing ownership of the same territory. So is Ireland, to an historical extent, vis-a-vis Northern Ireland. Neither side disputes the other's right over the name of its part of the territory - the dispute is over who governs that territory. Neither Greece nor Macedonia disputes any territorial matters; it's purely an issue of one side (Greece) claiming exclusive rights to the name, which isn't a situation replicated in either China or Ireland. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @ChrisO, no, not just territorial dispute, but the ownership of the name "China" and its long "history" too. We already had a move suggestion/discussion last year (heated one). If the move was carried by a Macedonian, I wonder how good the user would get? Not too sweet one.--Caspian blue 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For UN member states, the United Nations List of Member States does probably indicate the prevailing consensus. --Cs32en (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case: the UN uses a different terminology from two thirds of its member states, which use "Macedonia" instead. The situation is that the state self-identifies as Macedonia but participates in certain international organisations under a provisional reference (not a name!) due to Greek objections. But as I've noted on Talk:Macedonia, that's really a side issue, since Wikipedia's approach isn't determined by state policies towards an issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea versus Republic of Korea may also be a relevant comparison here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why it was given the sole name "Macedonia". Isn't the usual convention for that to only happen when the target is what most people are looking for? I would suggest the page be at "Macedonia (country)" as we have done with articles such as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical.--Caspian blue 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at the Article talkpage I'm going to mark this resolved per ANI, since there is no further admin action required. Anyone need a neutral admin to act upon consensus please let me know, otherwise; best wishes for an amicable solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The timing on this was very bad indeed, as an arbitration request over the name of the country in the Greece article was going to be initiated next week, after the conclusion of the Orthodox Easter holiday. This really borders on reckless, Chris; you are aware of the planned arbitration request, and this move smacks of trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute, which reflects badly on you and (by extension) those who have supported you over a series of attacks on the content guideline you authored which covers this debate. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can we centralise discussion at Talk:Macedonia? Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In theory, yes. In practice, any attempt at discussion degrades into attacks on the motives of other users, and it's not possible to discuss on the merits. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Blocking of Yamanam

Resolved

 – User granted IP block exempt right.

I'm planning on unblocking User:Yamanam, but thought I would come here first to make sure nobody has a problem with that. It seems that he was blocked because his IP address is an abusive open proxy (not too knowledgeable on this subject matter), but I've worked with Yamanam in the past and he has never vandalized the site or disrupted Wikipedia articles by inserting spam or anything of the sort. There have been instances where he's made POV edits, but these have been rare and he's been civil and cooperative when confronted. User:Falastine fee Qalby points to this source which explains why it appears that Yamanam, who is based in Jordan, has an IP address from the UAE. Please trust me, this block is certainly a mistake. Are there any objections to this user being unblocked? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are planning on unblocking the ip? Why not grant him IP block exemption? I think this kind of situation is what it is for isn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject area concerning IPs. Could you tell me what I would have to do to grant him IP block exemption because the user himself should not be punished for something he has no control over. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained Special:UserRights to them on their talk page. Knight of the Wind 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have granted him the IP block exemption. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection of today's featured article

Today's featured article niobium is currently protected despite a relatively low level of vandalism. Isn't it consensus not to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.226.55 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The protection just expired.--BirgitteSB 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops the move protection just expired 3 more hours on the edit protection, but it is now off the main page. I will unprotect, since it is no longer any kind of target.--BirgitteSB 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IP causing trouble

Resolved

 – IP seems to be taking the hint, will re report if it resurfaces — R² 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP continually inserts this lengthy rant to the Phil Spector talk page. It has been removed numerous times by myself and another editor because it breaches numerous policies, including WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:AGF come into play. Edit has been warned numerous times but ain't listening. Instead, he issued a minor personal attack on my talk page. — R² 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AIV. Generally, it's best to report them there instead of taking it here. Knight of the Wind 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Was blocked, but admin reverted own block. IP just made an edit that indicates he will stop inserting the text. Not sure if it's resolved, but hopefully. — R² 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just re-report if it continues. Knight of the Wind 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. — R² 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-10 nee User:I-15 nee User:I-210

• I-10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I-15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I-210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and block-evasion including CU-confirmed puppetry (see here and here). Makes some good edits but at a cost of lots of cleanup and abusive/bad-faith/mistakes we have to clean up (and which he does not accept as problematic). Has lately engaged in username-hopping, maybe to avoid scrutiny--dunno as he has refused to discuss. Numerous attempts at discussion by several involved and uninvolved editors and admins has failed, as he blanks all talk-page warnings (okay) but usually his only response is to treat any suggestion or complaint as an incivil attack on him, while continuing the problematic behavior. Lately filed WP:ANI against one of his perceived attackers. When that didn't seem to be going his way, he gave up and claimed (as often) that the system is broken rather than that he might not be correct. Has now said he will retire. However, said he will return to edit his talk-page. His edits lately there are merely to attack myself and others with whom he's had disagreements while specifically stating that we are not to respond there or we will be blocked/etc.. Seems like long-term block with no-edit-talkpage is in order...WP is not a soapbox, especially if he's not planning to edit articles. I'd tell him about this discussion here about him, but he told me not to. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User apparently retired. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...again. He retired earlier that day also but plans possible future return (he will vanish until he returns?) and maybe continue talk-page edits even while retired. I was happy to let him just go away and I don't care if he wants the last civil word, but he can't seem to do either of those. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)I've seen this happen before, some users put up the retired tag just to get away from any sanctions that might be imposed by the community. As far as I've seen, his behavior before that retired tag is unacceptable, so here is a proposal:

Proposal

My proposal, which has two reasons which can be used while being separate of each other, also have the same end result, that this account be indef blocked. Aren't retired accounts usually indef blocked to prevent possible compromise? If not that, this user has shown he doesn't care about our civility and no personal attack policies, and if he is indeed just using this retired tag as a way to escape any sanction, this block will prevent any further possible disruption if he is indeed just using it as a way to get out of trouble, so to speak. All that aside, if not an indef block, I honestly don't know what, but he does need to be warned, that if he does come back, and continue the same behavior, the time he was away will not matter, and he would be treated the same as if he was still here. Maybe a 72 hour block, less or more, that depends on what you, the community, has to say.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been busy since his supposed retirement (confirmed via Checkuser-I). I'm not familiar with this user, but anyone with this type of troublesome sock activity needs to be indefinitely blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishkid; the socking merits blocking. No, retired users are not generally indeffed and, quite honestly, Wikipedia retirement frequently isn't. Now, in invoking one's Right to vanish, one may request an indef, but that's a different matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Only users in good standing can RTV. I would think socking would qualify as loss of good standing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this also, due to the user's history. I don't see any objections.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the account be globally locked / blocked? This has happened in the past to the same user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. What a waste of good usernames. :-( Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear

Who supports the indefinite blocking of this user per the fact that this user is socking after he was apparently retired, and that it looks like he is using this retired template to evade any sanctions regarding his edits.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Per as stated above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Blocked indef, per above. Cirt (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, and also per my nom for incorrigible incivility and disruption. DMacks (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Words cannot describe how much hardship this editor has caused at WP:USRD (along with other users). --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support More trouble than value.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Which leads to the next question

[73]

This user does a lot of block evasion using changing IPs in the 75.47.x.x range. I've done range blocks before on the entire range, but we can't just block the range indefinitely. Currently I have blocked that range for 72 hours. What is the protocol in this situation? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the vast history of socking in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. Since this user is not quite annoying enough to justify anon-blocking a range as large as /16 for very long, we could just get ready for a lot of revert, block, ignore. If someone has the patience to track the good-faith anons working in 75.47.* maybe we can find subranges that could be blocked for a month or more that wouldn't cause too much inconvenience. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty undeleting a page :: software errors

• I tried to obey a request to move page Brian Lenihan, Jnr to Brian Lenihan, Jr.. The move attempt broke down in system errors, with the result that Brian Lenihan, Jnr was moved to Brian Lenihan, Jr. and then deleted by the first stage of an unwanted repeat of the move. I then tried to undelete Brian Lenihan, Jr., but every attempt timed out with a system error "A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: / (SQL query hidden) / from within function "Article::insertOn". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.6.22)".". So, please, someone, undelete Brian Lenihan, Jr. when this system error has been cleared up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. Inserting this message took the system about half a minute, which is far longer than normal with a message this short. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• The somewhere-around-tenth attempt to undelete page Brian Lenihan, Jr. succeeded. But this message better stand, as a bug report. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• The system is still very slow inserting these short messages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  You may want WP:VPT if you're still having issues. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Need neutral(er) admin to doublecheck my block

Last week or a couple weeks ago, I was alerted to accusations of harassment (including sexual harassment) by User:MelicansMatkin, who was in the midst of a content dispute with LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs). (The diffs he had the most concern with are [74] and [75]). I immediately went to LifeStroke's TP and, in no uncertain terms warned him against any further accusations.

Tonight, I came on to see that LifeStroke was at WP:AN3 for edit-warring, and I read the edit summary of his first revert. As far as I am concerned, calling someone a terrorist is in essence an accusation of sedition, and coupled with the fact that he's had four prior 3RR blocks according to his block log, I blocked him indefinitely.

Since I may be construed as involved given that I issued a warning to him for the MelicansMatkin incident, could I have a neutraler administrator review and, if necessary, reduce or eliminate the block? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block. We do not negotiate with idiots who call other editors terrorists (especially when they do that twice). And this wasn't exactly what I'd call a reasonable response to your warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support sanction; indefinite is appropriate, as it expires upon blockee recognising and altering the problematic behaviour (and doesn't if they don't). LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. I agree with the other two here. This was entirely appropriate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 4 blocks for edit-warring and still continuing in such a way? That's where all patience is exhausted. I support clemency for users who make mistakes in the heat of the moment and who are indicating that they are willing to learn from such behavior but if someone who is not willing to improve their behavior the slightest will have to face such reaction. I do not think you were involved in any way because both the 3RR warning and the block are administrative kind of actions that do not take any stance in the disputed content. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. I see several 3RR warnings removed by LS immediately prior to the block; while removing warnings is allowed per policy it's taken that the comments have been read (and will be abided by). This user apparently has no intention of ceasing edit-warring and escalating to ridiculous edit summaries like those is akin to walking around with a big sign on saying "Block me NOW". I agree with SoWhy regarding "involvement" here as well. If that is to be construed as involvement any AIV-watching admin who placed a warning on a vandal's talkpage then blocked them later could be construed as being "involved", which is obvious nonsense. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block, essentially per LessHeard vanU. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block as it stands, given editor's prior and continuing history. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• FYI: LifeStroke420 is requesting an unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• The first request was rejected, but the editor is now asking for a block again. A bit more politely, admittedly. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment He's apologizing now. Apologies aren't really needed, but a promise to stop the problematic behavior is. Maybe he can be reasoned with. How about discussing possible unblock terms with him? Durova^Charge! 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Any idea what kind of terms would be appropriate in this sort of situation? Most of the rest of you have a lot more experience with this sort of thing than I do. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that it is explained that indefinite does not equal permanent, and that an undertaking not to continue in future to "joke" after being warned might be sufficient to have the indefinite block lifted. Underlining and italicising (seperately or together) may get the message through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a user who's had some unfortunate history with LifeStroke420 in the past (as noted by Jéské above), I would like to put in my two cents on this if I may, though I am not an administrator. I would like to see LifeStroke given one last chance, though I think he needs to fully comprehend the seriousness of his actions. Four previous blocks, accusations of harassment and sexual harassment, and calling other editors terrorists isn't exactly conducive to a good editing relationship with others. Given what I've seen of his edits I do not think he is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia; I'd consider it more to be a case where he does not fully understand the policy of disussion and consensus, and gets frustrated when people continually revert his edits. In other words I don't think he's trying to piss everyone off, he just doesn't understand why the changes are being made. I'm certain he's here in good faith, he just doesn't like it when people disagree with him, hence he gets carried away too far in what he says to retaliate (hence his comments on my talk page, Jéské Couriano's talk page, and the edit summaries). Perhaps if the importance of the policies and the need to treat other editors with the same respect he deserves are stressed, he can edit with minimal drama. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• You have my regard for being willing to speak out for someone who has insulted you. I'm getting the impression so far that maybe trying to get him in WP:ADOPT for mentorship would be a good idea? John Carter (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• (E.C.) I've had several (sometimes nasty) conflicts with editors in the past; in many of those occassions we resolved our differences after the fact and subsequently had a fairly good editing relationship afterwards. I think it wouldn't hurt to give LifeStroke that chance, despite his longevity on here. Being adopted may well be the best thing to do in my view, as it will allow him to have policies properly explained and give him the opportunity to learn how discussion should be carried out. I think he really wants to edit Wikipedia but he just doesn't know how, and solving that means that there will be one more good editor on here who could well use their own experience on this today to mentor somebody tomorrow so that a similar situation may be avoided. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest mentorship as a last resort... is any admin willing to take LifeStroke420 under their wing as such? But this isn't the first-time LifeStroke420 has edit-warred, check his block log. A look at his talkpage archive shows 3RR blocks as well as numerous edit-warring. I don't think he should be unblocked seeing as he was clearly given a final chance beforehand, which he failed to take. Look at his last 500 contributions... not many are constructive. D.M.N. (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: LifeStroke has stated he would like to be enrolled in Adopt or Mentor if he is given the chance. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Lifestroke has seemed to agree on his talk page to enrolling in either Adoption or Mentorship. Do we have any potential takers? I might be willing to do a little there, but I'm not familiar with the editor's tastes or interests and am probably not the best person for it in any event. But I could probably be talked into helping as part of a group of adopters or mentors for the editor. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that given I have some history with LifeStroke, I can try and help him a bit. I've never Adopted a user before and I'm not sure how well he will respond to me given our history, but I can try to point him in the right direction and help him with anything he wants or needs clarification on or understanding of. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take on a "co-sponsor/mentor/adopter" program? I'm often kind of tied up around here, and may not be able to do as much as I would like, but I would be willing to help as requested and if there aren't really pressing concerns elsewhere. OK, that doesn't happen that often, admittedly, but I do tend to want to finish what I start, and sometimes that can take rather a long time. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. My own time may be a little limited because of my exams (just one left!), but that won't be an issue come next week. I'll do what I can to co-mentor him. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message with the blocking admin regarding this matter. Waiting for a response. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the earlier question, John, looks like you're handling this fine. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So long as he doesn't start edit-warring again or making any more baseless accusations, I have no issue. However, the first edit-war or accusation will be the gravestone. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable, and I agree wholeheartedly. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sensible solution. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have offered him adoption/co-adoption at the suggestion of User:Mattisse. It's an interesting one, but 'my' User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 has been doing very well. Just catching up with this discussion, not sure of the state of play. Oh I see John has said he's up for it too. So Lifey has plenty of people to help them.:) Sticky Parkin 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

COI user exhibiting ownership of article

I thought I'd bring this here instead of making redundant reports at UAA, AIV, and AN3.

• ERICOLEGAL (talk · contribs)
• CADWELD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User ERICOLEGAL has been exhibiting WP:OWNership of the article CADWELD by insisting on reverting it to his/her advertising tone and inserting the registered trademark symbol in violation of MOS. ZooFari (talk · contribs) has advised about MOS ([76]) but he/she still insists the symbol should be incorporated. Username and edits suggest user is a representative of the company acting in an official capacity, violating username policy as a promotional username. I tried reasoning with user on talk page before bringing it here ([77]) but he still insists on reverting to his version ([78], [79]). KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and left a note that they may be unblocked if they read and abide by NPOV, OWN, AD, and COI. Ball's in their court. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the user is asking for the block to be reviewed. Anyone want to go over that?--Iner22 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Excerpt from message I left on Jeske Couriano (Jeremy's) talk page: "I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself." KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely a violation- username should stay blocked as it's clearly a role account. Especially with the "LEGAL" suffix, the presence of which could certainly have a chilling effect on other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes. Whether the editor should be given a second chance on a new, non-role account is open to debate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: FisherQueen (talk · contribs) posted a query on the user talk page below the unblock notice. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Request help

The article Republic of Macedonia was recently moved, without any prior notification to anyone, by one admin to Macedonia. There had, to the best of my knowledge, been no agreement by anyone in recent discussion to that name for the article. That admin also protected the page from being moved at the time he moved it. I believe that this is a serious violation of ethical conduct. I, however, as someone who has been involved in the discussion regarding the name of the country, feel that I am not in a poition to remove the move block myself. I would however request that any interested admin might look over the discussion and see that there had been very little, if any, objection to the article being at Republic of Macedonia for some years. There is a suspicion that this action was brought about at the time it was because all parties involved agreed to go to Arbitration after the Orthodox Easter this coming week, and that the person moving the article wished to present a fait accompli to the ArbCom. I believe that this action is a serious violation of protocol, ethics, and possibly guidelines and policy, and see that the argument it has started seems to do no good. I therefore humbly request that some other admin take the action which I, with what some might call an apparent COI on the matter, cannot. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The move protection is to prevent edit warring. Instead of inciting admins to edit-war which will only result in more drama and frustration, discuss this on the talk page. I see no consensus for either moving or keeping it as is at the moment on the talk page, so the best course of action is to wait for the drama-fest that is WP:RFAR. Knight of the Wind 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone contemplating action on this should first read the policy rationale for this move. I've made a WP:BOLD change to tackle a very long-running issue. An arbitration case, which is scheduled to be filed on April 22nd by common agreement among the editors involved, will provide a forum for the policy rationale to be discussed in detail. The Arbitration Committee will be in a position to pass judgment on the policy issues. If the ArbCom determines that the policy rationale is faulty, I'm quite happy to perform a move revert myself to restore the original name of the article. As KotW suggests, the worst possible thing now would be for someone to jump in and start edit-warring and potentially wheel-warring. Let the Arbcom sort it out; leaving the article name as it is for a little time will not be the end of the world. The naming is, after all, no different to how we approach other countries (compare Luxembourg or Azerbaijan). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, did you act under your admin capacity or not? Please answer this simple question. --Avg (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...like Ireland (Republic of Ireland), Taiwan (Republic of China), China (People's Republic of China (PRC))? How about the Vatican (Vatican City)? Or even England for that matter... everybody calls the UK England, yet we maintain that this is wrong... You chose to even change this country's constitutional name which is "Republic of Macedonia", was used as such and only a handful of extremists dared dispute it in Wikipedia for years!!! Nationalist Greeks pushed for the country to be solely called FYROM. Did they have their way? Of course not! The country was called by its constitutional name and there was NO problem. So, WHERE was the problem? WHY did you have to stir nationalism on both sides? Did you feel that referring to RoM with its constitutional name was a problem? Was there any organized discussion, even by the editors of this country, demanding its naming to be (solely) Macedonia, a name which carries a lot of disambiguation and a huge heritage? Whatever your made up excuses, you acted with a plan, clearly negating any arguments about "good faith", which is the pillar of Wikipedia. You present guidelines as rules, nay, as laws, and you totally provoke a large number of editors and administrators with your uncalled for actions. Finally, you proceeded with your plan, while you KNEW that the ArbCom would anyways discuss the matter. Administrators have to be respected and trusted. With your actions, you totally lost both the respect and the trust not only of the "nationalists", but also of those who disapprove of your dictatorial policies. GK1973 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about putting this issue on hold for a while? The new president of Macedonia has pledged to negotiate a settlement with Greece on this issue.[80] So a political resolution may be in sight. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that makes no difference to us. Wikipedia:Naming conventions requires us to use the common name, not the formal name, for a thing, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) explicitly prioritises the use of "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more." When Yugoslavia changed its name from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it didn't change the common name - people just continued using "Yugoslavia". Likewise with Macedonia in its various name changes over the years. The established common name for the country in English-language reference works and media is "Macedonia" and this is certain to continue, except in the extremely unlikely case that the country decides to discontinue the use of the term "Macedonia" altogether (which won't happen). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this is now the subject of an arbitration request at WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Arbitrators have weighed in so far at WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute, but it looks like this case will be accepted to be heard before the Arbitration Committee. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre actions by new editors

Resolved

 – Blocked, and extended the block for the original account

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T

Bizarre actions I've come across today include this warning (or threat?) about Hilary T (talk · contribs) from brand new user TroubleTroll (talk · contribs). Shortly after my indef block of this user, I receive this unusual comment from another new user, MyDog22 (talk · contribs), who has also mentioned Hilary T's threat. It's interesting that these threats echo Hilary T herself, who states on her userpage that she is now "motivated by hate". And (un)coincidentally, MyDog22 was created only a few hours after Hilary T's recent 48 (then increased to 55) hour block. Anyone have any thoughts? Checkuser in order? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:DUCK. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quack quack block. Black Kite 12:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quack quack Support block, quack. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Who let all these ducks in here? {grabs duck-shooing broom} -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hilary T was clearly a sock of some banned user from the get go. Who, i have no idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444 ‎categorising by ethnicity

After a final final warning not to categorise biographical articles according to their subject's ethnicity unless it is relevant, per WP:OC#CATGRS, User:Stevvvv4444 has just made this edit. I would appreciate the view of an administrator, and for action to be taken if deemed necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours, as previously discussed. --John (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) - Though not necessarily opposed, I question the block as I noted on John's page. It looks like a content dispute, a good faith disagreement and BRD / consensus issue regarding Wikipedia:Overcategorization guideline, not a behavior matter. Further, the warnings are not solid. Most Wikipedians agree in general terms with the guideline, by which some have successfully lobbied to remove and restrict various "hyphenated" nationality/ethnicity/religion categories over the often vociferous objections of others who think those categories matter. The guideline cites "Jewish mathematicians", for example, which itself was a rather controversial category deletion. The results have not been consistent, and there are clearly other cases where ethnicity, nationality, and birthplace are considered a valid category, and biographically relevant for text in the article and/or a category link. Adding such a category to a specific BLP subject's page is a mix of BLP / sourcing concerns, verifiability, relevance, and consensus at various levels - the article in question, the category in question, etc. Stevvvv4444, by his edit history, is clearly interested in matters of nationality, which is certainly a valid area of interest. For example, their latest work was improving the Barbadian British article. The editor seems to make about eight edits per day on a variety of subjects and add one category (all extant categories, nothing made up, which means that for some articles at least the categories are valid). Of the warnings, one from two different editors, is a month old and seems overreaching and incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to generally oppose nationality categories and who has disagreed repeatedly with Stevvvv444 elsewhere, gave the first warning which john (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an uninvolved administrator, backed up with a warning: "Please do not restore [the categories] or perform any further edits of this sort. As you have already been advised, categorizing people in this way breaches our policies." However, this is not against policy, but rather a case-by-case content question based on guidelines and consensus as described. To give a blanket warning to avoid nationality categories, in an area where consensus is mixed, smells like a topic ban. A few days ago John again warned[81] he would block Stevvvv444 if he does it again. Yet that was over an edit on March 10[82] that categories Sacha Baron Cohen among other things as a British person of Israeli descent. That is a reasonable thing to do, because both his Britishness and his Israeli heritage, and the interplay between the two, are sourced in the article as a central issue in his work and public persona. Whether it goes beyond reasonable to being correct is a content matter, not a behavior question. It does not seem fair to say Stevvv444 is engaged in a pattern of disruption that requires blocking to stop. He may have gotten the message, even if the threat was iffy. He has added a single category since the warning a week ago,[83] and this time he attempts to demonstrate that the matter is sourced, albeit he does so in the edit summary. To be fair the substance of the edit looks like a piece of non-notable ancestry cruft trivia, but again, that is a relevancy question, not a behavior problem. Nothing about the editor's conduct seems to go beyond what is routinely manageable in the BRD / consensus process, as a content matter, and simply working with the editor. Plus, as a practical matter, at the editor's edit rate the block looks putative, not preventive. With one nationality category added to the project per week, a one day block doesn't really prevent anything. Content disputes can always point to policies and guidelines, and anyone can argue that their content position is right while another violates policy. But the good faith interpretation and application of those guidelines to specific content questions is not a behavioral matter suitable for administrative action. If that editor goes beyond WP:BRD to the point of edit warring, incivility, pointiness, socking, or repeated, egregious nonconsensus edits, then maybe a content dispute becomes a behavior problem. I note that the editor has been accused (and blocked, then unblocked) for sockpuppetry in the past, was operating without logging in, and has edited some controversial articles and categories. So I wonder if those concerns might be somehow beyond the hair trigger here. I don't mean to obstruct or cry foul here, just questioning. Perhaps it would help, John, if you could explain your rationale for blocking and why you think Stevvvv4444 crossed the line there, or maybe if another admin could review and endorse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to comment on the suitability of a block because I don't know enough about blocking policy. However, the policy on categorisation by ethnicity seems clear to me: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". There was no indication that Cole's American ancestors have had any bearing on his career. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See incident archives 522 and 529 for the previous discussions on this. I did what I said here I would do and what I told the user in question I would do. These ethnic categories should only be used where the subject's ethnicity is relevant to their notability, as in the case of for example Barack Obama. As I said here previously the user's previous admission of editing to add ethnic cats while not logged in was a matter of AGF, but at the end of the day WP:BLP is an over-riding concern. I would of course be happy to rescind the block if the user says he will not do it again, or if there is a consensus here that it was a bad block as Wikidemon seems to think. --John (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Those two incidents are in my discussion, above. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#User:Stevvvv4444 (March 16) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#User:Stevvvv4444 (April 10) are both brief two way conversations regarding whereby Cordless Larry reports single, sourced edit he/she disagrees with and you report back that you've given the warnings I describe above telling Stevvvv444 not to do it again. Cordless Larry's first report refers back to a talk page discussion a month earlier[84] that is not a warning. Where is the BLP vio here? Again, this looks like a content matter. It is based on an editing guideline subject to considerable back and forth, not a policy or behavior issue. An administrative warning over arguable, sourced content, without more, is not right, and a block based on such a warning is unsupported. I've seen a lot of disruption here on the project, (see my latest BLP matter)[85] and unless this is a sock, the editor seems to be trying in good faith to make proper edits. I can sympathize with the need to show you mean it when you give a warning. But the disruption level from a once-a-week rejected proposal to add nationality categories, without edit warring, is about 0.1 on a scale of one to ten. I know you are neutral and uninvolved in the content matters, but backing up Stevvvv4444's and Cosdless Larry's simple BRD editing with a block against one of them seems like a way to (inadvertently) support one content position over another through administrative tools. Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My complaint had nothing to do with whether the edit was sourced but rather whether it was relevant. I understand that the guideline is not policy per se, but it is Wikipedia policy to go by consensus and Stevvvv444's edits go against this, despite it being pointed out to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block by John (talk · contribs). If user states on talk page that he understands the issue here and will engage in talk page discussion and dispute resolution, I'd also support reducing the block if those statements are made prior to the block's expiration. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The block is nearly over and if people support it, no big deal - it just looks more and more like a content thing to me. It was sourced, and one could perhaps put together a real piece of content, something like: Cole was reportedly "chuffed" to learn from Mariah Carrey that the two are related, via common ancestry in the American South[86] which would make the category plausible, if not necessarily appropriate. This is all pop cruft, but we cover what the sources say and the press seems to love generating stories about Ashley Cole's personal life.[87] Anyway, what is the expectation going forward? Is the editor on some kind of parole regarding adding nationality categories to bio articles? That's not a bad solution, but it might help if someone communicates their expectations clearly to the editor so they know where the line is that they're not supposed to step over. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Long time tendentious editor tries to remove the RFC about him

Can few admins look into this? [88] [89]. Noone seems to be watching Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Certification issue was explained here [90] [91] Also note that I used the 2nd template [92] for RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the process is now ongoing, with multiple users commenting in the RfC - is there still an issue to resolve here at this point in time with regards to the above? Cirt (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you undo those edits [93] [94] I'm not sure if I should do it myself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the delay on my part -- Phoenix has issued an RFC/U on me, and he and tthe editor who asisted him sent out at least 14 notices -- all to people whom he knew had run-ins with me in the past. Not a single one has posted a white of "dispute resolution" with me at the RFC/U, and when no admin certified that this had occurred, he "self-certified" the RFC. I could not find any such "self-ceification" in the past, and mistakenly thought it was not proper for the propose of the RFC to so self-certify. Now, of cource, this is the fourth noticeboar action he has taken, and I would suggest that this is not necessarily an good fait set of acts on his part. Thans! (now back to bed). Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I only contacted 3 editors to see if they would sign the RFC. I see that Collect is trying to WP:Game as usual. We had extensive discussions with him on Talk:Rick Warren, an RFC and a mediation. To claim that we havent gone thru "dispute resolution" is just mind blowing. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What Phoenix gives as a section name is false -- had I tried to delete any page why would I post it? And pointing out that a page was "self-certified" as "certified" is not an attempt tp remove" anything. I might suggest what Phoenix is trying to do here is what he has repeatedly done on other noticeboars - to attack me and not to ever actualy resolve anything. The RfM is ongoing, and his trying to insert it here is likely improper. I would, moreover, ask that the "certifications" be reviewed to see if each and every "certifier" has provided personal evidence of their engaging in dispute resolutuon with me as required by the RfC/U requirements, to examine the 14 or more who were contacted ny Phoenix or Mattnad and see if anyone was notified who they did not see as having run-ins with me, and to see the ongoing editor-bashing going on in th talk page for the RfC/U wrt a mediator (the on-page mediation was boosted up to the RfM) and that mediator for backing my response is nw called biassed in my favor (even though I disagree with him n several subjects). Many thanks! Collect (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I "self-certified" because I went to edit history of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and couldnt see any recent admins there. User:Ncmvocalist undid your edits tho I'm not sure if they are an admin. [95]. Btw mediator you are talking about is the cabal mediator, not official one. We have gone to 2 mediations, more proof of us trying to resolve our disputes. Please stop WP:GAME Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• This bickering is becoming ridiculous. I've fixed how it appears on the actual RfC page which resolves the first issue. There are 3 users who certified the basis of the dispute; they have 48 hours to each demonstrate how they tried and failed to resolve the dispute - if they cannot provide such evidence in the newly assigned section, then the RfC should be promptly deleted by an administrator in line with our RfC norms. RfC rules on Wikipedia still apply, irrespective of which form was chosen. If they can provide such evidence, then there are no issues with the filing of this RfC - and the cause of concern will be looked into by the community. As a caveat, if the filing of the RfC is valid and there is tendentious editing, it will usually result in sanctions against the tendentious editor. I'm not an admin, but really, that has nothing to do with anything - except the deletion of the RfC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Premature deletions

At WP:TFD we have had a debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives that has about 10 deletes and about 5 keeps. The thoughts behind the votes propose all sorts of reformatting of the template. However, William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to determine that an outright deletion is the TFD consensus. He has also gone on to replace the template with one of his own choosing. It seems inappropriate for a discussant at a TFD to take such actions before the debate closes. The debate ma be closed in agreement with his actions and it may not, but I think he should refrain from his actions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes? MuZemike 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like it has been closed. Are you saying he changed articles to not use the template? Which articles? – Quadell ^(talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

His contribs for the past two days show that he replaced the template for 20 articles. Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He has removed much the template from much more than 20 articles and started replacing it with two other templates while the original template still has an open debate. I would guess more like 200 pages than 20.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody has gotten around to closing, and others on that day page are waiting closing, too. It has long passed 7 days for the discussion period. The only person still "discussing" is TTT, the author (WP:OWN problem). The current consensus is 12 delete, 3 replace (keep until replaced), and only 2 keep. Template:NYRepresentatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been completely orphaned, and is ready for deletion. Some of us are working on replacing with the standard {{USRepSuccessionBox}} that was supposed to be placed on these articles.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • NB: Some folks wanted to start deleting after only the first few days (WP:SNOW), but I convinced them to give the full 7 days. After that, it was "Katie bar the door"! This is an egregiously large 160K+ link farm! Have you looked at it?
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You have mischaracterized some things. First not all deletes wanted the template removed. Some wanted it reformated. More than one discussant wanted district by district templates of the same format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, as the page creator you seem to castigate me for participating in the debate. I am not the only one continuing to discuss. Benjiboi (talk · contribs) remains active in the debate among those against deletion. Others would probably be involved in the debate if the WP:ARS tags did not keep getting torn down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a template, not an Article to Rescue by the Squad. My guess is that the ARS folks aren't interested. In any case, there isn't a need for more information, it has too much already! The page creator is invited to participate -- as you were notified by a standard template: {{tfdnotice}}. In turn, you've spammed many notices to:
    1. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage
    2. Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron
    3. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress
    4. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Article alerts
    5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress
    6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York
    7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America
    • 1. It is difficult to debate with people who do not stick to the truth. First you say I am the only remaining discussant, when that is not true. Then you say I spammed, which is not true. Check your records. I have notified only two of the above. #2 and #3 or #5 (I don't remember which). I have also notified the New York WikiProject. These are normal XfD notifications. Currently, there is an RFC for the ARS to be allowed to place their templates on non-article XfDs as a result of insistence that the template be removed from this template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems to have brought more delete opinions. Once upon a time, I was very active in TfD (rotating the daily pages, etc). I know the process well, and I've tried to help with the process, and made several suggestions for alternatives (that you rejected). You were previously admonished for WP:AGF and WP:NPA, such as: "Do votes for the sake of being vindictive count toward helping the project? ... Feel free to vote as vindictively as you want if you don't want to think about what is best for the project however." Now, you've prolonged this by gaming the refs. Not nice!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • 1. It also seems that you are throwing out irrelivant policy. Reading your statements, in the debate preceding my comment it does seem like you changed your opinion to straight delete as a vindictive act. I did not reject your alternatives, I stated that they were inadaquate substitutes. I have been involved in numerous XfD and have never seen wholesale removal before a discussion was closed. It seems that through knowledge of the system you have figured out how to get your way rather than efficiently determine consensus. You should not be removing a TfDed template before the debate is concluded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I dislike the show/hide feature in general, and so this is just horrible. Have a nice day --NE2 05:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WAS, could you just hold off on removing the template from articles until we get this closed, please? It shouldn't be more than a few days, and assuming it gets closed as its trending now, a bot will apparently be able to do much of this work.--chaser - t 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think he has already removed them all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JCDenton2052

User:JCDenton2052 has twice now threatened me with bans [96] and [97] in regards to 2009_Tea_Party_protests in which I removed non-reliable sources [98]

User:JCDenton2052 also has threatened other editors for the same actions. [99]. This editor did not blank the page as JCDENTON would claim.

Additionally I was in the talk section discussing this section. [100]. Without any comment from JCDENTON he made his first threat on 00:08, 17 April 2009 . He made his first comment regarding attendence on 01:55, 17 April 2009.

There are other diffs I could supply, but you get the jist of it.

Furthermore, this user continues to re-add blog sources to the article. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Arzel has repeatedly blanked 2009 Tea Party protests. [101][102][103]

I created a talk page section on the material that he blanked [104] so that he could share any issues that he many have.

I also pointed out [105] that "According to WP:RS, Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable. This specific blog is already used by many other articles. Why is it not acceptable here?" JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton2052 does not know the meaning of blanking. I removed non-reliable sourced material from a non-expert. Silver may be an expert (by WP definition) with regards to baseball statistics or polling aggregation, but this is not that. JCDenton2052 has now reported me here as retaliation for this report. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You narrowly defined expert as someone who is an expert in crowd estimation, and removed a liberal statistician who was not one but left in a conservative politician. I was willing to let your blanking slide until you falsely accused me of warning you in bad faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am done talking to you. You clearly do not understand reliable sources. You clearly do not understand good faith. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can the two of you please stop sniping at each other here? I'm not sure what immediate administrator action is being called for. If you cannot behave sensibly on talkpages and reach some form of compromise on what is and isn't reliable please take this spat to the dispute resolution process. Thank you. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This had not even reached the talk page. JCDenton threatened without making any attempt to discuss. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to either:

Remove all crowd size estimates that don't come from well-documented experts on crowd size estimation, effectively leaving the section blank. Or,

Leave in all estimates, but clarify possible biases (e.g. Nate Silver is a liberal statistician and not an expert on crowd size estimation and Grover Norquist is a conservative political leader and not an expert either). JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Am I correct that you two are arguing over numbers provided by a partisan source? It looks like the inclusion of a crowd estimate by a liberal is the problem, yet I see that Grover Norquist's estimate is in the article (or was). That said, I have not seen a single reliable source on crowd estimates for this event, mainly because you are trying to estimate the aggregate of many tiny events across the country. I would advise both editors to simply step back and take a few deep breaths. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed all the estimates of crowd sizes quoted by partisan sources, apart from the one reported by MSNBC (and even then I've pointed out that it was a claim, not a fact). Black Kite 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that is the best thing to do for the time being. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is also a good place to take these debates (better than here and a good step to take long before dispute resolution). NJGW (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver's estimate has been reported by the National Review Online [106][107] and The Denver Post [108]. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

Babylon93 (talk · contribs) otherwise 86.154.112.176 (talk · contribs) (blocked) has reincarnated as 86.155.60.143 (talk · contribs). Kittybrewster ☎ 14:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now 86.165.65.125 (talk · contribs). Kittybrewster ☎ 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• James Crosby (British businessman) semi-protected by User:Toddst1. Saves playing whack-a-mole with a huge dynamic IP range, since that seems to be his primary focus. Black Kite 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempted WP:OUTING of an editor

An anon IP editor has long been engaged in editing an article, through a multiplicity of IP addresses. Nothing wrong with that, although it is a bit inconvenient at times for other editors and admins. But, this appears to be in violation of WP:OUTING, and appears to be an obvious attempt at harassment of the anon IP editor. Is this an incident or etiquette issue? Yaf (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an OUTING issue to ask if an anon is an existing editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Clayton Cramer may or may not be an existing editor. That is not the issue. Clayton Cramer is a well-known historian. This is about asking the anon IP editor if he is THE Clayton Cramer. Yaf (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no user account by that name on en.Wikipedia, hence the question seems meant to put forth someone's true name and as such it's indeed a try at outing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It might just be an attempt to use a question for rhetorical effect. More likely it refers to Claytoncramer (talk · contribs). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that account, I'd wait and see what happens next. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that simply asking someone whether they are or are not Famous Person X (or even Ordinary Person X) is different from outing. If the response is "yes," then they obviously don't mind sharing. If the answer is "no," or if there is no answer, and if the questioner goes on to try and figure out or prove who the anonymous editor really is, then that's outing. Does that seem to be a fair distinction? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the contrib history of the editor asking the question would need to be looked at too. However, since there is an en.Wikipedia account with (more or less) that name, it seems much less likely to be much of a bash at outing, to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment appears to be aimed directly at comparing the Clayton Cramer blog with the edits of the article, per the edit summary and the content of the comment, and occurred just prior to the query of the anon IP editor. Yaf (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And, the attempts at WP:OUTING continue here. Yaf (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclear whether that's an "outing" problem or a "socking" problem. --John Nagle (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Anon IP regularly announces his IP address changes when they occur, such as here. Hence, this doesn't appear to be a "socking" problem. Yaf (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus -- although Gwen makes a good point. Asking someone if they are so-&-so is not outting in itself; the person can always deny it -- or evade the question -- if the questioned wants to remain anonymous. Or the question can be answered in email. -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user

Resolved

 – Oversighted/blocked.

That guy who was making legal threats on Smiley face murders and trying to out people is still around, this time as User:71.83.43.215 (contributions) who left alleged real name, address and phone on two editors' user pages. These should be oversighted to be deleted from history. Might need a range block because he has promised to play whackamole with us. DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren has oversighted the offending edits. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. If anyone wants to adjust that time, feel free. لennavecia 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP ranges in use are a /12 and separate /13 - without Charter's internal IP mapping info there's no easy way to tell what subranges this guy could pop up in.

We're not currently technically allowed to make rangeblocks that big - it tops out at a /16 - so we'd have to have someone make a whole bunch of /16 netblock range blocks to be sure to get this guy. And that would take out most of Charter Communications.

We can block them, but the collateral damage would be extreme. We as a general matter of policy don't do that.

We can't practically block within the larger ranges, as they are clearly resetting the modem to get a new DHCP IP regularly, and that's hopping them around a huge amount within the wider space.

Perhaps an abuse filter, if the edit patterns are distinct enough? If not autoconfirmed and edit matches the known patterns, block the edit? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User:71.13.22.228 now -- if blocking all the IPs is too rough, maybe someone higher up needs to contact Charter Communications to block the user on their end? Also, the SineBot edit comments for previously oversighted comments also have to be scrubbed, as the bot copied some of the offending text as its description. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Would semi-protecting the relevant editor's talkpages be an option here, if they're targeting the same people? Black Kite 00:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing that very thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a leap of faith and guess at the netblock suballocations, and blocked 71.83.32.0/20 and 71.13.16.0/21 for 24 hrs. Those are the smallest CIDR blocks around the 2 clusters of IPs he's used so far... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If he pops up outside those ranges, flag it here and I or someone else who understands CIDR can expand those or issue a new rangeblock as required. He could well have larger suballocation ranges to work out of... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Would 71.13.26.25 (talk · contribs) be him? (see section below) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, expanded that block to 71.13.16.0/20 from /21 - that covers the new IP as well. Extended to a week. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats, outings

Performed by 71.13.26.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
decltype (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please check this talk page history and remove the outing attempt? Thank you, Already resolved....
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See #More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user above. This may be linked to that given the IP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked for oversight on those diffs by 71.83.43.215 (which has been applied - thanks, oversight-l) and gave the IP a {{uw-legal}} warning. Then I went to bed, as I was feeling a bit fagged and shagged and fashed. Thanks for taking up the slack, all. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any safe way I can see those edits? I'm concerned with how close the editor may have been. Padillah (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to ask an oversighter, and to be honest my understanding of oversight makes me think this isn't a request they'd generally honor unless it was to release evidence of a threat of violence to law enforcement personnel. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say, it concerns me that a person may or may not know something about me but I'm not allowed to know if they do or not. I'm working with someone to try to get to the other side. We'll see where I can get. Thanks though. Padillah (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify- I really don't know if they'd honor a request, but based on my experience and knowledge of how important a factor privacy plays in oversighting, I don't think they would. If you're seriously concerned for your safety, by all means you should ask. I'm not sure if WP:RFO is the right venue, or if you should go via OTRS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Try sending an email through WP:RFO and ask what they think. They may not release the text to you, but it's highly likely they'll try to help. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in future I'll keep a private record of such details for 24h or so rather than just chucking them at Oversight and forgetting them utterly as "none of my business" as soon as possible, in case of situations like this. Trouble with that is, of course, if someone "outs" User:Example as "Miss Jean Brodie, of 221B Baker Street, London", how do I know Example is really getting their own details if they do ask? (Although in this case there's enough information that I do remember to convince me that at least one of the details "outed" does refer to Padillah). Ah, the life of an Oversighter must be a complex one, requiring the fine-honed ethical judgement of an Alexander McCall Smith. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, I think I remember some of the details. I can email it to you, if you are interested. decltype (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that but I'll try and work from inside the system as much as I can. First off I've already e-mailed User:Coren who did the deletes. They presented the same argument Tony did: How do I know these details are yours? But I've asked for meta-info and I'm waiting to see if that will get a response. He may not be able to tell me the values of the information but he might be allowed to tell me what was posted. If all that was posted was a name and a city, I'm not that impressed. If he got a phone number and street address then I'm gonna want to check further. Thank you guys for all the help, it's nice knowing it's there. As Gwen can most likely attest this is probably not the last time we'll see this guy anyway so I may have a chance to see the info first-hand. If I feel the need I can get someone to semi my talkpage and we'll go from there. Thanks again guys. Padillah (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FYi - this guy was just outside the netblock I blocked in section WP:ANI#More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user above. I had blocked the 71.13.16.0/21 range, which goes up to 71.13.24.x - I expended the rangeblock to a /20, so it's now 71.13.16.x - .32.x and includes this new IP address. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment, ownership and bad faith accusations by User:Xashaiar

User:Xashaiar has been trying to stop me editing articles related to Iranian history. He reverted my edits to Persian Empire [109] [110] where I had removed some Modern Persian names in Arabic script added randomly to the section on the Sassanid dynasty. The Sassanids, obviously, did not use this language or script (it's as irrelevant as randomly giving the Italian names of one or two Roman emperors in the main Roman Empire article). I gave my reasoning in my edit summaries but his reverts made no sense. He then followed me to the Iran and Afsharid dynasty pages and reverted my edits. When questioned about his reasons on his talk page he could not give a reasonable explanation (see whole conversation here [111] before he deleted it as "spam"). He made bizarre claims such as "I disagree with all you said, and will not let you and your colleagues make wikipedia a printer of your POV" and basically admitted he was owning those pages ("Yes WE do insist"). He's now followed me to Shah Abbas I, a page I don't think he has previously edited. He reverted changes I made where I used a reliable source [112] under the edit summary "disruptive edits corrected" then posted a vandalism template on my talk page [113] accusing me of "introducing deliberate factual errors" when I was trying to fix an almost completely unreferenced article (his problem is also that he was apparently unaware that Mahd-i Ulya and Khayr Nisa Begum are the same person). I'm sick of having to deal with this harrassment, bad faith and ownership from someone I suspect is a diehard "Persian nationalist" (he seems to have a problem with Turkic influence on Iranian history - always a telltale sign), who is often incapable of communicating in clear English. --Folantin (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We go into details. No problem.

• user:Folantin: User:Xashaiar has been trying to stop me editing articles related to Iranian history. He reverted my edits to Persian Empire [114] [115] where I had removed some Modern Persian names in Arabic script added randomly to the section on the Sassanid dynasty. The Sassanids, obviously, did not use this language or script (it's as irrelevant as randomly giving the Italian names of one or two Roman emperors in the main Roman Empire article). I gave my reasoning in my edit summaries but his reverts made no sense.

Comment:Yes I did revert you, and I explained to you why:X1. It is not important that you disagree with me. Did you take it to talk page? I think you are supposed to do so. Your first mistake.

• user:Folantin:He then followed me to the Iran and Afsharid dynasty pages and reverted my edits. When questioned about his reasons on his talk page he could not give a reasonable explanation (see whole conversation here [116] before he deleted it as "spam").

Comment:No I did not follow you. I have spent sometime on that page and yes I DO WATCH IT. I said almost the same thing in my talk page. But you jumped into the article before reading Iran's talk page. I am sorry, but YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO READ THE RELEVANT TALK PAGES before you make edits on a section that has been extensively discussed. Your second mistake.

• user:Folantin:He made bizarre claims such as "I disagree with all you said, and will not let you and your colleagues make wikipedia a printer of your POV" and basically admitted he was owning those pages ("Yes WE do insist").

Comment:There is no claim. I disagreed with all you said in my talk page. And that should be called bizarre. I never admit I own an article. Yes I do watch them. You should not confuse two words: "watch" and "own". I said "yes WE do insist" exactly because I was answering your comment here. What do you mean by "we"? There is no wikipedia manual of style that tells I am wrong. Your third mistake.

• user:Folantin:He's now followed me to Shah Abbas I, a page I don't think has previously edited. He reverted changes I made where I used a reliable source [117] under the edit summary "disruptive edits corrected" then posted a vandalism template on my talk page [118] accusing me of "introducing deliberate factual errors" when I was trying to fix an almost completely unreferenced article..

Comment:I watch many Iranian history articles and I do edit some. You should not accuse people after seeing one example. Your fourth mistake. You indeed introduced factual error. The talk page as well as the history page of Shah Abbas I shows why. Also generally one does not delete content, you can use appropriate tags. Your fifth mistake.

• user:Folantin:(his problem is also that he was apparently unaware that Mahd-i Ulya and Khayr Nisa Begum are the same person).

Comment:This is wrong as I mentioned in the talk page of the article. Your seventh mistake.

• user:Folantin:I'm sick of having to deal with this harrassment, bad faith and ownership from someone I suspect is a diehard "Persian nationalist" (he seems to have a problem with Turkic influence on Iranian history - always a telltale sign), who is often incapable of communicating in clear English.

Comment:I think this comment is uncivil+accusing me of being nationalist+PA. I would like to see you blocked because of these accusations.

You wrote me that you have reported me and I commented.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What is factually incorrect or "disruptive" about the sentence I added: "‘Abbās was born in Herat (modern Afghanistan) to Mahd-i Ulya, the daughter of a local governor in Mazandaran Province, Northern Iran, who claimed descent from the fourth Shi'a Imam Zayn al-Abidin"? That was referenced to Savory, one of the great experts on the history of Iran in this era. The article is an unreferenced mess. Until I changed it, the infobox had Abbas down as being born in Osku, hundreds of miles from Herat. How come you never did anything about that? Let's face it, your sudden interest in this article is due to the fact I began editing it today (as I have edited the articles of many other Safavid shahs). You were stalking me. --Folantin (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(repeated) You have violated WP:3RR+ you reverted this which I made according to the source you gave, and your reason is copyright violation?! I think your edit is not supported by the source.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop gaming the system. --Folantin (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing harrassment

Is any admin going to look into this? He's been at it again [119]. Apparently anything which is a paraphrase of two sources and not a blatant copyvio is not allowed now. It's obvious this guy has got it in for me and is blatantly harrassing me. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage and I would appreciate admin help in letting me do this unmolested. That's what you're there for, right? --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have violated WP:3RR+ you reverted this which I made according to the source you gave, and your reason is copyright violation?! I think your edit is not supported by the source.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. On the other hand, neither of the sources you gave for Mahd-i Ulya's Georgian ethnicity support your claim (see talk page for details). I have not yet removed them in order to avoid frivolous accusations of edit-warring. I really expected the admins on this board to do something about this situation. Obviously my faith has been misplaced (again). --Folantin (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

warned Xashaiar under WP:BATTLEGROUND. --dab (𒁳) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the other user is not blocked for PA+uncivil+accusation+edits that are not supported by source. I would like to know why.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just talking about my own experience, when another editor added information about the name Cyrus for the Kura River, you reverted it simply because the Kura article didn't mention the name -- although the name 'Cyrus' is a fairly well known name for the Kura river in classical and modern times in other parts of the world. I found it annoying that you didn't bother to do the fairly simple work of at least checking to see if the other editor's edit was correct, let alone doing the work I did of finding sources and adding them. I could point to similar instances but I don't know that it would make a difference. You need to learn how to work cooperatively with other editors - continue on this path and you will end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dormant sock

EmpMac (talk · contribs) is a sock of MacEmp (talk · contribs).

• MacEmp makes an edit to Iantivirus on Dec. 17, 2008.
• EmpMac edited the same article on Dec. 26, 2008, and twice (1st and 2nd) on Dec. 28, 2008.
• EmpMac uploaded Image:Iantivirus.png on December 26, 2008.
• EmpMac said MacEmp was not his sock on March 21, 2009 at an archived sock report about him.

Indeed, MacEmp hasn't edited since Dec. 2008. However the sockpuppetry relation is obvious and one or the other user account should be deleted. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear that MacEmp (I think you have sock and master around wrong the way in your first sentence) is being used in any manner that violates WP:SOCK - no vote stacking, no other false consensus, no 3RR evasion - so I suppose we should just AGF that they are not related as commented. It is possible that MacEmp was created to create trouble for EmpMac, but was abandoned. Keep an eye on it, but I don't see need for admin action at this point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal abusive comments being posted on the User_talk:Sekharlk

Resolved

 – protection applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A puppet of banned User:Kuntan is placing personal abusive comments on a User:Sekharlk for the last many months, even after repeated reverts by this editor, User:Abd and others. Urgent intervention is required, either by deleting this User:Sekharlk page or by placing an indefenit edit block on the page/talk page. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both pages now protected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Persisting vandalism by banned User:Kuntan puppets on SUCI

It seems that a new wave of edits by User:Kuntan on SUCI article has started. He is removing cited text. Intervention required. Personal abuse on User_talk:Sekharlk is also being noted --Bctcanji (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest either a request for long term semi-protection of the article (at WP:RPP) or filing an WP:SPI report to range block the disruptive ip socks. I think page protection is likely to work better, since good faith ip's may still request edits on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Directorichr repeatedly vandalizing Dr Sushil Kumar

Directorichr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a COI account (self-identifying as a, or the, Director of the ICHR), which is repeatedly adding hoax or improper "references" to the Dr Sushil Kumar article. He has multiple warnings, and was given a final warning, but continues to add the improper references, and never discusses his edits in Talk pages. I gave him a final warning about incorrect formatting and improper links over a week ago, and yet here he is reverting back to his own edits. He needs a warning block to force him to discuss his edits on a Talk page. I reported this to AIV, since this is clearly a vandal who will not stop reverting to his own version, but my vandalism listing was removed with no action. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reported this to WP:UAA, they will take it from here and decide what action (if any) is appropriate. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the instructions at the top of WP:AIV, editors "must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." To date, Directorichr has received a {{uw-npov2}} [120], {{uw-unsourced2}} [121], and a level-one warning about external links [122]. Requesting that this editor be blocked for "vandalism" when he or she has never received more than a level-two warning is overly bitey and not enough assumption of good faith. Clearly Directorichr is a new editor with little clue as to how Wikipedia works (and less of an idea of how he needs to work within the Wikipedia system), but I seriously do not see him as being a vandal. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to Kralizec on the AIV page, which he ignored, the user received a final warning at User_talk:Directorichr#Problems_with_Dr_Sushil_Kumar. But just how many times must a person be reverted, and how many times must he be asked to respond on the Talk page? He has yet to edit a Talk page, though he did put a comment into the article itself. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing his talk page, I only see a single instance where someone invited him to use a talk page [123], and that was his own, not the one associated with the article in question. How are editors totally new to the Wikipedia concept even going to know that articles have talk pages if we do not, you know, tell them? — Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight (again) personal attacks and refactoring others comments

Resolved

 – Heat to light ratio for this thread is now at 117 to -12. Parties have been instructed to take any further concerns to the Obama ArbCom now in process as that is the more appropriate venue for these concerns. We're done here.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 17 April 2009 (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.

---

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) See:

• refactoring of 2 other users comments at Talk:Barack Obama
• refactoring of another users comments
• Personal attack/incivility
• Another personal attack/incivility

I tried to engage the user regarding the refactoring of other users comments. The user deleted it of course. As with past reports here at ANI regarding this user, something needs to be done. Past reports have went archived with no kind of action or involvement by admins, specifically this ANI thread. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one of four users coming to my talk page to harass me despite repeated requests to go elsewhere. I suggest reading my talk page and investigating the history a bit before responding. This is Baseball Bugs and a couple of others trying to stir up trouble. (I trust this won't be taken as a personal attack?) This is ALLSTDR's second bogus ANI report of the day againt me. Earlier he accused me of "maliciously" moving an article when several editors suggested doing so in an AfD. This stalking is problematic, and if someone wants to encourage Baseball Bugs, ALLSTDR and the others to steer clear, it would be much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is "stalking" you. You're just everywhere tendentiously editing for everyone to see. And to correct you, I haven't filed another ANI report regarding you today so I don't know where you're getting this "ALLSTDR's second bogus ANI report" stuff from. I did ask a policy question at AN regarding moving a page that was in an ongoing AfD. AN and ANI are 2 different places and that AN report was yesterday. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a very selective review of the edit history relating to the allegations. The original "refactoring" (which amounted to the correction of two typos) resulted in a disproportionately aggressive comment on CoM's talk page which "of course" was not deleted.

This led to some unhelpful piling on from uninvolved editors, including comments with inappropriate tone.

During this, CoM made what he later explained to be a (failed) attempt to clarify (without changing the meaning of) another piled on comment.

In CoM's comment to LadyofShalott, CoM referred to "[her] and [her] gang of bobbleheads." AgnosticPreachersKid chivalrously defended LadyofShalott—twice—by placing warnings on CoM's page.

Somehow, the referrer of this incident beat APK to the punch and made this report.

None of this rises to a level worthy of administrative attention (unless there are admins who happen to be kindergarten teachers with spare time).

This referral should be closed with prejudice. Bongomatic 06:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid this page, but Bongomatic's um, assessment leaves me no other choice (btw, thanks for noting my chivalry). I've seen CoM comment on various talk pages, but have avoided getting into the middle of any edit/talk page battles until an hour ago. I noticed CoM referred to User:LadyofShalott and others as "bobbleheads". (minor PA, but the user is constantly stirring up trouble and knows better) I didn't template, but left a basic "cut it out" warning. Apparently, CoM didn't see anything wrong with the comment and began an attempt to "prove" how I'm wrong. CoM then referred to LadyofShalott and others as wind bags. I left a second warning and returned to my normal routine. I take another look at the talk page and noticed the ANI link (Gosh darnit. Allstarecho beat me to it! /end summary of Bongo's psychic powers). It looks like CoM and Bongo appear to have everything figured out for us, no? CoM was just minding his/her own business until some mean, ol' editors came by and left horrible, horrible warnings. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither the warnings nor the referral to AN/I is "horrible, horrible"—they're both just silly. I don't see how CoM's (not particularly constructive) comments constitute personal attacks as per policy whatsoever (unless "bobbleheadness" can be construed to be a racial, sexual, religious, political or ethnic affiliation). Bongomatic 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If they're silly, what adjective best describes CoM's behavior? The recent comments appear to be the latest examples of CoM causing problems. "bobblehead" =/= "dickhead", but the same principle applies. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 08:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say "unnecessarily provocative" (but within policy). Bongomatic 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say deliberately annoying. BTW, thanks for dragging this discussion onto my talk page for no apparent reason. I'm returning to my regularly scheduled program now (you know, building the encyclopedia...the reason we're here). I trust you'll be able to finish analyzing the situation for us (I must have overlooked the reason you're even commenting on this thread). I'm just hoping a sysop with common sense will look into CoM's recent behvior (the past few weeks) and realize it's more than "silly". Let the tribal council resume. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, Child of Midnight should not be editing other user's comments (helpfully or not), nor should that editor call other folks a "gaggle of wind bags" because, yes, that is a personal attack and very much the kind of thing for which one can (and probably next time will) receive a block. C of M has indeed engaged in some problematic editing, and at this point I would say that the level of tolerance, at least as far as I'm concerned, for further problematic editing is pretty much at zero. There's currently an Arb case about Barack Obama articles, and since a lot of the troubles here relate to editing on those articles I suggest (echoing an earlier suggestion on a different ANI thread by Wizardman) that editors discuss problems with C of M (or C of M with other editors) over at that case if they have not already done so (I think some of that is already going on).

Having said that I think there are a number of editors, for example Allstarecho, who need to give Child of Midnight a wide berth. C of M was wrong to edit others' comments (even in a semi-helpful way as happened at first), but it was blown-up into far much of a to-do than was necessary. Let's try to keep this ongoing dispute off ANI for a few days or longer, and maybe instead kick the whole thing over to Arbcom within the confines of the Obama case.

Personally I do not see a need for admin action at this time, but the whole situation bears watching which I will try to do, and perhaps this should stay open a little while longer in case other admins want to weigh in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• See the top of this page: "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." Incivility is bad, but as someone who's been called a fringe POV pusher, quack, idiot, ect. more than a couple times (who hasn't?), it doesn't belong here. The refactoring is quite trivial but also probably quite annoying. CoM should stop feeding the flames. II | (t - c) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • That would apply to most situations but ChilofMidnights track record suggests this is the latest chapter in a string that has gone largely ignored. I won't profer "the patience of the community" statements but that this is an experienced editor who knows better and seems to be testing the limits of other editors' patience is a sign of more problems to come. Personally I see AllStarEcho as perhaps a bit proactive but generally they sniff out rather accurately problematic editors and editing. This may not need admin action as much as admin attention to keep an eye out. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The one time I changed someone's comments, years ago, out of the same apparent innocence that CoM showed yesterday, I was strongly rebuked for it. The difference is, I learned, and CoM refuses to learn. You do not change anyone's comments without permission. PERIOD. The default value is NOT, "modify only if they don't object", it is "DON'T MODIFY unless they expressly give permission". There are only two other exceptions I can think of just now. One is a comment that in itself is a gross violation of the rules, which grammar and spelling problems are not. The other is modifying left-margin alignments for the sake of clarity in following a thread. And only do those exceptions with caution. Even now, CoM continues to justify his behavior, and just a little while ago that would-be admin referred to anyone who dared to challenge him as "a gang of bobbleheads". [124] No admin action really needed here, other than to keep that guy on the "trouble" radar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also fixing links. Fixing links doesn't apply to the don't modify rule since you're not actually changing what they've said. HalfShadow 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Another area that's fair game is section headings, especially on an article talk page, as no one "owns" those. Sometimes it's handy to put a link on a heading if it refers to a subject, or change it if it's either inflammatory or has become subtly incorrect due to the evolution of the discussion within. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

However, it's not appropriate to change a Section Heading in such a way that its meaning is changed simply because you disagree with it. E.g., if editor A starts a section called This article is not NPOV it would be off-base for editor B to change that section header to This article is NPOV Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. But neutralizing a controversial heading could be fair, such as changing it to "Is this article NPOV?" if there is disagreement about the claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it is terribly important in the grand scheme of things but my "soapy box" descriptor that seemed to have touched this off (I was uninvolved with any of the aftermath) was intentional, and not a typo. Effervescent wit. and all. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for sanctions

Resolved

 – See above

Seeing as this is a recurrent problem, I'm proposing sanctions per the Obama probation. I'm not sure which, however: a topic ban seems like overkill; but a civility parole is, as history proves, useless. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 11:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything now would seem pointless in the middle of the ArbCom. Not to mention CoM has continously evaded sanctions before. Grsz¹¹ 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for disputants to avoid trolling

Resolved

 – See above

I suggest the communuty endorse a prohibition requiring Baseball Bugs, Scjessey and ALLST☆R avoid making diruptive comments on my talk page. I've asked them to avoid harassing me, but this polite request has not been complied with. Civility and basic good sense suggests that parties in a dispute avoid harassing one another. I don't leave irrelevant comments on their talk pages and I'd appreciate it if they showed me the same respect. If they have evidence of supposed impropriety (like *gasp* a harmless and good faith copy-edit) they should state their case at Arbcom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Show me a diff where you told me not to post on your talk page, and I'll apologize - and I'll bloody well stay off your talk page. Also "I don't leave irrelevant comments on their talk pages" is a red herring. I have never asked you (or anyone else that I can recall) not to post on my talk page. And even if you forbid others to post on your talk page (which is within your right, if you ask), you are still welcome to post on mine at any time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just apologize and agree to not refactor comments, particularly from people who are "harassing" you? And they should similarly let you delete their comments at will, which is generally accepted as a right of any user. II | (t - c) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has said he couldn't delete the comments. In fact, I specifically told him he could. But he can't refactor another user's comments. As is always the case when he comes under the spotlight, this is nothing more than the "they are always picking on me!" defense he is well known for. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat conversely, if you decide to leave someone alone to make mistakes, instead of cleaning up after them once you know they consider your attention unwelcome, then you can be confident that others will take care of any problems, without being someone that ChildofMidnight already distrusts.

More simply: I don't think that feedback from users that ChildofMidnight thinks are out to get him or her can possibly be helpful, unless the goal is to make him or her more upset about seeing the same names over and over again. Use the community. Let others share this load. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Refactoring is a... stronger term than copy editing." (from wp:refactoring) They're not the same thing, so let's not confuse matters. I suggest that if someone copyedits comments and an editor wants their mistakes to remain in place, they should simply make a polite request expressing this view. They can also revert the change so as to restore their mistakes and move on, as common sense suggests.

Wikipedia is a collaborative wiki, so helping one another with common courtesy and decency is encouraged and generally appreciated. We are all expected to assume good faith, and even refactoring is expressly allowed: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page." Sometimes it's difficult to assume good faith, it hasn't served me well with certain editors, but it would be a shame if those reading this thread were left with the mistaken impression that courtesy and collaboration were dead on Wikipedia and that our policies and guidelines prohibit helping one another out. This is simply incorrect, erroneous, wrong, misguided, and innaccurate (redundancy for clarification purposes). I encourage every editor to act in good faith and where copy-edits and even refactoring take place to assume good faith. Helping out is a wonderful trait that should always be encouraged. Those telling you otherwise have either failed to read the appropriate policy pages or are confused. Mistakes happen, but it's good to correct them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's perfectly fine to refactor discussions, for a variety of reasons. Insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude. I tend not to copyedit other people's comments, because... I don't know, that would feel to me like I'm violating a boundary. I've been wrong about others' spelling, too. ("Lede," it turns out, is a word! Now I don't correct it, it just irritates me every time I see it. A crime against language if I've ever seen one; nearly as bad as "whilst".)

I think that a lot of people will be bothered by having their remarks copyedited, and it's probably best to err on the side of not doing that, but kudos for the good will expressed by doing it! -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: In my statement above, I said that "insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude." I do not mean by this statement to suggest that ChildofMidnight has insisted on any refactoring agasint others' wishes. I have no knowledge of ChildofMidnight's edits in this regard, and was simply making a general statement. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I strongly encourage all of the disputants here to present their views of the situation over at the Obama ArbCom proceedings. I don't think further comments here on ANI are going to get anywhere. Let's let the committee address these issues since we have a case running which is able to deal exactly with these kind of wide-ranging, ongoing disputes related to Obama articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM continues to demonstrate his unfitness for the admin role, at the very least. Admins have to be able to take a lot of heat, and he is not up to it. He gets challenged, he tells people to stay off his talk page. Lack of maturity. Furthermore, he raises a factual question on another page, I try to answer it [125] and he ignores it. All the warmth of a cactus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a remotely helpful post Bugs. This discussion has nothing to do with anyone's fitness for adminship (we're not at WP:RFA), not responding to a talk page message is not a nefarious action, and your final sentence is an incredibly gratuitous personal attack. You have a problem with this editor and the two of you don't get along, so I suggest you avoid one another. If you think their behavior is worthy of sanctions, write-up evidence at the ArbCom case about Obama articles. Your preceding comment is little more than drama mongering and just wastes everyone's time. I'd support marking this whole thread "resolved" at some point soon. Nothing constructive is going to come of this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM has been wasting a lot of people's time lately himself, in case you hadn't noticed. CoM is an editor who promotes coddling vandals at the expense of article content, and that's my main issue with him. You're right that, as usual, nothing is going to come of this. Mark it resolved. The sooner the better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a clear personal attack. "Coddling vandals at the expense of article content"? I trust the appropriate authority figure will issue the needed warning to this "editor". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to this highly insulting essay which you wrote following the WND siege against the Obama articles: [126] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And of course there's his own trolling. Sometimes smartasses just need to be told to fuck off. Here's a hint. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Labeling another's edits as trolling has never helped anything. Please refrain from doing it, unless your desire is to create drama, in which case... still, please refrain. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Pointing out a pattern of abusive reports is not trolling. Please cease these endless disruptions and focus on improving the encyclopedia. Isn't there someone willing to close this ridiculousness? Does leaving it open for more of these trolling personal attacks serve a useful purpose? I think not. ALLST☆R, Baseball Bugs and Scjessey have all been warned (repeatedly) here and elsewhere to avoid further harassing behavior. Hopefully this time they will comply. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Labeling another's edits as trolling has never helped anything. Please refrain from doing it, unless your desire is to create drama, in which case... still, please refrain. You sound just like them right now. Just like them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, brother. I thought I had managed to stay completely out of this, only to read "You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front".[127] I'll add that to the Arbcom case and not comment beyond saying that I have no interest or participation in this latest incident, and ChildofMidnight's statement to Allstarecho about me is a completely false, and gratuitous, accusation. Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point. That You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front line he left was nothing but trolling. Some nerve after coming here to complain about trolling, I'd say. People keep saying take it to the Obama arbcom case.. umm, why? This isn't about Obama. It's about his behavior all the way around. But you know what? It seems no admin gives 2 squats about his documented pattern of "disrupt, blame, troll" so why should we? I'm done with it and him, unless something outrageous comes along. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I have strong feelings on the matter, I am here only to state for the record that the accusation against me is completely false, and that I do not wish to be part of this AN/I case. I object to being repeatedly dragged in this way. I would have said so instead on ChildofMidnight's page where the accusation appears, but ChildofMidnight is in the habit of deleting my attempts to defend myself there (and sometimes elsewhere) as "trolling".[128][129] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

"I will not comment, except to comment," :) that the above statement by Wikidemon is gratuitous nonsense. Wikidemon has filed and involved himself in a series of bogus ANI reports including, now, this one. He needs to focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of <insert description here> (GT has suggested I should avoid using the word).

As the full gaggle has now reported in and been accounted for, I trust we can move on to editing the encyclopedia. If there are no objections, and no admin is willing to issue a restraining order on these harassers, I move for a closing of these unconstructive threads. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Woah, wait a minute. CoM is an admin? My God! Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM is not an admin. Black Kite 23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut it out, ChildofMidnight. You are deliberately falsifying things. I have not once filed a bogus ANI report against you or anyone else, and if you do not agree, I ask you to can it. Your mean spirited harassment of me, and now a lot of other Wikipedians, is unacceptable. I'll give you a chance to remove or strike your comment. If not I will ask Arbcom and the administrators to deal with you. That is two parallel tracks. We will see who is willing to put their foot down. I should not have to deal with this kind of vexation. Please do not respond to this, other than to remove your offensive post. Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this resolved or not WIKIDEMON keeps adding baiting and disruptive comments (an activity that can also be described with a T word). Can I remove them or am I going to be accused of nefarious troublemaking? Do the threads need to be archived before he stops the abuse? Seriously. When is enough, enough? I'm tired of being dragged through the mud by these ridiculous and abusive reports and the endless stringing out of new threads with more nonsense. If they stay away from my talk page, there shouldn't be any problem. I know I'm an awfully charming and wonderful person, but self control is important and it's time that Wikidemon, Scjessey and ALLST☆R showed some. All they need to do is stay away from me and leave me alone. It's not hard. Thank you very much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This was marked resolved over an hour ago - we are way, way past done here. Take it to the ArbCom if you must. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.

Resolved

 – Already posted at WP:AN

This needs a timestamp to archive, apparently. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Resolved

 – The chances of this producing anything other than escalation and further drama are zero and diminishing. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This admin has initiated a block against me unfairly. His exact words were that he did because "This is only a short warning block". However, wikipedia states explicitly that :

• Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect

I have done absolutely nothing wrong; I presented an opinion at the Assyrain People article that was supported by consensus and opposed by a certain admin. When I called in another admin and posted the logic explaining my position, I was blocked by this admin, and he gave no reason other than the faulty warning block.

No warning was given to me that a block was imminent. And blocks are not meant to be used as warnings either.

In his very poor choice of words, "disruptive filibustering" was why I was blocked, and Mango juice then went further to point out this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&diff=284006672&oldid=284006519#Affected_articles_by_the_article.27s_new_title as being disruptive to good faith edits of the article - really? Take a look for yourselves please and judge whether or not I was doing this.

This admin has even gone so far as to accuse me of having a "blatantly hostile, non-cooperative attitude", even though if you look at my edits, which constitued roughly 2 or 3, I made no such attitude develop.

Finally, this admin has refused to respond to where my mistake was.Gabr-el 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... what you posted in that section wasn't conciliatory... nor was it likely to lead to resolution... and it was a bit inflammatory. I wouldn't have blocked you for it, though, nor would I call it "disruptive filibustering". That seems a rather poor way to respond to a talk page post, even one that's a bit intemperate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Your mistake was here. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that justify the block? Gabr-el 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but for you & TheTriZ to burst onto the scene, thump your chests, & shout about how many more followers you have than the other guy can only make the most patient Admin's ban-finger itchy. Maybe you can make an argument that Fut. Perf. stepped out of line, but honey works a lot better than vinegar. Dial back on the attitude & maybe you can avoid causing an Admin to lose her/his patience in the first place, rather than spending a lot more time being blocked & then complaining about the injustice. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Me and Triz never "bursted into the scene" thumping our chests, since we had monitored this for a long time - in fact the blocking admin was the one who bursted into the scene, thumping my chest with this block; What does it mean for us to thump our chests, especially since we're online? Me and Triz have had very civil conversations with one another. I was countering his point that its not about bring in whole hords of new users to tip the balance of the vote. And how does one dial back on the attitude, if one is not given a warning to do so? Gabr-el 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your post in question was neither very moderate nor very collegial, by any reasonable standard. However, your last question: "How does one dial back on the attitude if one is not given a warning?," is extremely pertinent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So, just how constructive is it for one side to say he's going to swamp a discussion with 50 followers, & be responded to by a claim form the other that he's bringing 200 followers -- & emphasize his point with bolding? Both of you have been squabbling over what the title of this article should be for a long, long time, so it's not as if you haven't been warned about your behavior before this. This is fairly obvious stuff, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to your complaint that "I didn't know, so I shouldn't have been blocked". -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a very poor generalization of the situation. Its constructive to remind the other use how useless numbers is in a consensus. In any case, let us end this. Gabr-el 05:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

SlamDiego's Continued Vandalism of Marginalism Talk Page

Can somebody say something to SlamDiego about his continued vandalism ([130], [131], [132], [133]) of the Talk:Marginalism page? 209.217.195.139 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked the complaintant to stop spamming econ talk pages with links to his 'blog. In the case of these 'blog entries, the relevant content could have been copied-and-pasted or paraphrased. He is simply trying to drive traffic to his 'blog.

The material in question at Talk:Marginalism is 'blog spam, discussion of 'blog spam, and a personal attack by a third party.

(The 'blog entry to which he there links contains a short list of references in support of the notion that marginalism should be seen as a response to Marxism. This notion was long previously addressed within the article.)

I think that Robert's 'blog (robertvienneau.blogspot.com) needs to be added to the list of sites to which links are banned. —SlamDiego_←T 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Warned for spamming at User talk:209.217.195.144 - however there appears to be a dynamic IP at Talk:Marginalism, so if the spamming continues a rangeblock may be in order. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

SlamDiego offers no evidence, of course, to substantiate his personal attack. In fact, the vandalization SlamDiego is implementing deletes a suggestion from another user that SlamDiego's presumptions are incorrect. I'm not surprised at one administrator confusing a pointer to a demonstration that some reliable sources take an on-topic view with spam. I'm somewhat surprised that some others don't step in to point out all the Wikipedia rules SlamDiego is breaking. 209.217.195.152 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

lolwut — hammer in aisle 3, please — GRAWP

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TTN&diff=prev&oldid=284424714

Seems a rather obvious you-know-who GRAWP-sock . I'll leave it and the music stuff it's been dicking with to others. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactored for clarity. Those who've been there know his other sig is 'lulwut' Seen the ASCII art? Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption from two users at a GA-rated article

• 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This WP:GA rated article is currently facing disruption from two different users whose primary purpose on this project is to promote the deceased guru Osho.

• Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Focus on topic of Osho [134], Adding unsourced info to the article and making POV changes: [135], [136]
• Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:SPA on topic of Osho [137], [138], Has history of already being blocked for Disruptive editing: Poorly sourced POV edits despite warnings, this recent edit [139] seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of the subsequent comment made by the POV-pusher at the article's talk page: for example see this inappropriate edit summary [140]. User then went ahead and created an entire new page to push this WP:POINT disruption in his dispute over use of the term "follower" at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. [141] (in its present state this article is mostly WP:NOR violations) that page was then tagged by a third-party user to be merged to Osho [142], but Off2riorob (talk · contribs) changed the tag for some reason to propose a merge of this unrelated article into the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot [143], where Off2riorob was already disruptive, above, we begin to see that the entire creation of this page violating WP:NOR is also a violation of WP:POINT: disruption of the project to push a point of Off2riorob (talk · contribs)'s position regarding his desire not to use the term "followers" in 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. There is now an AfD on that page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower.

Would appreciate some attention from additional admins at this article. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above. I can't say I'm familiar with the User:Redhaylin but the articles need to be watched for poor sourcing and unsourced statements. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, I've added it to my watch list. Unfortunately, my watch list is a few thousand articles long. Any additional eyes on the article would probably be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Long ranting unrelated WP:NOT#FORUM postings by Redheylin (talk · contribs): [144] and [145]. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a message/warning to Redheylin and informed him of this thread. لennavecia 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your note:

• "while you may, for example, know "high ranking followers" to be an improper term, there's not really much that can be done without reliable sources to backup your position". Please note; the editor who has complained of me reverted my modifications, preserving misrepresented sources. It turned out there was a dispute with another editor on the same question, which is that of introducing original synthesis into biographical materials on living people. I have attempted to resolve the dispute and concluded that the above editor is intent on disruption since he refuses to withdraw the faulty reference. I have asked him to do so and I have told him his acts may be considered disruptive. I asked him to do so on the basis, not of my knowledge but of goodwill, taking account of first-hand material provided, and advising that academic sources could be produced that would back the point. I offered a 24-hour respite. The editor has since added references to support other contentious statements.

• "it's important to slow down and remember that we need reliable sources when in content disputes". I am asking another editor to provide references for biographical material on living people, showing how misunderstandings may arise and showing I have reason to challenge these statements and that, if he will not withdraw them out of goodwill, there are references available. The intention was to assume goodwill. No hostility was or is intended - this has been fabricated and I regard this as disruptive.

• Also, regarding the Osho Follower AFD, please keep comments in the AFD on-topic, commenting on the content, not the contributors. The proposal for deletion on a related page by the same editor is a result of an edit war with another editor - his proposal says as much. This other editor drew my attention. I have backed a merger with an existing page. Making the page was wrong, but I have pointed out to the compainant editor that his edits were the starting-point and, once again, I consider this disruptive on both editors' parts. Unlike the above editor, I have desisted from formal warnings. Noting the block of the other participant in this edit war beneath, I ask you to examine the history of contributions and assess the part the complainant has played in all this and the assumptions of bad faith in his complaint. Please do not castigate me for reasoning with him, thankyou. Redheylin (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the sources Cirt has cited. They include book and online sources, spanning several years. All appear to be top quality sources, which I think is something most of us have come to expect from Cirt. If there are any particular sentences you believe are incorrectly worded, present references that support your claim. If there are any BLP issues, post them out, specifically, either here or on WP:BLP/N, so that they may be quickly dealt with. And for the AFD, you admitted in the AFD that none of your comments were on-topic. لennavecia 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Redheylin (talk · contribs) warned by admin Peteforsyth for making personal attacks in an AfD [146], at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning at user's talk page: [147]. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to admin User:EncMstr, Redheylin (talk · contribs) posts to talk page of admin Peteforsyth constitute near-harassment. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Off2riob blocked 72 hours by YellowMonkey

This block seems premature and overly harsh, since the user seems to be editing in good faith. The user complained, and I asked Yellow here about this. I don't immediately think this warrants any 72 hour block, but this needs feedback. rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Note above comment by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs): I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above.. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior warnings to Off2riorob (talk · contribs): March 14 [148], [149], March 26 [150], April 9 [151], April 10 [152] and [153], April 12 [154]. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was just blocked a month ago for similar edits. He has been warned in the past few days. For others reading over this, relevant talk page discussion here. I think the block is good. At worst, it should have been 48 hours as opposed to 72. لennavecia 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block. The user was disruptive and was already blocked for this behaviour. He was many times warned but blanked each warning. What else YellowMonkey could do? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I wasn't sure from the lack of any notice, but this is a good block. rootology (C)(T) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Last week Off2riorob came over to my user talk and interrupted a discussion about a featured article drive, then went over to Synergy's user space and edit warred with Synergy--all because Rob had taken a very strong personal dislike to me. Which was very strange because Rob and I had never interacted. Went over to Rob's user talk and posted a polite query in hopes of clearing the air. Gave up after a couple of posts; he was not receptive at all. Held off making any warning or complaint because a review of Rob's edit history showed he was in a content dispute with someone I mentor. For the record though (since Rob conjectured cabalism last week) I have never discussed Off2riorob with Cirt, Yellowmonkey, or Rootology. In light of his block last month and numerous warnings afterward, it seems lenient that no other block happened until today. Durova^Charge! 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily for me Jennavecia has already said basically what I would have. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, there remains an unacceptable situation re the above page, and I'd like my representations looked into. Please advise on my talk page thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good faith reduction to 48 hours?

The time has arrived. Would an admin lift the block please? Durova^Charge! 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob is responding more favorably now, perhaps a good faith reduction in the block period would help matters get back on track. Durova^Charge! 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't unblock then reblock to adjust the time, as that just makes for a sloppy and unnecessarily long block log. Instead, I think one of us involved in this thread should unblock around the 48th hour and note in the unblock summary that the block was shortened per consensus at AN/I, should such a consensus be reached. لennavecia 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus around this. Can somebody who's good with international time conversions and stuff tell me when that will be in U.S. Pacific Daylight Time? Assuming I'm not asleep or in the midst of something major, I'd be happy to perform the unblock. -Pete (talk)

3:09PM. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

3:35PM in PDT...? (searches for sysops) Durova^Charge! 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Arg! ...(searches for trout) Sorry guys -- thanks for taking care of that. -Pete (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sansonic/Lowbiologist - sockpuppetry and harassment

Resolved

User:Sansonic was blocked for a week on the 15th April for sockpuppetry of two accounts, User:Coffeeaffection and User:Silvesterking. Sansonic did not defend themselves. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic/Archive. The main article involved was Starbucks.

Yesterday (the 16th), a new editor User:Lowbiologist edited the talk page of Starbucks six minutes after registering, and added material that had been proposed by Sansonic. I reopened the sockpuppetry case, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic. Lowbiologist has denied being a sockpuppet, and has accused other editors of bullying Sansonic.

I now believe that they are aiming to harass me. There are two reasons for this belief: 1. The username could be construed as a personal attack on me, as it is clear from my userboxes that I am a biologist. 2. Today (17th April) they have copied my userpage to their own, see [155].

As this spans sockpuppetry and civility issues I thought it best to post here, but please move to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts if it is inappropriate here. Can a checkuser please be run, and appropriate sanctions be imposed? Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CU confirms Lowbiologist (talk · contribs) is a sock of Sansonic (talk · contribs). Sansonic's block has been lengthened to a month. Resolved for now. KnightLago (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the "resolved" tag quickly; surely simply lengthening a block for a bit shouldn't be our response? Sockpuppeting in an attempt to gain false consensus, editing in violation of a block, sockpuppeting after previous blocks for it and (arguably) in such a way as to harass other users? I'd go indef (if I had the tools, of course), but maybe there is something I'm missing. Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. We shall see whether Sansonic resumes disruptive editing in a month. Fences and windows (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism by banned user User:Kuntan puppet User: C K Luckose

Once again there is vandalism by banned user User:Kunta. He has created a fake id in the name of the Kerala State Secretary of SUCI (refer the article SUCI) which was verified by email correspondence with their office. It has been marked for speedy deletion. Admin intervention is requested. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a request for Checkuser may bear more fruit, asking the ip range be investigated for the purpose of executing a rangeblock. If the collateral damage is small, then doing so may stop the ip socks from popping up with such regularity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated uploading of copyvio images

Fighter 10 (talk · contribs) has been uploading images then claiming them as his own work (when they are clearly not) then indicating that they are public domain. I've tagged almost all of his uploads with {{db-i9}} but only for those that I manage to find the source website. I suspect that all of the other images he uploaded are also copyvios but since my online research skills are not absolute, I couldn't find the source websites for those remaining images. To err on the side of caution, I suggest deleting them anyway especially since these images are ones for which we can find free alternatives. --seav (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned user and informed him/her of this discussion. Since there have been previous warnings, block on next occurrence. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, since the user has proved himself untrustworthy w.r.t. images we should simply delete all images that he has uploaded. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mrs Nesbitt

Mrs Nesbitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted to vandalising with several accounts here and is currently vandalising Tupton Hall School. Sock FIT BLOKE WIV NICE ABS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already banned for socking. Bagatelle 16:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rickrolled!

Resolved

 – user unblocked Terrillja _talk 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of yet another problem but an experienced Wikipedian, Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just got blocked,[156] and unblock-declined,[157] for edit warring over a rather clever rickroll that has been on/her talk page for some time and seems to have been deemed acceptable per a previous AN/I thread here. The editor seems to be taken aback and vows to come here once unblocked to deal with admin. abuse. Maybe there's a way to handle this gently. Personally, I think it's kind of funny... but shouldn't we first decide whether using fake "You have new messages" banners is okay (it's fairly widespread) before blocking people for it? I'm probably bowing out for a while, but please remember to enjoy any discussion that results. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying, but it's not difficult to spot the fake ones just by hovering on the link. I haven't seen anywhere that users can be blocked for it. This seems way over the line. Grsz¹¹ 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Jojhutton should be unblocked per this discussion 2 months ago about the same thing. The admins edit warring on his talk page should be slapped with a trout as well. Once that's done, we can deal with the issue of using a system template in this manner. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I currently agree with unblocking here. I don't see how WP:EL applies there as it is a style guideline (I believe WP:POL states that kind of guideline is meant for articles). I'm not 100% sure if WP:OWN, which was used to justify keeping him blocked after requesting unblock, applies per WP:UP#OWN. FunPika 18:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) I don't think the block is appropriate, and I'm somewhat inclined to lift it. I won't do that without hearing from more of the community, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• SMI's are annoying, but the user wasn't even using a span class=plainlinks to hide that it was an external link... I'd support unblocking, but I'd also support a guideline prohibiting simulated mediawiki interfaces. –xeno ^talk 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock, and let's have a guideline prohibiting this sort of thing, please. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that I wish it were explicitly forbidden. Misleading external links don't benefit the encyclopaedia, and practical jokes do not help build community spirit - all they do is waste the time of volunteers, and discourage participation.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case. WP:USER says that simulating the MediaWiki interface is discouraged, rather than forbidden. So now we're in a situation where a user insists on their right to have particular material, which is generally frowned on, prominently displayed on their Talk page, despite requests to remove it. Should we run through the tedium of an RfC, or an MfD, every time a user decides to play this joke on us? I would rather allow people to have the message bar only until they're asked to remove it, after which, well, they've had their little joke and now it's time to stop disrupting people's Wiki time.

I support an unblock if this editor agrees not to re-add the contentious material, and I wonder why they haven't already done so. It looks rather like they're stuck on the WP:REICHSTAG. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how we could fairly require him to take the banner down absent a community consensus that they're to be forbidden. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)He shouldn't have to agree to that since there's no policy against it. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We have policies against disruptive and tendentious editing. There's also WP:IAR, which reminds us that building the encyclopaedia is supposed to be the goal here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thing this wasn't disruptive or tendentious editing. Certainly wasn't disruptive until the wrong person got rickrolled. It's in userspace anyway. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• That ANI just two months ago resulted in no action needed. This block should be reversed promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) x 4 I have to agree. Unblock and reinstate rollback. And Allstarecho, unless I'm missing something, I only see one set of edits that could be considered edit warring. —Travis^talk 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First removal, First revert. Second removal, Second revert. Third removal. Not technically 3RR but still warring. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Outside, non-admins view) - It is rather pathetic that a user has been blocked for this. Has the blocking admin had a sense of humour transplant or something? Sometimes I wonder what WP is coming to. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)Unfortunately, a sense of humour (or indeed, a sense of proportion) is not a prerequisite for becoming an admin. Silly block, just undo it quickly and move on to something more important than a little light-heartedness in userspace. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As it appears that Toddst1 has stepped away from Wikipedia for the time being, per the obvious consensus, I carried out the unblock myself. —Travis^talk 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that Toddst1 needs to be investigated (formally or informally) in some way for this, if he is willing to block on this occasion, I wonder what else could be going on with this user. Blatant misuse of admin tools, I am now uncomfortable that such a user has this power. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. User:TravisTX unblocked him. Good on you, Tex. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your support. Although I wasn't able to edit, I was following each and every comment. (Yes I have no life, Spring Break).--Jojhutton (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:USER: This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception... The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes. How is insisting on this content, after being asked to remove it, anything other than deliberate disruptiveness? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the appropriate words are "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's deliberate disruptiveness, but we've collectively asked for it by continuing to tolerate such nonsense. There's plenty of editors whose basic attitude is "if you can't show me a specific rule specifically against what I'm doing, I'll keep doing it." Such people are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, but we don't have a good way to make them go away. Good luck solving this problem. Friday (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the apparent lack of any sense of proportion is incompatible with being an admin, but I'd probably get jumped on if I did. DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday... hi. You say, "it's deliberate disruptiveness". I would have to disagree. True, I can't read the editor's mind, but neither can you. I find it much, much easier to believe that the editor is showing a sense of humor, and wishing to entertain people. The idea that this editor deviously plans to "disrupt" the project with a funny joke... I just don't buy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and now for the real discussion: Should this content be allowed or forbidden? I say forbidden as it is extremely annoying and misleading, particularly to less-experienced users. Nonetheless, this wasn't an appropriate block. —Travis^talk 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking part of my earlier comment, since it might give the impression that I'm interested in climbing the Reichstag myself. I have no particular interest in Jojhutton being blocked or unblocked, but as far as policy is concerned I do feel strongly that insisting on having such content in one's User space is disruptive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. If you're "disrupted" by this, try and laugh at yourself a little. This is a truly trivial matter to actually be upset over. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That said, if there is community consensus for banning them, I won't oppose it. The issue is not important to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay insane.[158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] Durova^Charge! 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Moving on to the real issue, I think any discussion about whether or not to allow such use of the MediaWiki interface should either be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:User page. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Was, two years ago. Diffs exist for a reason. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't recall questioning the diffs?? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it would be necessary to read them first before appreciating the irony of dismissing them and declaring the actual issue to be...exactly what the diffs referred to. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We've had protracted discussion on this, with the only result being this compromise wording that is susceptible to varying indications. Changing the wording is worthwhile, but trying to achieve consensus to prohibit or allow these jokes is probably a lost cause.--chaser - t 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the community has discussed and that's the strongest language that can be agreed upon, all the more reasons for admins to not start an edit war with and then block users for this non-offense.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:SMI specifically says, The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes. Uses of the interface in this fashion is obviously not done for testing purposes and therefore are not allowed. The guideline has, apparently, been there all along - unless of course someone was just being bold and added the SMI section without any consensus to do so. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep a forged part of the interface to point to a rick roll? And the block is questionable how? Lots of people would like to use a fake link to send unwitting people to a youtube video, it is not appropriate to use fake links to trick people into going to an external web site. Edit warring to insist upon it is certainly blockable. What a strange direction this discussion has taken. Chillum 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely and utterly harmless. If someone linked to a website that had a problem such as malware or spyware or linked to porn that would be one thing. There's no good reason to block for this. We've discussed it before and repeatedly concluded that such messages while possibly silly aren't worth fighting over. Enough drama. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote external links such as you tube videos. I think people should be able to make an educated decision when clicking on links. Not everyone wants flash videos on their computer, they may have a slow computer or a slow browser. Perhaps they just don't like that video and should not be tricked into going there. Chillum 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They should learn to hover their mouse. Millions have learned this trick. If they can't figure it out, then they get off pretty easy with, "We're no strangers to love... You know the rules, and so do I!..." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should just do what your user name incongruously suggest that you do, chill? This was perfectly harmless, and I agree with the comment made above that the blocking admin needs to be taken to task over this ridiculous block. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If I had the faintest idea how to do it, I would insert a "cup of tea" picture with a hidden link to the video of "Relax" here, but I don't so I won't. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

After months of editors calling each other Hitler, vandalizing things, gaming admin nominations with sockpuppets, and promoting paranoid conspiracy theories, it warms my heart that the worst problem on Wikipedia at the moment is that Jojhutton created a rickroll good enough to earn a block - I suggest a barnstar for Jojhutton for a good rickroll, a barnstar for Toddst for getting rickrolled, and the rest of us retire presently to the WP:SPIDER page. This really is very funny the more I think about it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Conspiracy Theorist; poor cousin to Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark

Quite so. Look, to the right! There is my cousin Ernest. He's a conspiracy theorist, and he's very happy right now that this Rickrolling issue is taking up administrative time; makes it easier for him to expound his grand insights. Cheers, Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I am actually an alternate account of Durova and if anyone complains she will never do this again; it's meant in good humor.

Alas, poor Ernest. We knew him, poorly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

At least he can sense the Importance of Being Ernest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, Durova, you've been around here long enough to know that humor is strictly forbidden. Consider yourself warned. —Travis^talk 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology - I now realize that I failed to notify Toddst1 or Sandstein, the blocking and reviewing admins, of this discussion. I was away for my computer for a couple hours while all the fun happened. It's probably not fair to criticize anyone in their absence because they haven't had a chance to share their thoughts... nor do I think it's really necessary. They were doing good work, just a decision that others do not agree with. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection from undoing a controversial move

Resolved

 – User has been warned and has agreed not to do this again. Oren0 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor who was involved in a number of disputes over page titles has been protecting his controversial moves by making unnecessary edits to redirect pages. As a result, a regular non-admin editor can not move the page back over the redirect because the redirect page has got a history of edits. To undo such moves it requires an admin to delete the redirect page before moving back.

I refer to User:Biophys' edits here and here. When other editors tried to make a move back by copy-pasting, such moves were smugly reverted, see this history as an example.

He also tried the same technique at Mikheyev v. Russia to protect the contentious title Phone call to Putin, but that redirect page was eventually deleted so I do not have a corresponding diff. Essentially same technique was employed here. Likely he used this technique before for which I do not have the corresponding diffs either because of deletion of the pages.

These edits were discussed before here, and I warned Biophys here not to do that again. Unfortunately, I do not have much power to stop him from doing this, but I personally find these edits as unethical exploit of WP's limitations and disruptive in general.(Igny (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

• A few things to notice. First, Igny (talk · contribs) is not a neutral side, since he has been placed on formal editing restriction by Tiptoety. Second, I reacted to edits like this (there are many more similar edits), which were done by a group of Russian users including Russavia, Offliner and Igny. If I understand correctly, the existing policy requires people to discuss controversial moves and mergers, find consensus (if possible), and then to ask an administrator for a help if administrative tools are required (for example to move an article). This is a policy I certainly agree to follow. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I've never claimed I was impartial. I've put this notice here not to discuss the controversies over the articles, nor the disputes which we were both part of. I am not here to discuss the moves/mergers, whether they were justified or not. I want to discuss this particular trick of yours to protect the moves from undoing, it is akin to having the power of admins to protect pages and using it in edit wars. I actually think this issue is not be new, most likely you've learned this trick from someone else. So is there a way to stop you and your like from doing this? (Igny (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Slinging mud at your opponent... Way to go, Biophys. (Igny (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Making edits to redirects to prevent moving over them is a very "dick" thing to do. I have seen these deleted before, as they should be, and Biophys should be blocked if he continues. On the other hand, Igny should not cut-and-paste move. Hopefully this case will show that admins are willing to, as in the past, speedy-delete such "garbage" revisions. --NE2 02:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of reporting the incident here, if the matter has been debated already at the talk page of Tiptoety? I am sure he is very capable of taking any action if needed.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that Tiptoety suggested that it be taken here? --NE2 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. I can see your point though and will try to avoid this in the future. In practice, such tricks can stop a "war of moves" and force all sides to start negotiations. When consensus is reached, an administrator can make a requested move in a second.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave Biophys a warning. Hopefully he would not do it again Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Pioneercourthouse

Resolved

 – Indef'd by an admin

I'm not good at setting up checkuser cases, or in this situation, adding a new item to an existing case. Could an expert please look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse and fix as needed? Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

An RFCU won't go far seeing as it's historical. You're looking for WP:SPI now. :) D.M.N. (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I find every bit as confusing. If someone would set this one up for me, I promise to take notes so that I can do it myself the next time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

...and declined by CheckUser because it's clearly a WP:DUCK case. What you need is an NES Zapper instead of CheckUser. MuZemike 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, would someone mind indef'ing User:Blenkidink, based on the "quack" investigation? OOPS, already done. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth93

Resolved

 – Blocked Guy (Help!) 19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth93 (talk · contribs) admits to being indef blocked Babylon93 (talk · contribs) at User_talk:Kittybrewster#Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Babylon93. He continues to evade block and threatens to ignore WP:RS and WP:OR. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering

Resolved

 – Article userfied, all else is taken care of.

Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at, and attempt to sort out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering please. Brief background: article created at Hydraulic geoengineering. Article sent to AfD. On its way to deletion until original author moves page to large-scale hydraulic engineering projects, but doesn't change the content. Author insists that because the title changed, a new AfD is needed. Hydraulic geoengineering and large-scale hydraulic engineering projects get deleted by involved admin. Author re-creates large-scale hydraulic engineering projects. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it National Neologism Week, I wonder? Over at WP:RFAR we have a request to unblock Eddie Segoura, which will raise a groan from a few of the old hands here. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was totally open about what I was doing and why. The AfD had been up way too long so I tried to sort out the (valid) WP:NEO with a split/move. I updated the AfD page and (later) all the commetning editors' pages. I am not trying to circumvent the system, and I was given a suggested title on which to place the content by another editor. If the issue is NEO, then a non-NEO name should be a full resolution of the issue. This is the first time I've come across this preceise issue, so sorry if I dont' know correct protocol. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

to clarify, I think it needs a new AFdAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, if the content is the same as the article that was deleted per an AfD discussion - as happened atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering - then any "renaming" can be deleted per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted page). It isn't the title, but the content that is discussed - and the original AfD commented that the only sources were mirror sites and blogs, neither of which are considered reliable sources. If you have a userfied copy, then I suggest you find neutral third party references that can be inserted into the text. I trust you now understand, the content is not encyclopedic no matter what title it bears. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK can you userfy it back for me and I will tidy it up Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do (by "tidy" I trust you mean, "add reliable third party sources"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and other cleanup Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, and noted on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, IPSock!

These are not my IP Addresses, and someone is inaccurately attributing them to me!_BLuE^DOgTn 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) User talk:69.247.19.250 ‎
User talk:76.29.32.11 ‎
User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎
User talk:76.16.97.218 ‎
User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎
User talk:76.16.103.79 ‎
User talk:71.58.128.61 ‎
User talk:71.231.58.8 ‎
User talk:71.201.186.107 ‎
User talk:71.199.159.41 ‎
User talk:69.247.19.250

What is it that you request from admins?  Sandstein  05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I geolocated three of them at random and they're all to different cities in the US. I'm sure some of them are in the same region, but I got Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Illinois from those selections. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would request all these to be deleted on here execpt for the last IP Address because before my internet provider comcast switched it was the 69.250 one now it is different one which is 98.240.44.215! By the way, I am from Knoxville, TN!_BLuE^DOgTn 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by a user

I wish to bring your attention to the actions of Brisbanelionsfan1 and edits made from his (or a partner in crime's) IP address.

Earlier today, the IP posted this message on the talk page of Ben W Bell, linked to a blog which ridicules Ben. Two hours later, Brisbanelionsfan1 (BLF1) posted a message/troll on Ben's talk page, feigning support.

To put this in perspective, Ben was involved in the reverting and discussion of BLF1's disruptive edits earlier in the week where the 3RR rules was broken. Almost all of BLF1's edits since signing up for an account have been to the Brisbane Lions article and it's talk page where he tries to stir up trouble. His first scheme was to add a detailed list of controversies that the club's players have been involved in off-field. Numerous users objected to this and explained so on the talk page but the edits continued. At the same time he and the IP have added to the 'membership base and sponsorship' table, the average crowd sizes for the 2009 season, as they happened to be low (the league is only a couple of games into the season). His agenda to editing on wikipedia is to denigrate the Brisbane Lions and judging by his edits to this date and his 'ironic' username that seems to be all he is interested in. After discussing the issue of crowd averages on the talk page, where users again explained that they shouldn't yet be added, he defended his case. However, after a decent crowd in last night's home game which has driven the average up, BLF1 has removed it from the table with this summary - "because the season is yet to be complete. do not enter a crowd average yet" Jevansen (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

*Update* - The blogger is a Queenslander who likes to blog about how AFL is failing is his state.[168][169][170] Notice a theme? He loves his record low crowd numbers and even who talks about a 'Brisbane Lions player glassing a woman in a Gold Coast bar'.

This person also brags about doing 'Facebook trolling' so I suspect this is another of his trolls. Jevansen (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just followed those links. One of those links regards rugby, which I have no interest in. I am obviously a Queenslander, hence my name. The only relevant link regards the Lions player who got into trouble. That is the extent of the overlap. Calling somebody a troll, and then saying here's a link that proves it is pretty tenuous. --Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 09:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

The facebook link isn't evidence of you being the blogger, the other links already prove it is you. I added the third link to show what type of character you are and that this is just another 'troll' for you. Your blog is filled with rants about crowd figures and about sportsmen getting a free ride from the media after bad off-field behaviour. The exact same stuff that you troll about here. Here's another. I've leave it there for now, the administrators have enough evidence to work on and I'm sure they will make the right decision. Jevansen (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are happy to make judgements of character. I hate to disappoint you but that blog doesn't belong to me, but it should hardly surprise you that I have linked to it. I am indeed interested in some of its content. What you fail to address is the issue that I have added sourced, relevant material to an article that has been removed because what appears to be a group of fanboys do not want negative information to appear on the page. It is linked to here [171] so that my bona fides can be shown. This is not a troll. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 10:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

You're digging yourself into an even deeper whole now. It is one thing to happen to 'find' the blog entry (eg googled Ben's name) and then it can be argued, as implausible as it is, that it's merely a coincidence that the blogger shares your views. But now you're saying that you were already a fan of the blog? So ... out of the blue, in the same week that you and Ben are involved in a dispute on wikipedia, this blogger decides to make a post about this user? Now that really is some coincidence!

Addressing your second point, the group of 'fanboys' that have reverted your material consist only of one Brisbane Lions supporter, Shaggy9872004. In over two years on this encyclopaedia, I don't believe I have ever edited the article, other than to remove vandalism and disambiguate links etc (same as I do for all other 15 clubs). If I'm a Brisbane Lions fan as claimed then I don't seem to have much interest in them. Ben I believe, going by his userpage seems to be from the UK so he clearly isn't a 'fanboy'. The only other user to have reverted your edits and or discuss this on the talk page is User:The-Pope, who going by his userpage and edit history is clearly a Fremantle supporter. That's quite some group!

Ok, now that truly is my final comment before admin address this issue. Jevansen (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's some convoluted logic. As you can see from my edit history I was putting in links to off-field incidents. That is how I have got there in the first place. All of which is avoiding the point that I have had valid edits continually removed. You are playing the man and not the ball here, not to mention getting bogged down in tangential issues. The link to my edits is above. I note that you are incapable of addressing the single question of why it is only overwhelmingly positive history that can get onto the Brisbane Lions page. My editting was not disruptive. And that is what we are here to discuss. --Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

I am the person in question. No I didn't write the blog entry, but was amused to find it. The edits that I have made to the Brisbane Lions page have been to get some balance into the page. However, whenever I post something that is not considered positive about the Lions, it is deleted. I put up a NPOV tag, but it was deleted by other members who do not want scrutiny on the page. I strongly believe that the page should not be a press release. As to the link, I thought it was amusing as much as anything. I wasn't logged in when I first linked to it, and the second comment I left for clearly humourous. There is no harmful intention here, and I apologise if it has been m

On the crowds issue. I posted crowds that were removed. After a single good crowd the very same person who was removing them was the one who updated, reinforcing the notion that only good news will be accepted on this page. The comment that I left "because the season is yet to be complete. do not enter a crowd average yet" was exactly the same one that was given as a reason by the other user for not putting an average in. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I would've thought.--Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)istakenly construed that way.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

Mate, I only updated the crowd average because I was going to trust your notion so as YOU said, what good for the goose is good for the gander. Besides that fact, not ONLY good stuff is allowed on this page. I wouldn't say that including a list of stats and pointing out we lost many games by large margins is very positive...You are just being somewhat immature because at Wikipedia, you don't always get your way. I've learnt that from the past and I guess you should too.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)