Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607

Yet another Brunodam's sockpuppet on the loose...

...and apparently I'm his target of his abusive remarks this time. See contributions by: User:Sett19. Also an anonymous IP [1]. Considering that this is rather annoying, I'd be grateful for any timely intervention.--Deusdemona (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've indeffed Sett19. With regard to the IP, which needs a block as well, I encountered an unusual technical situation: the interface says that the IP is already blocked, but it is obviously editing, and the block log reflects a three-month block from August 2009 that would have long since expired by now. Can anyone with more technical background than I on the block interface shed some light on this one? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this insult by User:AoV2[2] rather puzzling… and certainly related to this other one: [3]. Is he another sock-puppet even?--Deusdemona (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

God help me for speaking Italian in a very similar way. I merely was refuting the other user′s statement. Brad, try unblocking, then re-blocking this 207.69.139.157 user. It will be no skin off my back. ―AoV² 05:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded to the blocking bug on another forum. — Werdna • talk

WP:PA after final warning by User:Pryde 01

In January 2010 Pryde 01 (talk · contribs) received a final warning[4] for making personal attacks [5][6]. After warning Pryde 01 about edit warring at Sam Neill, I've received a personal attack on my talk page[7]. XLerate (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The final warning was too long ago (January 24) to be acted upon. I have issued (or I will momentarily issue) a new one. I can safely assume that being born in NI doesn't mean you can't change your citizenship! The user is tantalisingly close to violating WP:3RR anyway. If he reverts again in the 24 hour period, or continues to vandalise the page or attack any user in the next week or so after his final warning, WP:AIV will happily gobble him up.

This is, assuming, that Sam Neill is a New Zealander! :P SGGH ^ping! 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked, born to NZ military parents in NI. If my parents were on holiday in Greece when I was born that wouldn't make me Greek. SGGH ^ping! 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this SGGH. That's right, citizenship can change, and be by descent. The Washington Post says he's a New Zealander[8], as does the man himself[9]. XLerate (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As a by-note I was born in NI, moved to Australia when young and have both UK and Aus citizenship. I don't know what the substance of the argument is, but one's UK citizenship is not cancelled by obtaining citizenship elsewhere - I'd have to actually formally renounce it to lose it. Orderinchaos 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger, take to WP:AIV if you see any further transgressions. SGGH ^ping! 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken him to AIV for this nonsense. SGGH ^ping! 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw, was just on the way to AIV, sorry for that. XLerate (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV have bounced it back here waiting for this to resolve itself. This report is resolved, so if another admin could deal with the last personal attack for me, would be appreciated. It's going stale now. Thanks. SGGH ^ping! 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Serial spammer

Resolved

 – Blocked by an admin.

Janine Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Adding a promotional link to many articles, won't listen to warnings to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Now blocked, routine WP:COI in some areas and just not getting it in others. The motive is not commercial here, the promotion os of a charitable enterprise. A bit of kindness might go a long way if anyone is warm and generous today. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray william johnson

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted by Redvers. —DoRD (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across this while stub-sorting and tried to tidy it up by Moving it to the correct capitalisaion - this failed, as creation of Ray William Johnson has been prevented (I see it's been deleted A7 four times). Presumably this article needs to be deleted and its recreation prevented? PamD (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black (legal threat?)

After a cadre of sockpuppets were blocked, controversial author Edwin Black has now issued an on-wiki Cease & Desist notice and accusations that he and others have been "censored" and "publicly defamed". Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Block the account for legal threats and direct them to WP:OTRS. Woogee (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to assist. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did he actually make a legal threat? Acting like a pompous idiot isn't the same as making a legal threat, and while he uses legal language, he doesn't seem to be threatening a lawsuit. He requested they cease and desist, but did not provide any consequences for failing to do so, only a contact e-mail for questions. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A Cease and Desist notice is the step right before legal action is taken. I doubt someone would make a cease and desist notice without the concurrent implication that if you don't stop you're going to get sued. It's intended as a chilling effect against Blaxthos. Mr. Black's accounts should be blocked and he should be directed to OTRS. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's the step right before, and not an actual legal threat, then it gets treated as such, specifically, we warn the user. There's a reason we have the template warning for it. He hasn't issued an actual legal threat yet, so a block is premature. I've warned him on his talk page, so he knows the line, but for now, I don't think any further action is needed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A C&D notice is not the step before the threat, it is the step right before legal action. In most contemporary contexts, a C&D notice is considered a legal threat (as in, a threat of legal action). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were an actual, formal cease and desist, I'd agree. But just because he chose to use the term "cease and desist" instead of "stop and refrain" doesn't make it a legal threat. If he escalates in spite of the warning, report it, but blocking over word choice without a threat is unreasonable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone should still point him towards OTRS. If nothing else, it may make him stop socking. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out and did it myself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't necessarily advocating any particular path of adjudication.  :) Should the comment in question be struck, removed, or left online? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He persisted after the warning and got blocked. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, if a sock or other malcontent tells someone to "cease and desist", one could warn the user to "cease and desist using the term 'cease and desist'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from using the term 'cease and desist'. (oh dear) this comment should be read as humour Orderinchaos 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from telling others to cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" to request that people cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" when requesting people cease and desist.:p In conclusion...I don't see a legal threat in the above diff. Using legal terminology does not equal a legal threat. Though the comments regarding Blaxthos in this diff [10] are alarming and IMO reason enough for blocking regardless of the legal threat issue. Sarah 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Firmly agreed. Orderinchaos 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I think, to quote Theresa from another thread, STFU is so much more succinct and unequivocal  :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Black's original language, if you go all the way to the start of the thread, is clearly intended to suggest a legal threat. On the other hand, I believe I once used the C&D phrase in a warning myself without actually intending a legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here, am I correct in seeing that we have likely blocked "award-winning New York Times bestselling American author and journalist Edwin Black" (as he's described in our article on him)? The person referred to (above) by Blaxthos as "controversial author Edwin Black"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who you are, if you start actively trying to out other editors, you can't edit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cease and desist has entered general usage and so I don't think this can be construed as a legal threat- it appears to me that he was just using the phrase. Perhaps to give himself an inflated sense of importance, perhaps out of frustration, perhaps to put the frighteners on but he didn't mention any consequences so it's not really a threat of any sort, in my opinion. This part of my post is obiter dictum and that ANI should apply stare decisis but that doesn't make it a legal threat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "cease and desist" is general, but "I am now seeking the identity and corporate presence of Blaxthos or the representative of Blaxthos so I may contact him or her through traditional appropriate responsible means as provided by law." is pretty specific. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that this would likely work, but maybe you could "shame him" a little bit, and tell him you would have expected better behavior from a prize-winning author. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Outing

I am placing this message on ANI to note that I have received real-life confirmation that Mr. Black is attempting to find out my real name, so that his "people" can "mail [me] some things." I find it particularly disturbing to learn that Mr. Black has setup a mail alias for the express purpose of stalking me and/or the gathering of my personal information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am dealing with Mr. Black who has contacted us through OTRS regarding the article about him. Any further issues relating to him should be routed to me, either through my talk or by email if they are sensitive. Continuing to discuss the matter onwiki is unlikely to be productive (although of course I am not ordering you to stop).

We cannot control what Mr. Black does offwiki, although we can block him until he withdraws the legal threats etc. (and indeed have). Stifle (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem -- I have no interest in continued discussion that could exacerbate the situation; my intent here is only to give proper notice as to the additional developments. I will address any new information directly to Stifle. Thanks for the help, all! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

anon IP user 67.155.172.162

I came across this edit by 67.155.172.162. It was reverted by a bot before I could do so. Do we do anything about pseudo-death threats like this? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you review its list of so-called "contributions", you'll see it's only being used for vandalism. Someone needs to put a lengthy block on that IP and take it out of circulation for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've {{anonblock}}ed it for a month. It's a static IP and looks like a school in Manassas, Virginia. Rodhullandemu 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

This user Tadija has violated 1RR/Week in Kosovo [11] [12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

(cur) (prev) 20:16, 4 April 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (108,059 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Mladifilozof; This is not main article for this subject. POV. (TW)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 14:34, 1 April 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (108,203 bytes) (rv POV image removal. Those are highly related) (undo)-- LONTECH  Talk  18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little late, but he's got similar blocks for edit warring in the past so I've blocked him for 72 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peace Scouts

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Peace Scouts. I agree with Euryalus. There should be some D in this BRD cycle... –xeno^talk 16:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Several editors are meatpuppet canvassing and violating WP:POINT at this disambig page. There are so many disambigs in really sorry shape, yet they've chosen this one to target. I've asked politely that they stop, and they continue. It's unnecessary and it's getting old. This disambig is used by the Scouting WikiProject, and is not filled with pointless trivia or dozens of redlinks. It's not precisely within the letter of the rules, but it does follow the spirit, which these users are not doing. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I hate to break it to you, but they were making the page comply with WP:MOSDAB, and you were reverting their legitimate changes. I've restored the page to the correct version. Please don't change it back to one which violates MOSDAB. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe, out of respect for you and the consistently good work you do, I will be as polite as I can. You don't need to "break" anything to me, I am fully aware of MOSDAB, and I am sure you have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically the bit about Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express. I am just as sure that those editors have not read it, or if so, disregard it. That disambig was perfectly fine as it was, compared to hundreds I have come across in shit shape. How do you or those editors justify those other disambigs remaining in that condition, in light of this badgering? This is pure and simple bullying, in fact my page was 3RR tagged just to push that WP:POINT. Copying this to your talkpage just in case you are not watching this page. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember that just because there are other pages which fail to meet the guidelines doesn't mean that this page can flout the guidelines without a really good reason for it. I'm not trying to "justify" anything, and I doubt the other editors are, either (not sure, though, since I've never worked with them before). It's not wikilawyering to try to get all pages to meet the guidelines, and in this case, the version of the page you were promoting didn't even meet the spirit of the guideline. If you think the guideline is wrong and should be changed, you are welcome to propose a change to it. As for you receiving a 3RR warning, I have no control over what other editors do. If you have a concern about the warning, I suggest taking it up with the editor who gave the warning. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Further to Nihonjoe's comment, this seems like a fairly slow-moving disagreement over whether the original format, or one that more strictly follows MOSDAB, provides a more user-friendly layout. I notice no one has presented their views on the talk page - in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, this might be worth a go. Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a good suggestion, I will try it but at this point I will be genuinely surprised if any one of those users will join any discussion. Thanks Euryalus. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So far you haven't put forth any actual argument against modifying the page except that other pages are worse. If you can actually explain why this page would be better if not modified, yes, that just might be more productive. Propaniac (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Back Down 2

Resolved

 – Speedy deleted (G3) by Graeme Bartlett. Jarkeld (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed. --Smashville^talk 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Smailliwsemaj

Resolved

 – Blocked 48 hrs and will be given a short lead. –xeno^talk 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block on Smailliwsemaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing by Tone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) expired about half an hour ago and was followed almost instantly by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone&diff=354154127&oldid=354150727 this], which I reverted, and then this. I think anotherr block should be given serious consideration. Smailliwsemaj notified of this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They also created this page, and until recent had "f**k off all the people who write on my page. I'll do what I like you w***rs!" on their talk page. They have also been disrupting various music articles, inserting false information and inappropriately recreating articles closed as redirects at AFD. He also removed this section. Aiken ♫ 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Rodhullandemu. Aiken ♫ 18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They've been blocked 48 hours by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs); but based on their attitude and comments it doesn't appear that editing in a collaborative environment is within their grasp. –xeno^talk 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours, but depending on their talk page resonse, I might feel inclined to reconsider this (in an upwards, and unlimited, direction). Rodhullandemu 18:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what net positive this person has to our project, and why the block is not indefinite. I've had nothing but problems with this user: constant disruption, blaming it all on a relative, and making idle threats against other editors. Not the kind of editor we should be accomodating. Aiken ♫ 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

He started out as a good contributor but seems to have gone off the rails recently; he also seems to want to have it all his own way. If he gives an indication that this will not continue, maybe 48 hours will convince him of this. Otherwise, I'd be quite happy to make his next block his last. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm inclined to agree- we shouldn't tolerate threats of "you will be sorry" to anybody, never mind to the blocking admin half an hour after your block expires. However, I think Rodhullandemu's method of dealing with it is sensible- if they don't take to this block kindly, it can be increased and their talk page locked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. I agree with said above, the extended block is appropriate here. The user has been around for a while, let us hope he begins contributing in a more constructive manner. Otherwise, blocks will get longer... --Tone 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted an edit to Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here: [13] with the edit summary "rv whitewash". You will be aware that the subject is blocked under the account James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also that the subject is a controversial figure. He has complained about the specific revert. Trying to be fair to all sides here, I believe that:

• user:Keystroke was making a good-faith effort to address legitimate concerns over the article.
• user:NeilN identified that some of the removed material was reliably sourced and reverted but chose his summary poorly, failing to assume good faith of Keystroke. I do not think this is characteristic or habitual and acknowledge I have done worse myself.

Bell is clearly incensed over past edits to the article and is making demands in respect of individuals concerned, which are not my place to address, being mainly to do with past conduct. I have passed these to the Arbitration Committee to see if any action is required. The only recent edit which Bell has brought to my attention is NeilN's revert. It's clear to me that Bell's major issue right now is that he is blocked, and he considers this to be an abuse perpetrated by Wikipedia. Everything else is secondary and rubbing salt into the wound. I have two questions:

• Is any action required at this point?
• What can be learned from this complaint, to prevent future issues?

As an aside, Bell states that all edits by Skomorokh are suspect. I cannot pick them apart form other subsequent edits by Keystroke and others which are clearly welcome. I would ask others to join me in reviewing the content of the article and ensuring that everything there is reliable sourced and neutrally stated, since despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text. It is understandable that he is not willing to co-operate, especially while blocked, so it's down to us I guess. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely could have chosen a more tactful edit summary. I explained my concerns here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bell's unwillingness to cooperate, I believe it has little to do with him being blocked. He was repeatedly asked to point out specific article concerns when he was free to edit. This continued when he started socking. He invariably replied with accustions about other editors' behaviour, as I suspect he's doing now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The main part of Bell's block is his refusal to stop with personal attacks about a good-faith admin trying to point out our policies to him, along with others. We asked him several times to make his posts small and concise, not the tl;dr paragraphs he was posting. He responded with more tl;dr posts insulting others, and his talk page was locked. This block, as said, is not only about unwillingness to cooperate, but unwillingness to stop with personal attacks and treat others civilly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise a policy of actively not going there. Let's focus on the here and now. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to formulate "lessons learnt" from this situation. None of us want inaccurate info in the article or something that has undue weight. At the same time, subjects of articles need to realize they can't control the content (I believe Gogo Dodo initially explained this to Bell) and should be told how to raise their concerns (done, multiple times including the formulation of a new template by you). Keystroke has gone through the article, fixing problematical areas. As someone who helps out on WP:BLPN, I can say all these things happen with any "regular" BLP article. Perhaps we could create a "we know you're upset but your edits do not conform to the guidelines" template based off of Template:Blocked subject --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, he has come here and had issues with his article and as a newbie with his own article he has has some issues, he has identified with otrs, I would support another try, remind him to stay civil, give him a list of the policy and guidelines and give him another chance (last chance). It would likely all end in tears though as all he wants to do is change or remove some content he disputes on his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing. He hasn't identified article issues with OTRS per Guy: "despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text". What makes you think this behaviour is going to change, given the folks at OTRS are probably more patient and sensitive than the average editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an issue, if he won't tell us exactly what his issues are, how can we investigate? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's my concern. What I've seen largely duplicates the material already posted here, which focuses on particular editors and edits long in the past (by Wikipedia standards, anyway). I am certain that if any one of the emails he has sent were posted anywhere other than his own talk page, he'd be blocked again. All that's going to do is piss him off even more. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to sympathize with Bell's unwillingness to proofread an article he dislikes and list the errors he spots, thereby legitimizing the rest of it. I'd frankly support deleting the Bell article (he is basically a fringe character like Barbara Schwarz) and adding a sentence or two about Bell to the assassination market article. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is a bit bloated we could trim it back. It's getting about 30 views a day which is a pretty low attraction and importance level Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What you call bloated, others might call detailed. Page views should not dictate the length of the article. Regardless, changes to the article content should be discussed on its talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is not here to be awarded a medal for its detailed informative highly viewed content is it? 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bell doesn't like the article because he can't control it, his problems with it are the fact that he can't make it match 'HIS view of himself and his problems with the federal govt. Gutting it isn't a solution to the problem. Fixing all details with cites to reliable sources is. The solution for Bell himself is easy, leave his ass blocked and whack his socks when they show up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't really stand up. He's read it in sufficient detail that he is familiar with the edits of individual editors and has cited diffs in respect of editorial conduct. I do not get the feeling that the presence of the article is offensive to him (cf. Daniel Brandt), the usual interpretation of his statements in respect of the article seems to be that he wants everybody who has ever added anything he dislikes summarily banned from Wikipedia, himself unblocked and the article left to only sympathetic edits, which is not likely to happen. What we can, and should, do, is to ensure that the article is written to the highest standards of accuracy and neutrality. We can't fix the fact that there were past issues, we can fix any present issues and should do so, with or without his co-operation. That will need the input of people familiar with the subject, I think, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to anything. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me I'd delete it anyway, but yes, the article needs a lot of cruft gone if it stays. In my view it's extremely hard to deliver neutrality for a subject like that though. Significant points of view that must be included for the article to meaningfully conform to WP:NPOV, must simultaneously be excluded because they are documented only by sources that are too fringe to conform to WP:BLP. If an article can't be edited to conform to both policies at the same time, and quite a few can't, I see deletion as the only remedy. (In practice WP gets around this with a Humpty-Dumpty redefining of "significant" as "approved by a certain class of media outlets", but I see that as a cop-out that leads to retaining distorted articles).

As another issue, given the history of this article subject's off-wiki activities, I'd be uncomfortable editing the article from either an exposed IP address or a personally identifiable account. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by significant points of view. NPOV does not mean that fringe views should be included and that the views that are included should have equal weight. Neutrality does not mean that every point should have a counter-point. Also, whether or not IP's can "safely" edit the article is not really a valid consideration for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use "significant" to mean what it means in English, and deleting an article is the exact opposite of adding fringe views to it, but ANI isn't the right place for a philosophy discussion. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should delete the article because Bell may try to have WP editors "assassinated" if we dont comply with his requests to edit the article as he see's fit? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying I'm uncomfortable personally editing the article under the circumstances. I'm a big supporter of anonymous editing for reasons like this, even though I don't currently practice it. It's a separate issue from my sentiment towards deletion based on limitations on the types of documentation we can use biasing the article. Given that the article will be kept under foreseeable circumstances, I do think it needs cleanup. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, under the circumstances. I don't think he's crazy but he's sure as hell angry. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yow, there is even WP:EMDE which I didn't know about. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at User talk:James dalton bell#An uncivil policy. This is Yet Another Trampled Newbie. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it. About the most civil thing I can say is that I sharply disagree with your assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your sympathy seems misplaced. A "cypto-anarcist" can presumably take care of himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced indeed. This user was not blocked for his views on the article, he was blocked for continuously personally attacking anyone that tried to help him. No biting happened, it was all on his end. Try reading all relevant material before commenting like you know the issue when you really don't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was away on vacation when this thread was active - is the matter considered closed? If not, what are the remaining issues? Thank you Guy for starting this thread, and your high level of professionalism. Keystroke (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Zieten Hussars

Someone please have a look at the recent editing history of that article and the relevant article talk page, User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Zieten Hussars and User talk:De728631#Zieten Hussars to help determine who was acting disruptive here, if at all, and how to proceed with the article. I decided to not take this to dispute resolution since the two of us apparently can't even agree on who is being disruptive in this case. De728631 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So you decided instead to post on WP:Dramaboard with a dispute in which you cannot "agree on who is being disruptive"? The wording of your request makes it explicitly a case for DR. You're not asking for admin action here (block, block review, arbcom enforcement, censure, second opinion on another admin's actions, etc.). Whether there's an "incident" or not is perhaps debatable, but from your own summary, this isn't an AN/I issue.  Frank  |  talk  00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is rather about agreeing how to properly edit and improve an article in the first place, it's about procedure and about what can be denied and reverted as unproductive and disruptive from scratch. So I am actually asking for another opinion but if this is not for AN/I at all, I'll take it to the dispute resolution. De728631 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion now. De728631 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record from the history of the article:

• 27 March: De728631 move an article page from moved Zieten Hussars to Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3. -- as is usual on Wikipedia this was a bold move and there is nothing wrong with this.
• 28 March: I moved it back with the comment "moved Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 to Zieten Hussars over redirect: reverse move, not clear that English language sources support the new name".
• 28 March: I also reverted the changes to the first paragraph (to accommodate the renamed article) which I acknowledge reverted some other changes, but AFAICT they are sourced from an unreliable (web page) German source.
• 28 March: On the talk page of the article I suggested that if De728631 wished to proceed with a move (s)he should put in a WP:RM request. But instead of doing so
• 2 April: De728631 moved Zieten Hussars to Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 with no additional discussion on the talk page.
• 3 April: I reverted with the comment: "revert a conversational move, made without an WP:RM request" and
• 3 April: I reverted the changes to the text "rv to last version by PBS. Being bold is one thing reverting without discussing it on the talk page is disruptive)"

I placed my comment on the talk page on 28 March 2010, De728631 did not reply until 4 April 2010. Having reverted both the text and the page move on 2 April. As to why this ANI has been bought is open to question, because if De728631 knows enough to bring an ANI then (s)he ought to know enough about wikiquette to know not to re-revert changes and page moves without first seeking a consensus on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight it now appeared to me that I totally missed the comment by PBS on the article talk page while restoring my previous versions of the article because I first replied on his personal user talk page prior to re-reverting the move. Only then did I find PBS's note on the article talk and apparently did not check its date. This ANI was however brought up in search of neutral opinions on the matter which were eventually found elsewhere though. Having totally missed the early article talk, I was also quite annoyed that PBS had reverted my edits again and seemingly without a proper reasoning - but there I was wrong. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable content on user subpages

I have just come across this:

• User:Americanman095/Redeemer Lutheran–Catholic Church and School
• User:Americanman095/Thurifer
• User:Americanman095/How to visit a Lutheran Church

This user has a lot of other Lutheran church-related pages 'in progress' as user pages, and while they all look like they have problems (no references, POV, etc), i can understand that works 'in progress' are just that. The three i've cited, however, seem inappropriate. I'm not sure, but they seem to violate WP:NOTAMANUAL, as well as poosibly representing a kind of spam, and also probably not demonstrating notability. Is it enough to mention possible issues to the user, or should these actually be deleted? Any thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I never planned to move these pages into article space... I was just using wikipedia as a place to edit and view my personal work. I will save the content and someone can delete the pages. Thank you. Americanman095 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios

Resolved

Not too long ago, Madz67 (talk · contribs) was indef'd on terms of repeated copyvios after it was brought up on WP:ANI. S/he returned as a sockpuppet under the account Madz76 (talk · contribs), I thought she may have decided to turn over a new leaf and stop uploading copyvios, however after given various warning s/he continues to upload images without a source nor fair use template. I'm sure the user in good faith, but s/he keeps on deleting sections without explanation and adds WP:BLP risking information without a source and simply tags the claims with a {{fact}} tag, assuming it'll be okay. Plus, refuses to reply to any other users. I was wondering whether any admins could help? + TNW 17:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Indeffed for block evasion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Shampoo scandal

A few minutes wasted. Nothing else really to see. Also, WP:DENY.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Stop wasting everyone's time please 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. There is currently a claim on the article about shampoo that it is a hair caring product. Wikipedia has a poliy, WP:RS requiring claims made on articles to be backed up by inline citations of reliable sources. For this reason, I add a "Citation needed" tag to the claim. See this diff.User:Karenjc then comes and removes the tag. I explain the situation on their talk page and then User:Blanchardb removes the tag when I add it back saying that it isn't challenged. Well, I am challenging it, because it is not referenced as such from a reliable sources, as Wikipedia requires for claims made on articles. --9 to 8 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia does not require claims for the obvious. Please go play somewhere else.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) And to you Deadelus. Have you seen all the diffs? Do you know the importance of sourcing?--9 to 8 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The only thing I see is an obvious troll.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) It is against Wikipedia policy to accuse someone of being a troll. Even if it weren't, does following policy make one a troll? If you have seen all the diffs I have provided you will see that I am trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy on referencing claims. --9 to 8 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Not really. Its pretty obvious to everyone here you're a troll. That aside, however, you might as well just give up, because none of us are ever going to take your side.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not expecting you or anyone else to "take my side" per se. Just uphold Wikipedia policies.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Well, what else is it? Wood comes from trees. SGGH ping! 07:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Given we have an account that can use cite needed templates on edit one and can wikilink to WP:RS on edit 2 [20] I feel a big dose of WP:DENY coming on. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Oh yes Pedro. Given that we have a policy called WP:AGF and also WP:NOTSOCK (or similar) capped off with the fact that many editors start off as anonymous anyway I do not see any denying needed at all. Read my reply above of my intentions.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Actually AGF isn't policy. Neither is WP:DON'T-CITE-THE-BLOODY-OBVIOUS but it should be. Pedro :  Chat  07:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC) We're not going to give you want you want, so you're better off just playing somewhere else.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Your username

Resolved

 – Done. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

not sure if this is the place to put it, but could someone please block this user and protect the user and talk pages as an example user? Cheers, SS✞^(Kay) 08:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Okip canvassing

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

I'm calling an end to this timesink. There is substantial support for Okip to consider mentorship; editors may offer this, or he may ask someone directly or via Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. For the rest, Okip should take extra care not to give the appearance of canvassing for WP:AFD. If there are wider or more persistent issues they should be handled via WP:RFC/U. Rd232 ^talk 13:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Okip (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a blatant but creative form of WP:CANVASSing AFDs.

The technique looks like a ruse to evade WP:CANVASS: issue a barnstar to anyone who has voted the way he likes in an AFD, and link to a list of similar AFDs, labelling he link as a "purge".

See e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

The last one is particularly revealing, because the editor Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was given a barnstar for "for his iincedible work in the bus route purge." That word "purge" is not neutral, and Dew kane's contributions consist solely of pasting identical text to a range of AFDs, regardless of the state of the articles or any evidence presented in the discussion: see e.g. [26], [27], [28].

So the barnstar was actually awarded for voting, not for article rescue, and was a device to alert that editor (and any others reading that page) to Okip's view on a series of AFDs.

I asked Okip to stop canvassing, and the response was a reply on my talk accusing me of "bullying". I replied at Opik's talk[29], and the message was promptly deleted[30], so it has been read.

Opik has also left a blatantly partisan message at the article rescue talk page [31] (again referring to a "purge") ... and now appears to be writing guidance for others on how to canvass [32]. The article rescue squadron does some great work in improving poor articles and demonstrating the notability of a topic, and it is pity to see it being abused in this way as a vehicle for trying to circumvent the restrictions on votestacking.

Okip also closed a discussion in which zie had just voted, rather than leaving the job for an uninvolved editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not about time that this editor was topic-banned from anything to do with deletion-related pages? It appears that far too many people's time is being wasted here. Black Kite 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is about time you stop threatening editors Black Kite, when there is no rule breaking, this is a pretty bad form of bullying, and unfortunately not the first time. You could not possible be more biased in this discussion. Okip 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, you know the rules, yet you continue to bully me. I have started to write this guide, because I continue to see editors such as yourself, bully editors for not breaking any rules at all. If you refuse to follow our rules, and harrass editors who follow our rules, Brown haired girl, you should not be an administrator. Okip 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that BHG is exactly right. There would not be any requirement for me to post such issues had you not behaved like you did. I would also add User:Dew Kane to this proposed topic-ban, as their recent AfD contributions are nothing but copy-and-pasted versions of "it exists, so it's notable". Black Kite 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will ask you the same exact thing Black Kite: Why is there a template to do what I just did Black Kite? Okip 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Okip, you are not a how-to guide for escaping policy. I only had to look at two of the diffs above to see you are canvassing, and to promote yourself as the "resolver of situations" when it comes to others being dealt with for taking part in the canvassing that you promote is not acceptable either. If you want people to be made aware of AfDs so they can make their own judgement then read up on "deletion sorting" to ensure AfDs are being flagged up for the relevant WikiProjects. Going around recruiting like-minded users to create a gang of Okip-followers to head-off AfDs you don't agree with will not be tolerated. SGGH ^ping! 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, your bad faith and bullying truly knows no bounds. I have no idea how you became and adminstrator. I have followed all of the rules, and yet you continue to harrass me. Okip 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether you genuinely believe that blatantly partisan alerts to a selective audience are neutral, or whether you are just rying it on. But either way, don't engage in votestacking, and then you won't feel bullied when you are asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't have "rules" per say on WP, because it is the concepts and practice that is more important that any "letter of law" that may exist on WP. Even if what the actions are are squeaky-clean of the written text, the intent of the guideline and past behavior are much more valuable to go on. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notifying editors who edited the article which was nominated for deletion
Page	Rule	Template	Important notes
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people	While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."	"For an article you did not nominate: {{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~"	There is no "all sides" requirement. You can notify anyone who has participated in the discussion that you wish.

What part of this rule don't you editors understand? Again, if you are threatening editors when they are strictly following the rules, this is bullying and harassment.

What would brown haired girls notification here of the MFD be? Okip 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic? Resolute 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So is the notification of contributors to articles, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and the notification of wikiprojects. There is no basis in this complaint. Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For one, your characterization of BHG's nominations as "purges" is deliberately slanted terminology designed to generate sympathy/support for your position. Second, your invitations and barnstars are targeted towards like-minded users only. You are attempting to influence the outcome. I generally sympathize with your aims, but dude, you can only WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for so long. Resolute 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is writing "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion [which] compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." This is because you appear to be selecting people (and bribing them with barnstars it seems) who concur with your "purge" assessment of the AfDs. Furthermore, stop accusing us of threatening you, we aren't - this is Wikipedia. SGGH ^ping! 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template to do what I just did SGGH? Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The box posted above by Okip is not from WP:CANVASS, it's from Okip's own how-to-votestack guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature, and it directly contradicts the long-standing guidance at WP:CANVASS#Votestacking, which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template to do what I just BrownHairedGirl? If it is against the rules, why is there a template for this? Why is there a specific rule which states it is okay to do what I just did? Again, if I am following the rules, and you are threatening me, and now what the rules are, (which with over 150,000 edits, you probably d0) this is a form of bullying and harassment. Explaining the rules so that editors such as yourself no longer are able to threaten and bully others is perfectly acceptable.Okip 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, the problem here is not notifying people. It's who you are notifying and how you are doing it. You are absolutely not neutral, and you're posting messages in a completely biased manner. See my message on the talk page of your guide. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You. Are. Not. Following. The. Rules. If you look at WP:CANVASS you will see a chart (it is green and pink) that illustrates why your actions have violated that page's policy (think POV, selective messages, etc.) I suggest that Okip takes a warning about his canvassing, and further canvassing can result in the restrictions that anti-canvassing policy suggests (which is an eventual blocking period to prevent disruption). I can find nothing in Okip's defence that is convincing, and plenty of evidence from the other parties supporting the original ANI report's statement. Another admin can check in to close/finalise as I have now voted along with BHG in the MfD. SGGH ^ping! 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, its about time BrownHairedGirl was banned fron deletion related pages, just seems to be an editor full of disruptive hot air who will stop at nothing to get her own way. Jeni ^(talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: User:SGGH removed this comment for no reason

Yes, it's called an edit conflict and was not on purpose. Thank you. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually to be fair at this point, I'd support a block of you for your false accusations, bad faith assumptions and inability to act in a civil manner with someone you don't agree with.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave Okip/Ikip/Travb alone!!! It's a wikipedia rule that all criticism/disagreement with him is bullying and harrassment!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

u forgot user:inclusionist ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not helping. However, if we have past examples it would be easy to craft a restriction forbidding future infractions. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am following the rules. What part of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people do you not understand? Why do we have these rules, if editors can then disregard these rules at their leisure, threatening editors for following those rules.

As far as "how" I am notifying them, it was with a neutral message. I can notify anyone who has contributed to the article, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people.

giving barnstars to editors is not against any rules. This is a bogus posting by an administrator who knows better. Okip 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor" "for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" are completely not neutral. See the talk page of your guide for my suggestion of how you could go about it. The thing is, you've managed to neutrally notify in other places, so it's not like you're incapable of doing so. Aiken ♫ 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reference, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor"

"for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? Please quote SPECIFIC policy, otherwise your complaint has no basis in fact. I quoted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and no one has explained how me following these rules (which even have a template for doing what I did) violates canvassing. Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From the page you keep quoting, it says "Keep in mind that all such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." Your messages were biased, so you did not follow the rules. Therefore you violated the canvassing guideline. Referring to somebody nominating articles for deletion as "purging" is not neutral. Aiken ♫ 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? I don't see that in canvassing policy, anywhere on wikipedia in fact.Okip 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself too much, but as I said above, the policy clearly states that POV notification in order to get a certain kind of support at an AfD is as BHG said, vote-stacking. It says it clearly on the policy page, and in my opinion your notifications are clearly not neutral. SGGH ^ping! 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, how did I violate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, why is there this template to do what I just did? {{AFDNote}}Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can actually explain it any other way. You violated WP:CANVASS. SGGH ^ping! 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how comments thanking people for having !voted a certain way is canvassing for support, because they have already supported. It might conceivably be, if people regarded the barnstar from a particular editor as something so desirable that one would !vote in a certain way in the hope of receiving one. With all due respect to Okip, I do not think that's exactly the case here. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

{{AFDNote}} found on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

My notification

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[{{{1}}}]] == An editor has nominated [[{{{1}}}]], an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]] and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:London Buses route 372]] == London Buses route 372, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372. Okip 15:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[33]

Okip 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, I even said you managed to post a neutral comment which you did, which was why I was so surprised at the non-neutral comments left at other people's talk pages, along with barnstars. The above example of yours is exactly how people should be notified. Claims of "purging" are not. Aiken ♫ 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is permissible to notify people of AfDs, but the POV you are using means it goes from notification to canvassing. Again. SGGH ^ping! 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: How can you canvass someone with a barnstar who has ALREADY replied in a AFD? Do you know how absurd this all sounds? Okip 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black states that Ikip " is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He was blocked for 12 hours in January "for repeated canvassing en masse" Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, another editor who I have had longterm conflicts with. This is like a drawer full of bad pennies.

It is important to point out that A Man In Black lost his adminship over blocking me in that case.

The block on January was bunk, I just decided since it was only for 12 hours, I wouldn't fight it. It was by an admin who one former arbitration member aptly called "non-impartial", his next selective block of me (for doing exactly what an arbitration member did [the arbitration member was not blocked]) was reversed, and several admins and former arbitration members roundly condemned his block. Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Okip, you can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to your heart's content, but frankly if you continue to violate WP:CANVASS so blatantly the outcomes are not going to be to your liking. And if you wish to take that as bullying or harassment, I think you need to look a bit closer to home. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have asked several editors how I violated policy by giving barnstars to editors who already commented in the AFD...Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is sensible to link these AFDs together because of their similarity. Much aggravation would have been avoided if BHG had presented her case in the form of group nominations rather than the 20 or so nominations which we seem to have already. There are already lists of these related nominations in other places such as the project pages and it is a good service to inform editors of their existence if they have an interest in this sort of topic. The more participation we get in these discussions which affect hundreds of articles, the better the consensus that we will establish. Okip should be commended for his actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You are correct about the AFD bundling. However, such communications must still comply with WP:CANVASS. Okip's don't. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The reason I didn't bundle was that it seemed to me to be better to consider each article on the individual merits of that topic. I took heed of the comments from some editors who advocated bundling, so I bundled the last group of AFDs, but was promptly denounced for that, by the same editor who had most vociferously denounced me for nominating them singly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• For background, there's been a few no resolution/consensus AN/Is in the past, Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip, Blocked_Ikip_for_canvassing, and User:Ikip_and_forum_shopping for starters. So this has been a long-running point of contention with this user. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, more old "friends". Yep, that was the case where A Man In Black lost his adminship. That arbitration came about directly because of him inproperly blocking me for canvassing. Okip 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ikip I say this as a member of the ARS - actions like this only to serve to marginalise the ARS and its objectives. And people wonder why the ARS is called the "Article Canvassing Squadron" and editors summarily remove rescue templates...[34] --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet you were still warned. And so far as I remember, our interactions this year included at least one compliment from you which included either the word 'respect' or 'confidence' (this was a comment to someone else I believe), and no complaints from you - so 'longterm conflicts' doesn't seem at all accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looking through one of the complaints about him. He closed this article [35], after looking it over and seeing that every single person out of the many that commented said keep. Nothing wrong with that. If someone had posted delete, that'd be different. This is commonly what is done. As for the rest of this, no rule was violated. If you believe someone was done wrong, then go to the page about canvassing and discuss it there, changing it if you believe there is a consensus to do so. And barnstars are always given out to people by other editors, whenever they feel like it, it always someone who does something they like and approve of, obviously. And the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete, as many people unfortunately do. No rule violated, no reason to continue this witchhunt. Dream Focus 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I thought I wrote a note stating something to the effect, "if this is incorrectly closed, please open again" I was not sure if I could close the article with 8 keeps and no deletes right after I !voted on it, I just !voted on it, guess I can't. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "No rule was violated". Well, apart from the one about closing an AfD which you have voted in, of course. No, it doesn't really matter - the AfD was clearly heading for a SNOW keep - but it just illustrates yet again that Okip doesn't really have any regard for how things are done properly around here - i.e. "policy". It needs to stop. And I liked the bit about people midlessly voting delete, coming from a member of the ARS. Almost had to clean coffee off my keyboard there. Thanks.Black Kite 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Your continued partisan attacks need to stop, editors harrassing editors for following policy need to stop.
      Regarding my closure, I apologize for closing the AFD myself. I dont recall ever dealing with closing snowball keeps before. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • As soon as you stop behaving against policy, then people will stop "harrassing" you (translation: calling you out on policy violations). It's not rocket science and you're clearly not an unintelligent person, so I don't think it's too difficult for you to comprehend this. Black Kite 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • Having looked at the AFD again, I agree, he shouldn't have closed it. I didn't notice the nominator was still against it. If even one person doesn't agree with the rest, it should remain open. And things are often closed when everyone is in agreement. Just a simple mistake I believe. As for how things are done, well, yes, you see that is how things are done quite often. What do you mean about how things are done properly? Things are done quite differently in different parts of Wikipedia, depending on the whims of whoever is around at the time. No rule was violated by his alleged canvassing, it clearly not canvassing by the definition of canvassing on the proper Wikipedia page about that, so no reason why he shouldn't be able to do what he wants, if no rule is violated. Dream Focus 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Dream Focus seems not to have checked out my initial complaint, at the top of this section. Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was invited to the ARS for mindlessly saying keep. I don't know whether Dew Kane even read any of the articles in whose AFDs he !voted, but none of his long series of comments reveal any knowledge of state of the articles, and AFAICS he had made no edit to any of them. Other editors on both sides had taken time to read the articles and discuss things, but not Dew Kane. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Once again, no rule exist on who you can and can not invite to join a Wikiproject. And Dew Kane could've read what was said by others, and formed an opinion based on that. I looked through some of those AFD minutes ago, and saw where someone had posted links to reliable sources, and based on that said keep in a couple of them. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Dream Focus, do please try to be at least a little consistent. You specifically said above "the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete". But here it was offered to an editor who just mindlessly said an identical "keep" on every occasion, even in article where there were sod all references. If you think that's appropriate grounds to invite someone to ARS, then the Article Rescue Squadron will become a votestacking club rather than an article improvement team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I despair at having to continue to show veteran editors policy and consensus that they should already know.

If this editors extreme copy/pasting is allowed:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#Copy and pasting same_argument_in_over_a_hundred_Articles_for_deletion

Dew Kane's behavior is allowed. Okip 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony and complete blatant hypocrisy, right here on this page:

"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[36] Is that a neutral notification of the MFD? Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?

Okip 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Dew Kane's dubious editing pattern though, it's about you. I'd strongly suggest you address that rather than trying to wikilawyer your way away from the issue at hand. Black Kite 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well not surprisingly, the answer is "no": "Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?" I guess it is "okay" to do what you condemn other editors for...Sad. Really sad. Okip 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the original complaint here as an instance of bullying. BHG proposed a number of articles for deletion, apparently anticipating a clear quick consensus on the result desired--or else as an experienced editor, she would have tested the waters with a few nominations first. (Given that ArbCom has previously ruled that trying to overwhelm a process by multiple nominations is actionable misconduct, such was presumably not the intention). The consensus was however not at all what was expected. This is not the result of canvassing, but the result of a number of editors having --in most cases consistently and for a considerable time--a different opinion. The nominator then comes here complaining about a relatively less experienced editor. Others with previous conflicts against him joined in, complaining about his actions in connection with the same group of AfDs--articles about which the community in considerable part agreed with Okip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 April 2010

Okip is a "relatively less experienced editor"? He's been here since 2005! That's longer than BHG, Black Kite, and you! AniMate 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to AniMate) BHG has 207K edits. DGG has 75K edits. BK has 30K edits. Okip has 5K edits. Now what was BS? Tan | 39 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip=Ikip. Ikip had 55,500 edits. Put them together that's 60,000 edits. AniMate 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected; thanks. Tan | 39 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "attack" Okip; I asked him to refrain from systematic votestacking, and brought the issue to ANI only when the complaint was rejected. Nor do I criticise the actions of those editors who have genuinely tried to rescue to rescue articles by seeking evidence of notability; I disagree with many of their conclusions, but that's the purpose of a discussions, to air and hopefully resolve difft views.

I am very disappointed that DGG, who I know as a prolific article rescuer, is failing to distinguish between article rescue and votestacking; that failure causes me a lot of concern about where ARS is headed. But DGG needn't concern himself with any notion that I am somehow afraid to criticise him, and I assure DGG that if he had engaged in a votestacking exercise like this one, I would not have hesitated to bring it to wider attention. Thankfully, so far as I am aware, he didn't do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I said less experienced not to mean less experienced in editing, but less effective in disputes when they get personal. But I also meant it as a sort of euphemism for less powerful, or perhaps even less well-connected. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip is less experienced in disputes? What? Less than who? The entire Arbitration Committee put together? That is the most nonsensical thing I've heard all week. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• No violation committed by Okip Canvassing is limited to influencing ongoing discussions; any communication to someone who has already !voted, with no attempt to change their !vote, is not canvassing. Thus, such communications do not need to be neutrally worded. Having said that, it would probably be a good idea if the term "purges" was deprecated, as I can see how that term conjures Stalinesque imagery. Several of the participants above should know better than to use a non-infraction as a rationale (excuse?) to berate Okip. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The motivation is clearly to get those same editors to come and vote on other AfDs. Imagine if I went around barnstarring everyone who voted delete in a contentious AfD I was involved in. You would see it as an attempt to influence those editors to vote my way in other discussions- and rightly so, because there's no other way to interpret that behaviour. It's canvassing. End of story. Reyk _YO! 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll also add that the explicit linking to other AfDs, and that appalling How-to-Canvass guide deleted recently make it blatantly obvious that Okip is again trying to rig the AfD process by votestacking. Reyk _YO! 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the text here, with the links intact:

"You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue."

The explicit invitation is to improve articles through regular editing. That is, on its face, an allowable statement and a perfectly good sentiment. What you're now asking is that an allowable statement be considered disallowable and a violation of CANVASS solely because of the assumed motivations of the poster. I'll stipulate that Okip wants everything in the world kept for the sake of argument, but nothing in his motivation changes the plain text of the invitation. What you're proposing is that we prosecute Okip for Thoughtcrime rather than for the content of his barnstars. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not the invitation to join the ARS I am objecting to. It is the link to other AfDs he wants people to go vote keep in. The wording of the barnstars leaves no doubt that Okip is trying to get these editors to vote keep for him. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what you linked to was posted by Jeni, listing all the other bus articles the same editor nominated at once. And AFD are determined by voting, but by arguments. Dream Focus 10:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I didn't say that Okip created the list, and I did not mean to imply that. It doesn't matter who orignially compiled it. My point is that Okip linked to it in most of his barnstar messages because he was trying to get those editors to vote his way on those AfDs. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's a substantial possibility I missed something in all the various diffs that have been posted. Can someone clarify for me when and where Ikip posted a link to a list of still-open AfDs, to editors who'd !voted keep in similar AfDs, that wasn't the general ARS to-be-rescued list? Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The diff above shows a list of articles at AFD that are specifically relevant to the WikiProject that it was posted to. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it's the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged as members of an interested WikiProject will have a good grasp of whether the topic is notable. If Okip posted such a list to any user's talk page asking them to vote in a specified way that would be very different, but where are the diffs?--Michig (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kww pointed out the specific issue as well on my talk page. I agree that the link to an explicit list of other similar, currently open AfD's was not appropriate. My previous comments had been focused on the ARS invitation/barnstar, which I still find not a violation. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The barnstar isn't problematic at all, IMO. It's everything else. AniMate 20:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the remedy that BHG and Okip, and also BK and Okip, refrain from comments on each other. Discussion on the articles belongs elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support the above but would also suggest a restriction on canvassing, since this does appear to be an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How would that be different from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Ikip warned? That's not a flippant question; I too would like to see things improve with this. NW (Talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, you got me. This appears to be a violation of that (I didn't see the AMIB ArbCom go through. Shame, I liked him). So, what do we do next? Guy (Help!) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Two things that I thought of off the top of my head, so they probably aren't very good: A restriction on the number of talk pages he can post to per X period of time? A independent screener who would have to evaluate the newsletters before they are sent out? NW (Talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this. Scrutiny from both sides here (mass AfD nominations and canvassing allegations) is worthwhile, whatever you think of the merits of either side. I see no evidence that this has degenerated into bullying by either side. We're all grown ups. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Okip's behavior is problematic. BHG and BK are shining a light on it. AniMate 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with AniMate's view. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for I/Okip only. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Enforcement by block is pretty straightforward about the steps that should be taken here. Does this need an official ArbCom enforcement filing, though? Tarc (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, and redact your comment about bullying above please DGG. which I've now done myself. I won't allow that to stand. If anyone wants to restore it, please read WP:NPA first. Thanks. Black Kite 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support this and all propsals by dgg. As he points out, Okip is a poor newbie editor with dew in his eyes whose only hope is to expand a most perfect compendium of all human knowledge. His opponents present themselves as people who simply disagree with him; but as DGG points out, they're all a bunch of meanhearted bullies. The thin red line should be drawn right here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure that sarcasm is the best idea here, to be honest Bali. Black Kite 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • What sarcasm? DGG was a librarian and Ikip/Okip/Travb is apparently a lawyer. Everyone knows that librarians aren't foxes, they're hedghogs. And everyone knows that lawyers are always right! Leave these poor friends of knowledge alone. This place will be tip-top in a jiffy!Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. BHG and BK are doing the right thing. Inclusionist/O/Ikip et al, however has a very long history of canvassing and a keep-everything-at-all-costs approach, and an AC warning to boot—yet here we are yet again. The proper outcome here, is a broad restriction for Okip re canvasing and deletion related activity. Yet-another of Ikip's old friends, Jack Merridew 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The solution to the Ikip/Okip problem is certainly not to make him immune against criticism by punishing people for pointing out the problem. Hans Adler 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After Jack's comment, I rest my case. It sufficiently clarifies the situation. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention. Jack is an evil sockpuppet whose sorcery runs to coding and an idiosyncratic interest in sourcing (outside his specialty). Mr. Adler is something far, far worse: A professional academic (i think he does something in the evil counting profession, or at least in one of its related mathematickal dark arts) They should have no standing against Okip/Ikip/Inclusionist/Travb. (Kudos to DGG for his devestating use of geometric logic).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as an aside to DGG: Why are allowing this horrible biting of a newbie (inexperienced editor, as you described him) is being allowed to go on by an administrator of your caliber?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would only make sense if BK and BHG were doing something wrong here. For almost every comment (if not all of them) here criticizing Okip's behavior, he seems to use one of three responses - referring to the person as an old "friend" and therefore ignorable, accusing the person of acting in bad faith, harassment, and bullying so they can be ignored, or just ignoring the comment with no reply at all (such as the comment by Mkativerata). If Okip wants people to stop criticizing him, he needs to address people's concerns, not just silence the critics. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- The situation is exactly as Hans Adler describes, and I couldn't have put it any better. Ikip/Okip has a long history of canvassing and is a big reason why the ARS is currently the "Keep vote canvassing WikiProject" in all but name. It is not the behaviour of those who criticize him that is the problem here. Reyk _YO! 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't support the deletion of the articles in question (BHG's talkpage is still graced by a long explanation as to why), although I do think most of them would work better as a single list than as multiple stand-alone unexpandable stubs. However, BHG is acting perfectly properly here, and Okip is acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum. – iridescent 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Okip has a reasonable perception that he's being attacked, and there's no cause for unilateral action against him. If there's to be a sending of editors to their respective corners, Okip doesn't need to be singled out. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This current discussion does look a lot like cyber-hounding of sorts (no, it is not the same as jumping someone after school, which is why I won't call it "bullying," but it is clearly ganging up on and attacking with hyperbole a perceived opponent as almost all of those lining up against Okip are pretty much the diehard deletionists of the site and ones who mass attack groups of editors off-site, swear at others, call people "idiots," are uninterested when called out for their own incivility, are admittedly just here to "fly the deletionist flag", etc.--things I do not see Okip doing by contrast...). I do NOT include BrownHairedGirl as part of that group as she is not someone I am really all that familiar with. I think any reasonable neutral editor can see the partisanship of the attacks an Okip for what they are: partisan attacks to squash a good faith perceived opponent. Just look at the history of the core of those attacking him and their appalling behavior in this discussion alone. This thread has already devolved into an inclusionist versus deletion fracas that serves no other purpose than to raise tensions while no articles are improved in the meantime. The longer it stays open, the more animosity grows, the less actual work done to any articles. I therefore trust any and all good faith editors will after this post walk away from this thread and work on something constructive. And anyway, why on earth wouldn't we want greater participation in AfDs by editors who might know about the topic under discussion and therefore be able to help in improving the article? Why wouldn't we want someone to be courteous to such editors? And real quick, no, I am not "back." Okip has defended me in the past from similar dishonesty and it is worth making a one off comment only to stick up for a good faith and constructive editor when he is being hypocritically attacked by those with far worse behavior histories, who are tossing about insults and sarcasm even in this very thread, and who merely are of a different viewpoint. All the more reason why, among other off-site matters, I have not been around the past few weeks and don't plan to be in the future. I suspect this kind of name calling and unconstructive discussing rather than actual editing is what discourages many others from sticking around as well. So, back to enjoying my time away from this absurdity and while I am here, Happy Easter to all good editors! For those who have emailed me, yes, my health has improved, but sorry and despite the many requests that I return, I still want to for all intents and purposes stay retired. Too much to work on and enjoy, really, in the non-Wikipedic world. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hey a nobody: I'm glad that all that editing on wikia reduced the kidney mass down enough to bring you back to the big leagues! I can stop lighting candles now! Praises be to god!Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blimey, how long did it take you to find that diff of me telling a disruptive anon troll that I was completely uninterested in what they had to say? If that's the worst you can dig up from my 30K edits, I must be pretty much whiter than white. Black Kite 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• See this regarding A Nobody. Aiken ♫ 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support DGG's proposal. They should completely stay away from each other. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. If Ikip is canvassing, that needs to stop. If he's in violation of an editing restriction, then that needs to be dealt with as the next order of business. Dlohcierekim 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Admins are editors elected by the community on the basis of their ability to impartially apply policy and guideline, and if it is suggested that either BHG or BK are either not impartial or misrepresenting policy and guideline then these matters should be brought up at a admin recall process (if available), an RfC or ArbCom. Otherwise, it should not be permitted that an editor can have such functionaries disallowed from reviewing their actions without that scrutiny. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Okip and I were on opposite sides of a series of deletion discussions, so I did not use admin tools, or threaten to use admin tools; I collected the evidence and posted a report here, as nominating at MFD a page which appeared to me to be related. I don't see any suggestion that the complaint was frivolous, and a number of editors have supported my concern that Okip's actions amounted to votestacking; some disagree, and it's not for me to weigh the balance, but the number of supports makes it hard to conclude that the complaint was utterly without merit.
  So on what basis is it proposed that I should be restricted? Is it being suggested that no editor should ever make a conduct complaint about an editor with whom they are engaged in a content dispute? Or that an involved admin should not make such a complaint? That seems to me to be a big change in how ANI works, which is why I query whether it's being suggested as a general principle, or as a one-off. And if it's a one-off, why? AFAICR, I have never had a dispute with Okip before, so it's not like this is some festering feud popping up all the time. I want to assume good faith, but I cannot see any basis for DGG's proposal other than to discourage editors from opposing canvasing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that I don't think it's necessary and could inflame things. I agree and disagree with different parts of what both editors have done during this dispute, and don't believe either to be malintentioned (although I do think Okip is misguided in the direction he's trying to take this.) Orderinchaos 10:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose BHG is doing nothing here but bringing Okip's behavior to light. Any argument that what he's doing is not canvassing is basically wikilawyering. Okip has a long history of treating deletion/inclusion debates as a personal battleground in which he tries to rally as many troops as possible and attack anyone who doesn't agree with him. Witness his (and some of his acolytes') behavior at the WP:NEWT discussions. The issue is canvassing and it needs to be dealt with. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Users should not be sanctioned for calling attention to the misbehaviour of other users. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal

• Consensus here seems to be "oppose, it's Okip's fault" or "support, Okip's fault", so new proposal; Okip is banned from "making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with", a stronger version of this. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that how, precisely, would his recent actions even be prohibited under such a revised proposal? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It serves as a final warning of "do X or Y, and an uninvolved admin will block you"; feel free to strengthen it. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jack (below) that the final warning was already made. To answer Jclemens's question, Ikip's notice to people who voted the way he liked in one AFD included a link to other similar AFDs that he would like them to vote the same way on. That's drawing the attention of a preselected group, likely to vote in a particular way, to a group of AFDs that they had not necessarily noticed, which is the behaviour targeted by WP:CANVASS.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • "a link to other similar AFDs" appears to me to simply have been a link to the ARS's current worklist. That is stretching the definition of CANVASS well beyond the breaking point. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I/Okip seems to have become as master wiki-lawyer... he is constantly breaking the spirit of the rules while adhering to the letter of the rules. This is a perfect example of why we have IAR, but in reverse. IAR was designed to combat the wikilawyer who hides behind the letter of the rules while common sense says to do something else. I/O has been warned (repeatedly) about his behavior, but finds new ways to push the boundaries. "I'm not canvassing, I'm {fill in the blank.}" While everybody knows that he is in fact canvassing. While I think his goal/objective is noble and tend to agree with his perspective, this gaming of the system has got to stop. IMO, he's past the point of warnings and at the point where a block is appropraite.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• That *was* a final warning. We're most of a year on. Jack Merridew 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  In that case, AE it is. Ironholds (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  Problem with that: Ikip was not restricted in that case, he was warned. To quote ArbCom: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations" (emphasis mine). AE would be appropriate if both a restriction had been issued AND that restriction had been broken. The first condition is clearly not met, and the second is disputed. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, the proper course of action (should one want to pursue this further) would be to request an ArbCom case. Personally, I don't care enough right now to invest that kind of time, but in case anyone is considering it, I would point out that this is at least the second time this year that I/Okip has been in trouble for canvassing issues. On January 28, he was blocked for 12 hours for posting a message (inviting people to an "invitation only" project in his userspace) on 83 user talk pages in the span of 17 minutes. Mr.Z-man 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  Per [37][38] Ikip was blocked for canvassing shortly after the arb case closed. Unless that circumstance was somehow different, another block sounds fine. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  I didn't say Okip couldn't be blocked for poor behavior; all I objected to is the classification of such a block as AE. Since he wasn't restricted by ArbCom, any such block would be a "normal" block, subject to any other administrator overturning unilateral action, which has recently been clarified as not applicable to an AE block. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  It was about 6 months after the case closed, not "shortly." That block was the one I was describing. Mr.Z-man 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3: the revenge (this time it's personal)

A block now would be punitive, I propose that the very next time Okip posts in respect of any active deletion discussion on more than one page (outside of the discussion itself) he be blocked. It's pretty clear by now that Okip is so vested in one side of the debate that he is not capable of accurately judging when the line has been crossed. This restriction would allow him to post it at the ARS (which, sadly, I always subconsciously pronounce "arse") page; interested parties can watchlist that as with any other Wikiproject. This has the advantage of being unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG, I think you said it best.[39] The reason that you have not been blocked before for telling editors to fuck off repeatedly is because there is no real equality on wikipedia, as long as you have a like minded group of editors supporting you, editors such as yourself can simply get away with anything here.

I can be warned in arbcom for extremely minor comments compared to yourself, and you are still an administrator after telling editors to fuck off repeatedly, you even had the audacity to hypocritically bring up the importance of civility in ChildofMidnight's arbcom. This inequality, this complete bullying disregard for the rules (fueled by Jimbo himself), is simply getting worse. I see a virtual who's-who of editors who I have argued with before above, all have an incredibly negative view on other editors good faith contributions, these editors combative behavior is the reason why the media has such an incredibly negative view on how wikipedia works.

Your own vested one sided view is also well known, as are most of the editors views above, in your case, look no further than calling the ARS "arse" fortunately, the majority of the arbitration committee holds many of these same "vested in one side" views.

I will continue to notify editors, as the rules allow, and you can [40] Please, choose any of the myriad of quotes, and please keep in mind that the central reason that A Man In Black lost his adminship was for blocking me for alleged canvassing, and even William Collonely, with his large group of supporters (including yourself) finally, after over a year of me pushing for it, lost his adminship too for involved blocks. Okip 08:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

notification [41] Okip 08:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

notification [42] Okip 08:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to respond to a single editor without making it personal? I'm waiting to see what you can glean about me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Other than the anon above, you are the only editor I have never met several times on wikipedia before. So your comments hold particular weight, thank you. Okip 10:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Threatening admins with getting their adminship revoked merely for criticizing your actions, Okip? Are you for real? How can you possibly think that's in any way appropriate? Reyk _YO! 09:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the double standard here, JzG can make proposals about blocks, which goes well beyond simple criticism, but you criticize me for bringing up our shared history? Are you for real? How can you justify this seeming contradiction? Okip 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, if it was just JzG criticizing your canvassing that would be something else. Then I might be persuaded that he is motivated by your past disagreements. But you are being called on it by many editors; not just by people like me who sit on the other side of the inclusionism/deletionism line, but by people who broadly agree with you as well. You should consider the possibility that they have a point. Also I am not aware that JzG has committed, or is suspected of committing, anything that would merit blocking or desysopping. You, however, are. That is why JzG's proposal falls well within the bounds of acceptable behavior and your threats do not. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably viewed by most as a deletionist (although not by rule), and I think at least some of this is overblown. It is a problem, but a different type to what many editors are characterising (it's easy to block someone, it's not always so easy to accommodate their ideas when they're actually right). Orderinchaos 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, your comment makes no sense at all. I was arguing against a punitive block and for an unambiguous restriction that will not lead to the constant friction caused by your sailing perennially close to the wind, with a flurry of people following along and complaining about it. It was an attempt to be fair to you in the face of a mob with pitchforks howling for blood. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I would rather face the mob then be "helped" by you, thanks. I think all veteran Wikipedians have used the "I am impartial, I am only here to help", masking their own desires and POV in collegial, compromising language. mock outrage? Okip 11:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support This seems like the best option to me. AniMate 12:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Animate, one of my biggest regrets is not participating in your RFA. Sigh. Okip 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow. I'm assuming this is because of some administrative action I have undertaken and not because I support this proposal. I'd like to know what action that is. AniMate 13:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose proposition from a vested editor. I have always disliked these community consensus decisions, for a variety of reasons. Call a arbitration if you wish JzG, as that will be the end result anyway. Maybe we can address your continued personal attacks too,[43] after three RFCs, you will finally be going to arbitration indirectly. But please, please, stop acting like you are helping me in the littlest bit, when you started this "mob" with your first proposal. It is a little insulting to be so patronized. Okip 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble seeing in what way I'm a vested editor. But if you want this taken to arbitration enforcement for clarification it should be straightforward enough. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion from the editor who reported this incident.
  AFAIK, I never encountered Okip before, so I was unaware of the history when I lodged the complaint here. But a few things strike me. Firstly, even now that he has half-apologised for his conduct (in the section below), Okip hasn't managed to fully withdraw, and still shows no sign of understanding why widespread partisan notification of AFDs to selected editors is a problem. AFAICS, this could all be wrapped up now by a simple apology from Okip for the votestacking, a commitment to seek advice from uninvolved person (maybe a narrow role mentor) if he wants to notify people about further AFDs, and a commitment to withdraw all the barnstars for voting on his side at AFD. But he hasn't done that, and instead has posted an attack on just about every participant in this thread who has criticised his votestacking, all of whom he seems to believe are out to get him. This has happened before, and from his responses here looks likely to happen again if the situation is left like this, because he still seems to think that most of this saga is everybody else's fault.
  So it seems to me that the solution most likely to create the least drama in future for Opik and everyone else is one which draws some simple bright lines. That way Opik knows clearly what he can do and what he can't, and nobody else need be in any doubt about whether Okip misunderstood WP:CANVASS or is just gaming the system. I don't know whether the bright line proposed by JzG is the right one, but if Opik has clear guidance on what he can do and what he can't, then we can avoid further drama in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you meant Okip rather then Opik. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I did indeed mean Okip, nor Opik; now corrected. (The consistency of my mis-spelling led to User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Okip_.40_ANI|some speculation about whether I meant Öpik and whether I am a cheeky girl :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The behavior under discussion has not been shown to be a violation of policy, despite the number of times CANVASS has been referenced. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Especially given the personalized sniping by Okip against everyone who has said something against him here. Clearly he sees this as a personal battleground. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4 : Okip should pull their trousers up

Generally when you get caught with your trousers round your ankles the correct thing to do is pull them up and apologise rather then to argue they are not flapping around undone with all your bits on display. Okip seems to make a career of sailing very close to the wind with canvassing. Whether they agree or not, continuing in this vein is disruptive and should cease until there has been a proper discussion that sets a clear boundary that everyone can live with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Firmly endorse With I/Okip, it tends not to be so much what he says as how he says it, how often, and how far he takes it (i.e. to the verge of WP:POINT / WP:NPA). In fact, at times, I find myself strongly in agreement with him and can see where he's coming from, even if I often find myself in disagreement with his methods. I think if he was to stand back and take a big picture view more frequently, he'd probably realise when he's looking like a bit of an ass and it's time to stop. It's something we all have to do sometimes - I have ended up strongly on one side or another of some genuinely lame disputes at times and it's a matter of knowing "OK, nothing further I can do here will make any difference and I'm probably hurting my own case if I continue in the same direction." Orderinchaos 10:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree, I don't have a problem with rescuing crap articles, that's a good outcome from AfD (which should be renamed articles for discussion IMO since the whole point is to discuss what to do with the article and the subject it covers). I don't even have a problem with a brief moratorium on debate to allow rescue of good subjects. I think it would be nice if some of the subjects were less trivial (e.g. bus routes, probably the least likely holy crusade I can remember), the problem is the perception of a "ZOMG! Rally the troops against the Evil Deletionists!" approach, giving rise to a battleground mentality. AfD is much less of a battleground than it used to be, IMO - one of the few areas that's actually getting less crappy over time. I don't think the perception of canvassing and votestacking is helping. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• AFD is not as bad as ANI but it is still quite a poor forum for discussing most topics because it is populated by editors who know little about the topics and do no research to inform themselves. There is an inherent form of canvassing about taking a matter to AFD as one can reliably find knee-jerks there - editors who openly boast on their user pages that they are "proud to be a deletionist". Because the forum is adversarial and aggressive, it repels editors who want a quiet life and so the place is dominated by strong-willed extremists who naturally do not agree or get on with each other. This matter of the bus routes does not warrant all the heat and energy which is being expended upon it but the nature of the forum is to exaggerate the differences between the parties and make it a contest which both sides feel they must win as a matter of precedent and pride. The remedy, as I keep preaching, is to insist more firmly that the process described at WP:BEFORE is followed. If articles were more thoroughly investigated at a local level first - talk pages for the article and relevant projects - then we might get more light than heat. Only the residue of dross need then be taken to AFD where the proposals would be more likely to be unanimous or consensual. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• AFD is not as bad as ANI but it is still quite a poor forum for discussing most topics because it is populated by editors who know little about the topics and do no research to inform themselves. There is an inherent form of canvassing about taking a matter to AFD as one can reliably find knee-jerks there - editors who openly boast on their user pages that they are "proud to be a deletionist". – This is a good point, except that I would say the problem with AfD is not so much that the people who frequent it are necessarily "deletionists", but that the same smallish group of editors is making decisions about articles in subject areas that they are not knowledgeable about. The answer to this may be more and better deletion sorting to get more editors versed in specific areas to participate in those AfDs, or perhaps new or different methods of non-partisan notifications. Perhaps every editor who ever edited an article should be notified? Perhaps all registered members of every WikiProject that tags an article could be notified? Something to get more people involved, so that we don't leave these decisions to deletion specialists (as opposed to "deletionists") Maybe, like war and generals, deleting articles is too important to leave to people interested in deletions and deletion policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, couple of issues here. Even if WP:BEFORE is followed, it is still possible to find good sources on things that other editors miss (as I found out recently on an AfD I opened - and withdrew). That doesn't mean that WP:BEFORE isn't being followed, merely that someone else has found a source that was previously missed - no-one's perfect. I'd also say that AFD isn't that aggressive - if you look at a vast majority of the AFDs then there's pretty much consensus in most cases. It's only the borderline cases that occasionally cause friction. I close a lot of "contentious" AFDs (i.e. the ones that no-one else wants to touch) and I still don't get taken to DRV that much - and I don't mind if I do. To say that there is some sort of bitter inclusionist vs deletionist battleground going on at AfD is plain wrong ... but when there is discord, it isn't helped if there is evidence of editors attempting to tip the balance one way or the other. Incidentally, if you have evidence of editors spamming "delete" votes onto AfDs without doing any research on the subject, I suggest you bring it up with those editors or at WT:AFD - such activity tends to be looked upon dimly, just as it does with those who blindly vote "Keep" on may articles. Black Kite 12:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know there are many variations on Godwin's law on wikipedia, is there one about the "inclusionist/deletionist" debate?

That when the discussion starts to turn to "inclusionist/deletionist" then...(fill in blank).

In my posting I attempt to avoid those two words, (I guess the link to journalist articles on the issue was obvious this time) but the meaning of what I am saying is often implied.

My two cents, too many editors find that deletion "helps" articles, and are too willing to take credit for an article being improved after it is up for deletion, when, in fact that deletion discussion shows a failure to communicate and reach a more amicable, and less disruptive solution. This flawed attitude is no accident, in the BLP madness debate, Jimmy Wales praised editors who deleted several hundred articles, out of process. AFDs have probably gotten more cordial, not because the cordiality has improved, it is because those who do not share this prevalent view have left or have been driven off. This is like the September 11th edit warriors taking credit for the peaceful way in which September 11th articles are now, the reason is because arbitration made a content decision, allowing anti-conspiracy theory editors, many who were admins, block and silence the opposing side. Okip 12:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Merridew’s Law:^cite

As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1.

There's the above, by Sceptre; it's from ANI534:User:Ikip and forum shopping, linked somewhere above by Tarc. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor who I don't know, who is 110% uninvolved. Opinions like this are what I listen the most. Yes, Order, I agree, I can see where you are coming from, I am "looking like a bit of an ass". You are right, I should step back and am saying, "OK, nothing further I can do here will make any difference and I'm probably hurting my own case if I continue in the same direction."

Blackkite wrote this on DGG's talk page to me: "you are clearly incapable of admitting to any fault"

Actually, you would be surprised, I apologize a lot

1. Unsure 100% of the policy, in the AFD, I wrote

   "Non-admin close, snowball keep, I voted! on this article just now, if that is a problem, revert this closure"[44]...welcoming an editor to revert me. That editor who reverted was BHG. I later acknowledged above that I was incorrect to close that AFD speedy keep.

2. I blanked the newsletter page that BHG put up for deletion, so it would be deleted.[45] The intention of the newsletter was to clarify policy on canvassing, I was planning on asking other editors for comments about the policy. Editors in this AFD were muddling their personal opinions with current canvassing guidelines, BHG herself has some comments above which are incorrect about guidelines, my graph, above, is in fact correct, and represents current guidelines.
3. Jclemens has a good point about using the word "purge"[46], I earlier reverted a couple of instances of the word,[47][48][49] and now reverted the use of this word in all cases.[50][51]

My quandary is this, if I revert the links in the barnstars, and publicly apologize, would this really satisfy these editors I continue to bump heads with? Sometimes these apologies backfire, unfortunately sometimes pacifying editors simply emboldens them. These editors later turn around and say, "look, even Okip himself admitted he was wrong".

I am sorry that I get a little testy about these accusations of canvassing. The turmoil leading up to AMIB losing his adminship, (partly for improperly blocking me for canvassing) and the arbcom did that. This is not an excuse, just an explanation. Okip 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A small point - the 'improperness' of A Man in Black's block was that he was judged to be an 'involved admin' with respect to Ikip. It does not indicate that a block for canvassing was unmerited in that case.   pablo_hablo. 11:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pablo. I am simply amazed at how many veteran editors with starkly opposing views then I have came out for this ANI. It is like a big reunion here, and really hammers home conclusions that one journalist has made about the status of the grand debate on Wikipedia.

Hopefully this conversation ends like many of our conversations do, with images on your talk page, and jokes with Jack Merridew, you and I.

I was going to reread the Arbcom case, but at this point, whatever. Okip 11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have opposing views to you, a lot of the time. Also sometimes not. I agree with the substance of this proposal; it does seem to me that you generally tend to lash out in all directions when your edits are questioned, and this tends to distract from the more relevant substance of what you are saying. So pants up (and buy a better belt).   pablo_hablo. 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip - that's fine (and I'm glad you admitted it) but if you look at the rest of the thread above you can see why I wrote what I did on DGG's talkpage ... your responses to other editors seem very coloured by your impression of their interests. Black Kite 12:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just knew there was going to be a "but" in your response black kite.  :/ Yes, coloured [with a "u" :) ] would be an apt description. Actually, thank you, sincerely, it is nice to be surprised. Your response to this posting was much less "coloured" then I expected. Okip 12:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

*Facepalm* Guy (Help!) 11:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, no, absolutely not. This kind of thing is exactly how Okip got out of any sort of restriction or sanction for his tirade on the BLP RFC. It needs to be made clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, not that its only unacceptable until he admits that it might be and then everything is fine. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Mentorship

This is not necessarily as a replacement for any additional suggestions about certain editors staying away from certain other editors, but specifically to address the issue of Okip and canvassing. Assuming good faith that Okip did not feel it was canvassing, despite the appearance of it being that way, it may seem better to have someone be Okip's mentor specifically for this area; that is, if Okip wishes to contact multiple people with the same similar message, he should check with a mentor to verify if it would be canvasing or not. Okip's actions should also be reviewed by the mentor to catch less obvious types of canvassing, and be warned if they are approaching this line. Should Okip agree to the mentoring, but ultimately ignores the mentor's advice or claims of canvasing before doing so, then blocking-to-banning seems appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is unlikely to work. The fact that Okip is unable to understand that he's done anything wrong here makes it unlikely that he'll agree to mentorship. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Both pre-emptive review of actions and post-mortem cautions on overstepping the bounds on canvassing serve both sides. If Okip truing is gaming the system, cares to disregard the canvassing rules, or simply is unable learn what canvassing is despite mentorship, we can clearly enforce blocks and bans from then on. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support and should this be endorsed, I'll volunteer to work with Okip. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• This seems sensible. Someone mature and sympathetic like Casliber or DGG would be a good choice. Okip has much energy and initiative in the spirit of WP:BOLD but might benefit from a sounding board to explore his new ideas before they generate drama like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but nothing about "should he agree to mentorship." Either he takes the mentor's advice or gets blocked long-term the next time. NW (Talk) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yea, its implied if Okip doesn't want mentorship, then we skip any assumption of good faith and move onto the next steps. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this seems reasonable. Though I agree with NW, that if he declines mentorship, it would need to be considered a warning to him. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think this would work, especially if it is a very active mentor as I can see Okip not liking delays. Would also add it's possible for a valid reason to decline mentorship, so would be best not to jump ahead on that idea. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - A worthy and well-meaning idea but mentorship for someone who has been editing Wikipedia on a large scale for 5 years (under various accouts) seems like too little way too late. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - In general, I find O/Ikip to be a well-intentioned and thoughtful editor who is, nonetheless, often somewhat over-zealous in his methods and tactics. I therefore support Mentorship but with the following conditions: 1. that he must be seen to be listening to and applying the mentor's advice; 2. that he refrain from participating in any XfD discussions for 6 months; and 3. that he refrain from any and all mass-mailing for that same period. This takes into account his experience as a editor (hence the otherwise extreme timescale) and assumes his cooperation. Failing his cooperation, we are unable to AFG, as pointed out. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 08:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support At the very least. I don't think that Okip believed that what he/she was doing was inappropriate but his/her claim that posting these messages wasn't against the rules just doesn't get it. He/she ought to "pull their trousers up", as suggested by a user above. This kind of canvassing is not appropriate. A solid mentor will point that out. Should he/she violate the rules of mentorship, then block. --RA (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a lesser sanction than blocking or large-scale banning from messaging users. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support as this seems like the only option that's going to gain consensus. However, should he not accept mentorship or continue to try and find canvassing loopholes, some real action should be taken. AniMate 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm devastated (well not really) that the great and the good of Wikipedia can't agree that Okip shouldn't wear his trousers round his ankles. ,-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose doesnt seem warranted when one considers the situation in context. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support given that Okip/Ikip/Travb/inclusionist has repeatedly canvassed in this fashion, mentorship seems like the minimum next step.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support- Should be attempted, but I doubt Okip will accept mentorship. I would be happy to be proven wrong but given the way Okip has lashed out viciously at people like JzG who have been extremely fair, it doesn't look like Okip is in the mood to accept advice or guidance. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Okip to be commended

While Okip does seem to have pushed against the spirit if not the letter of WP:Canvas, one sometimes needs to fight an evil with another, and on balance Okips conduct seems to be a strong net positive for the encyclopaedia . Dozens of valuable and harmless transport articles have been nominated en mass, and despite being repeatedly advised that good pay to view sources are available but take time to integrate, the nominator relentlessly continues to try to destroy the articles. Granted, one might generally prefer to engage the admin in question in dialogue before pushing the boundary with a canvassing operation. However in this case editors had already visited the admins talk page, where stunningly even the outstandingly productive editor Jeni was labelled a troll! Despite the fact that she generally seems a good admin, a regular editor with an opposing view on buses is obviously not encouraged to discuss with her directly after that example. So its hard to see what other option Okip had apart from washing his hands of the matter and leaving the valuable articles to their fate. (And please dont say he could have saved the articles by adding "reilable sources independent of the subject" - that clearly is ruled out by time constraints)

• Strong Support FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no net positive to be found from such repeated disruptions. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose You seem to admit that Okip has come very close to crossing a line, and then seem to focus solely on BHG. AniMate 19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BATTLEFIELD is never a good tactic to resolving disputes. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The general drift of this is not entirely incorrect: both editors are not entirely innocent lambs—but then hands up who is?. No show of hands...? However, we are here to discuss user:Okip not BHG. While Okip has undeniably been a force for good in the community at times, IMO, while pushing the bounds of acceptability, his recent behaviour seems to very clearly break those bounds into unacceptability. If he continues in this vein unchecked, he could become the worst sort of rogue editor and lose the respect of those, like me, that have learnt many things for the good from him --Jubilee♫clipman 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There are continuing behavioral problems here that arbcom has recognized in the past and may need to deal with in the future. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether or not any sanction/punishment/mentorship is called for is clearly open to debate. But commended? Not reasonable. You ask what option was left? Incubator. Plenty of admins would restore the article so he could work on it in the incubator and have all the time in the world to gather sources. Frequently I hear "inclusionists" complain that "there is no time limit", well it works in reverse. There doesn't have to be a rush to keep something. Let it slip away quietly, work on it when you have time and bring it back properly referenced. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- you're kidding, right? Commended for breaking the rules and subverting one of Wikipedia's necessary maintenance mechanisms? I don't think so. No matter how scary and evil and horrible you think the nasty deletionists are. Reyk _YO! 00:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This proposal could be summarised in more general terms as: "If you don't like a deletion discussion taking place, then do not waste time discussing the case for deletion. Instead, then please please please votestack as much as you can. This applies even when the XFDs in question have already been discussed at ANI without any consensus to close them or the sanction the nominator."
  That's going to make for really good reasoned discussions, isn't it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ippose, obviously. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Common sense really. When you come across someone like BHG who manages to put most people off editing, Okip has taken the option of not being pushed over by someone on a mission, that *is* commendable. Jeni ^(talk) 10:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed Jeni, since I started editing Wikipedia in early 2006, no new articles have been created and nothing has been updated. Editors should also be aware of my sole responsibility for the sinking of the Titanic, the explosion of Krakatoa, and the bubonic plague which hit Europe in the Middle Ages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  Goddammmit, it was you who stole the cookies from the cookie jar too, wasn't it? WASN'T IT??? Tarc (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that if anyone is on a mission it has been Okip. The real issue is not the mission but the methods he's used and I think he's gone beyond the bounds of acceptability now. Even the person making this proposal talks about fighting 'one evil with another'. Jeni, if you really think BHG puts most people off editing then you need to make your case elsewhere rather than just make broad statements which don't even pertain specifically to this discussion and I don't think we should get into a discussion of which editor has put more people off editing. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

User:71.77.21.198 Part -2

Resolved

 – I don't see any need for admin action, and there are better places to discuss this, such as article talk pages. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

65.41.234.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.77.21.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.77.20.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am sorry to bring 71.77.21.198 IP user up again but I really need some admin intervention or third party review here. He also contributes under another IP 65.41.234.70, the last post on ANI about the editor has been archived a few hours ago. From his edit filter logs you can see that most of his recent edits have been tagged as section blanking [52]. He also renames sections to trivia that were previously named something else and then adds a miscellaneous tag on top mentioning in the edit that it would be deleted within a month, it didnt matter that the section had sources more than the rest of the article, he usually cites a great deal of guidlines, then renames a section trivia only to say that that particular section has to be moved or removed.

After my mention of him on ANI he's gotten more difficult to deal with, first questioning how a new editor like me would even know of ANI, two editors who commented on the last discussion somewhat agreed that his tone has been harsh, in response he started an argument with one of them [53]. He's also managed to start an edit war with the another user seashorewiki, if you would have a look at his talk page [54] you can see from his recent posts that hes been warning him about "policy violation" and threatening bans, he has warned me several times in the last couple of days about policy violation. He can cite an exhaustive amount of wiki guidelines but chooses to remain anonymous through all of this, I have been trying to contribute and add sources to some of the articles, while the majority of his contributions has been limited to removing others contribution and citing a great deal of guidelines for doing so. Now, My only reason of bringing this up again is to stop that kind of behavior, I dont like being threatened and I'm sure most editors wouldn't either, especially for a new editor that kind of behavior might turn them against contributing completely. Please look into the matter for yourself.--Theo10011 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(I'm 71.77.21.198 editing from a different IP). Once again, Theo's false accusations are groundless, and frankly, I think an admin needs to have a serious talk with Theo about making so many false accusations against me (now up to at least four) at ANI in order to try to settle a content dispute. He wants to "stop this kind of behavior". What kind of behavior? His first complaint against me in another section here (now in this archive) a few days ago was immediately dismissed by an administrator as requiring no adminstrative action. He complains that I edit anonymously. No policy violation. He complains that I remove unsourced trivia. No policy violation. He falsely accuses me of "starting an edit war" with Seashorewiki after I removed unsourced trivia, then when Seashorewiki began edit warring by reverting me, I (not Seashorewiki) posted an explanation on the article's talk page here, to which Seashorewiki did not respond. And then Seashorewiki reverted me again without commenting on the talk page and with the simple edit summary "You're welcome". The warnings to Seashorewiki were for edit warring (refusing to discuss before reverting me), and for restoring unsourced information; both of which Seashorewiki did. I'm not asking for any admin action against Theo yet, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone would explain to him that trying to stir up trouble for me at ANI when there has been no policy violation is not the way to settle content disputes. I believe his trend is beginning to approximate harassment, especially when he canvasses other editors to engage in the harrassment at ANI as he did here. Thank you. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I havent done anything thats hidden from other editors, i have provided links to anything relevant to what I was trying to say neither have I denied any statement, its all up for everyone to see. I didnt request any admin action on intervention in the last post, so there really wasnt any resolution to speak of. My history is for anyone to see a "trend" like you suggest, I have nothing to hide or deny. We agreed to move on but you have continued to revert the same edits. I guess the issue here is you have been trying to dictate to me and seashorewiki like you have some authority on whats accepted, the reply above bears a hint of that. From what I can see you and I are on equal footing here, you are not an admin in fact you choose to remain anonymous yet we are supposed to listen to what you dictate as you are the judge of whats accepted here and how it will be enforced, as contributors we have the right to make our case or do we not have that. I am not trying to stir up trouble here, I dont want others to go through similar actions. I am beginning to think that contributing is pointless anymore, I can spend hours citing sources and copy editing my contribution and an anonymous user can just come by and blank the entire section citing guidlines. Your recent actions can force me to stop contributing maybe you'd prefer that or be indifferent to it, Im just wondering about the next editor who goes through something similar.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP's are based in Wilson, NC, and Carthage, NC, which are some distance apart, so we have no way to know for sure if the IP is telling the truth about being the same guy, but the attitude is certainly the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe its the same user, [55] - " 65.41.234.70 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (IP 71.77.21.198 editing on another IP)" though i am not certain about the last one- 71.77.20.26.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That last one I added is another Wilson-based 71... that appears, from content, to be at least one the user was editing under prior to 71...198. I asked about it earlier, but he didn't answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my statement above. There are no policy violations. There have been lots of references to "attitude" and several unsubstantiated accusations and falsehoods (as I have described above), but never any evidence presented of a policy violation or a personal attack. When I get to the computer with the other IP, I will confirm that the one I am using now and the other IP are being operated by the same person. I again ask that an admin discuss with Theo about the appropriate manner for dealing with content disputes, and that if he continues on the same trajectory, he may be entering Wikipedia's definition of harrassment. These comments only apply to Theo 10011; I don't question the appropriateness of anything Baseball Bugs has done (except to say that I'm not trying to deceive anyone about editing from different IPs if that is the suggestion. I have made no pretense of being different editors on different IPs; in fact, if you'll read my comments, I am the one stating that I'm editing from a different IP. I haven't even looked at one of the IPs mentioned by BB; if necessary I will but at this point I consider that irrelevant. Perhaps BB has not intended to accuse me of anything, and if so, I accept that.) Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unlike registered users, IP's are any possible combination of persons. We have rules against multiple users on a registered ID, yet multiple users on an IP are somehow just fine. That's just one element of the double-standard that benefits IP users. In any case, I wanted to see if it was possible the IP was telling the truth, and in fact it is not only possible but probable: The ISP location, the editing pattern and the right-much arrogant attitude, all seem to be in common. So I think you can trust him on that point. As far as the content disputes, the IP unfortunately seems to be one of those users who destroy rather than create. We always have some of those on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, with respect, I will disagree with BB on the point of "destroy rather than create". Create has a wide variety of meanings. Helping conform articles to policies (such as WP:V, especially if trivia) is, in fact, creating -- creating a better encyclopedia that is not laughed at by serious readers. That having been said in order to clairify things, however, I don't have a problem with BB. I even agree up to a point about his feelings about anon editing, but until that policy is changed, my editing anonymously is not a policy violation. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is Bugs, the IP (as I mentioned last time this was brought here) is technically correct. This is merely adding an unsourced list of trivia to an article. According to the MoS, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." (WP:TRIVIA). It appears that the egistered users are adding unsourced lists of trivia to articles, and the IP(s) are removing them. Oh yeah, and renaming trivia lists as "Cultural references" doesn't work either. Now some of the references are being sourced by Theo10011, which is fine but doesn't stop them being trivia. I can't see that the IP is doing anything wrong here unless they're going over 3RR, which I don't see either. Black Kite 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BK, and I don't just mean for supporting my action; also for clarifying things that I have tried to help Theo understand on other talk pages. I wonder if you have an opinion about what, if anything, should be done if Theo continues to make ANI reports on me if I have not violated a policy? Like I said above, right now I'm not asking for any action against him, but I also don't want to be dragged endlessly to the ANI page for normal editing. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the reporter needs to read WP:TRIVIA and furthermore I don't think there's any admin intervention required here. I won't mark it resolved myself however, as I've already commented; any other editor is welcome to archive this. Black Kite 23:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Black kite, let me understand this- first he comes across a section called cultural references(and these are cultural references- specific lines that allude to other pop culture related things, not random lines or quotes ) then he renames them to trivia( any guidlines to say that they are the same and should be renamed to trivia whenever encountered) only to say that they should be either removed or moved into other sections. The episode summary rarely requires a source in fact the user above removed it saying that summaries dont require sources, while I provide sources to those references but they either need to be removed or moved. this entire step is highly couter-productive, just delete them if they are so much of a problem, rename the music section to trivia too remove them, or anything else that could be remotely considered trivia, do we have a say in any of this or does he alone get to decide what is trivia and what is not. By the way, the last IP has a block log attached to it, if its relevant.--Theo10011 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the sections are called, they're still trivia by the definition. OK, there shouldn't be any sort of edit-warring occurring over them, but the fact remains that our Manual of Style suggests that such sections should be deprecated. In fact, there's a case to be made that the entire articles should be merged to a "List of ... episodes" article because they don't have anough third-party references to make them worth a stand-alone, as in most other TV programmes, but that's a separate matter. I think a lot is being made here of the other editor being a shifting IP rather than a registered user; that shouldn't matter. Black Kite 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge to "List of ..." article is clearly indicated, because once the MOS-violating trivia list is removed, all that is left is a WP:NOT#PLOT violation.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"...there has been no policy violation..." This frequent passive-voice reference to his own editing sounds strangely familiar. But at this point I can't recall which indef'd user was always saying it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with respect BB, watch the innuendo. That's close to a personal attack without any evidence. I am not nor have I ever been an "indef'd user". If you think of one that you believe is me, by all means please ask for a checkuser. I will welcome a checkuser to confirm that I am not an "indef'd user". Until then, however, please stop the veiled accusations. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep you beat me to it. Baseball bugs, if you have nothing to say then say nothing. In fact you should withdraw your comment. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you decide I want to assure the IP user that I will not drag this through ANI again. Besides the content dispute there was also the matter of his condescending tone etc., again its not accusation, before he accuses me of making accusations against him, just something that bears a second look, whatever I have to say in that regard is already posted above with relevant links and the talk page of seashorewiki [56]. The users repeated citations of policy and warnings of violations were very of-putting to me, new users might be completely distracted away from their points and debating or contributing for that matter, the posts on seashorewiki might be more descriptive. I have no interest in pursuing this further than that, the entire policy structure seems to be counterproductive, and I am sure arguing against it would be even more counterproductive. I would like to Thank you all for your time. --Theo10011 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can now confirm that all of the above edits in this section signed by 65.41.234.70 were made by me. I'll also add thanks to Theres knott; I'm not asking BB to withdraw his comment; that's his decision. I'll take it as an off-hand remark made in the heat of discussion. I also hope Theo will direct his efforts toward changing policies with which he disagrees at the appropriate forum, in this case I suppose it would be WT:TRIVIA. Thanks to all. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What about 71.77.20.26, for what it's worth? Regarding the other thing, I make no accusation, I just wonder. A year or two ago (well beyond what checkuser can find), I recall someone saying it that way, which I thought was a weird construct, and that must be why it stuck with me. I don't recall any North Carolinians ever being indef'd, though. Finding the specific reference to that passive-voice phrase would be difficult, as the search function does not handle strings of words very well. But I'll give it a shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was known for using the phrase "There is no ..." in reference to something inappropriate from the past (rather than "There was no ..."). But I don't believe he's ever used an IP that I have used. Using geographical areas to track down an IP also can be elusive. For example, if you look at the city listed for my edits in this section alone, that would mean I had to travel about 100 miles in about 15 minutes. I've edited from New Mexico and the IP was shown as coming from Virginia. Tricky, this internet thing. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. So, were you 71.77.20.26 before you were 71.77.21.198? Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• No matter who does it, to remove appropriate content, and then reduce to a list is destructive editing, and a reasonable plot section is appropriate content; and need not be sourced other than to the work itself. (It is particularly objectionable to deliberately remove everything except plot, and then try to remove the article under NOT PLOT). A cultural references section is not trivia, but appropriate content unless it gets so long it needs an article by itself --some people think otherwise, but that position does not seem to have consensus. Some material is properly considered trivia: the sort of true trivia that should be integrated is production details; the sort that should be removed is miscellaneous anecdotes or rumors. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"A cultural references section is not trivia": In some case you may be right, but not in every case. In many (not all) cases, trivia is renamed "Cultural references" in an attempt to bypass the usual Wikipedia procedures for dealing with trivia. That is inappropriate. To some extent that is what was done here. I agree that production details need to be integrated and that miscellaneous anecdotes and rumors should be removed. And I would add than any unsourced trivia is subject to removal. That doesn't leave much, especially in the article in question here. The trivia either needs to be integrated or removed. More importantly, however, I think another discussion page besides ANI is a better place to thrash out the issue of what is trivia and whether it should remain in an article. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Integrating" bullet-pointed "trivia-like" bits often renders it unreadable. How does that improve the reader's wikipedia experience? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Integrating it into the article properly makes it readable. If it's still not readable, then it was poorly integrated. Reach Out to the Truth 03:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Lists of facts are much easier to read when bullet-pointed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that similar statistic-like facts are better read as bullet points. Random statements are better integrated into the prose of the article. @DGG, there are some Cultural Reference sections that are not trivia but I must admit, most are simply dumping grounds for random content by those too lazy (or inexperienced) to work it into the body. Both of those being said there are plenty of {{trivia}} tags that are suitable for sections and the like so there should be no need to remove the offending section. There is definitely no need to rename the section just so you can tag it, that's a little over board. And there has never been a time limit so placing an ambivalent time limit on the content is pretty much just a threat. In sort, while everything the anon said was valid, almost everything they did was confrontational. There are much more co-operative ways to incorporate and remove trivia sections. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but this discussion clearly needs to resume elsewhere. ANI is not the appropriate place to discuss the finer points of policy and procedures involving trivia. I suggest WT:TRIV, but not here. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely why I closed it. In any case, including the information in the article is much better than taking little bits of misc. information and making new sections out of them. If you can't do that, most likely the information doesn't belong in the article. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mayumashu

I've never posted an inquiry on this incident board before, so I may be in the wrong place, but LonelyMarble and I have noticed a repeated misuse of whitespace by User:Mayumashu. On pages requiring hatnotes, Mayumashu will add two breaks between the hatnote and the beginning of the article, which creates a whole lot of undesirable and messy whitespace. LonelyMarble left Mayumashu a note about this, but Mayumashu never responded. Two days later, I also left Mayumashu a note, again to which there was an overt non-response. S/he has continued to incorporate superfluous/unnecessary, and frankly inconvenient whitespace after LonelyMarble and I raised our concerns. Many editors browse Wikipedia to condense/tiny it up; Mayumashu seems to be on a crusade to do the exact opposite. I would like other editors' thoughts and opinions on what, if any, action should be taken about this. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Condensing Wikipedia doesn't necessarily "tidy it up", since it can sometimes put elements so close to each other that it makes the page unsightly or more difficult for the reader's ease of use. Effective use of whitespace is important, but it doesn't mean eliminating all whitespace wherever it occurs, without discrimination, it means making sure that its selective use enhances the readability of the page, or deleting it where it creates unsightly blocks of empty space. A line or so of separation is not necessarily unwarranted, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than with a blanket proscription. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that readers are looking at Wikipedia on so many different browsers, resolutions, operating systems, etc. that it is pretty hard to tell how the article will look to different people. One user's article may look better with an added line or other white space for whatever reason, while for other users it's just empty space. The norm or silent consensus (this has probably been discussed somewhere) seems to be that line breaks and other white space should not be added just for subjective aesthetic reasons. Adding line breaks after hatnotes is not accomplishing anything useful, and I'm pretty sure on high traffic articles, white space like that would be deleted fairly quickly. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mayumashu responded on his talk page about this matter, so I'd say it is resolved. Further discussion could happen at WP:Hatnote or some other place. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe someone took whitespace to ANI, but if there's consensus against it you really should add that to the WP:Hatnote guideline. Without at least a guideline to represent consensus, isn't this just an editing dispute? Wnt (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ResignBen16

Please see User talk:ResignBen16. This user's edits relate primarily to revelations of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy. In this context, it seems obvious that the username is a call for Pope Benedict XVI to resign. On his or her talkpage, the user makes the claim that the username is a pure coincidence; I find this claim not to be credible. Bringing this here for a discussion of whether the username is acceptable under these circumstances. (Please do not refer this discussion to WP:RFC/NAME; that discussion board is moribund and little-watched, and I think whether this user should change his name should be decided promptly.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not changing my name to pander to those who want to see something that isn't there. I have built a substantial watchlist on this username which I am entitled to and I am not going to throw away and nor am I going to go back to the beginning when I am patiently waiting to time-qualify in the editing of semi-protected articles which are also of interest of me and to accomplish page moves - for example, the template name. People start up campaigns to re-sign footballers and other sportsmen to sporting clubs all the time, and it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the management of the freakin' Catholic Church. Take a look in the mirror at what a disgraceful bully you are with this maneuver. It really is revolting, low and disgraceful what the sponsors and protectors of child abusers will descend to in order to attempt to exclude people from the fields of reporting and discourse whilst voicing denials about the effect of what they do all at the same time. Vows of silence, pontifical secrets, canon lawyers; I've seen it all before. And now this. May it also abide in contempt.ResignBen16 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's possible to change your username while preserving your watchlist and editing history. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's determined your username is an attack, and I think it is, it'll get changed whether you want it to or not. Lying about whether it's a call for the Pope to resign (you're really holding out hope that most people here are illiterate) will do a lot more harm than good. Calling Newyorkbrad, a well-liked user who's been an admin for years, "a disgraceful bully," "revolting, low and disgraceful," and one of a group of "sponsors and protectors of child abusers" is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. His apparent insistence on treating you with patience is really admirable, given what you just called him. Şłџğģő 03:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The user's name goes against Wikipedia policy because it is promotional -- it promotes a politico-religious cause. (Cf. what happened to User:Free Belarus), and his or her comments to NYB are unwarranted, uncollegial, uncivil and a personal attack. The user should be blocked for all these reasons, with a full unblock only after the name has been changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously a call for the sitting Pope to resign, and as stated above does go against Wikipedia policy. That, coupled with his focus on the current sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and his apparent belief that people are part of a group of "sponsors and protectors of child abusers" is questionable at best. The name should be changed. Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The user name, combined with the editing history, goes against Wikipedia's username policy, however objectionable in the view of many the actions of the religious leader referred to may have been. Edison (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, this obviously isn't an acceptable name so this needs to be changed. If the user does not agree then they need to softblocked to ensure complicance with our policies. Also rather concerned by the POV pushing that they seem to be engaged in. Generally I worry about any editor who seems to edit to an agenda and I'm not entirely clear that this user is going to be an asset. Good thing I'm not holding a bit right now or I would block them myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from the above discussion that the username is unacceptable. I have softblocked it indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Contribs and User Name smack of a determined campaign on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Its obvious meaning is "Resign Benedict 16" and his seeming belief as expressed that the church's raison d'etre is child sexual abuse (I am diplomatically paraphrasing) doesn't really fit with any concept of neutral editing on this site. I'm sure our editor would probably be quite a successful blogger - he has the headline-grabbing language and impressive grammar/use of English - but what works there doesn't work here - we have to leave our baggage at the door. Orderinchaos 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever reason he wanted the Pope to resign, it's a problematic username. I don't care if he wanted the Pope to resign because he actually believes he's Palpatine, the name is disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Block-evading sock

This editor seems to have returned as User:Ben16R esign. I've marked his userpage as a suspected sock, and struck-through his comment on a TfD discussion about a template created by ResignBen16, but the sock should probably be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The original block was a softblock, which means that the user is permitted to either change their username or create a new account. Nonetheless, the new username was as unacceptable as the old one, and suggests that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I have therefore hardblocked both accounts indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Isabela Moreno

User:Isabela Moreno repeatedly edits the article Dulce María and her edits break the article code and translate the article into Spanish. See e.g. [57]. I think she uses some tool for automatic translation (probably Google Translate), that she is unaware that she translates the article and that she doesn't speak English properly (or at all?), based on her comments on User talk:Hamtechperson. She already received four warnings recently, but I think she acts in a good faith, so I don't think she should be blocked. I don't speak Spanish, so I didn't even try to explain it to her. Can somebody help? Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped. Perhaps the best way to avoid biting a user who is (presumably) acting in good faith, is to do nothing. If she does not make another edit like the others, perhaps your message has gotten across? SGGH ^ping! 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The last warning she received was 8 days ago, but since then she edited the article disruptively again yesterday. Svick (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since my Spanish is pretty rudimentary and nobody else seems to be picking up on this, I've asked User:Alexf if he can take a look. Mind you, the answer might be "no", so I surely wouldn't want to discourage anybody else from handling it in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned user in Spanish. Politely told her her actions will be welcome in Spanish WP, but here it will have to stop or else she will be blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To continue: She answered in my Talk page that she's trying to correct inaccuracies, and in English. Go figure. She says the article contains much false information. I answered her I don't know the subject and wouldn't know what's true or false, but if she has a content dispute she should discuss it in the article's talk page, and preferably in English. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement, Alexf. My little bit of Spanish suggests that she's grateful to you for talking to her about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I have indef blocked Sohoscribbler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to persistent violations of policy on biographies of living individuals, misrepresentation of sources, issues of lack of neutrality, original research and giving undue weight to minority views. I've just deleted a batch of revisions from Office of the Independent Adjudicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and am off to remove (or verify removal of) similar allegations from other articles, including biographies. VRTS ticket # 2010040610020771 applies. This user is clearly angry and is using Wikipedia to present a side of a story which may justify coverage but definitely not in the terms the user was employing.It's more likely to be WP:UNDUE since many of the problematic sections of text were not supported at all by the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the OTRS ticket as well as some of the edits by the editor in question: Good block and good luck with the cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

COncur w/ KillerChihuahua. Wow. Dlohcierekim 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ydoucare3

Resolved

This user appears to be a vandalism only account and/or a sock. He created the article Magical Chocolate Men which I speedily deleted because of vandalism. Then he modified comments on his talk page and my talk page. See contributions for further evidence. Can some administrator do something about this user please so that he doesn't distract me again? Minimac (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sock indications, but it's clearly a vandalism-only account. Reported to WP:AIV which is really the appropriate forum for this. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Looks like xeno blocked the account. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that. I saw on the WP:AIV that User:Jusdafax put him up on the noticeboard instead, but anyway, I'm glad he's blocked. Minimac (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Namir Noor-Eldeen

Unless I'm crazy, neither the talk page nor the article history of Namir Noor-Eldeen appear to warrant {{pp-dispute}} protection.   — C M B J   21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just unprotected the page right before seeing this post. NW (Talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there is, as of yet, only minimal anonymous vandalism, you may also wish to (at least temporarily) remove semi-protection.   — C M B J   22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Icesave referendum edit warring by disruptive user

This user Physchim62 just reverted a move of an article from a name that everyone agreed was not suitable to a name that isn't really endorsed by anyone. He also tanked a Request for move that I did on the article not long ago with personal attacks and incivility, you can see the attacks over on the talkpage. I also want to point out an example of other personal attacks that this user has made against me ANI discussions. I don't think that this can be tolorated any more and considering the request that this user made in his ANI request I request the very same that this user be blocked from editing Wikipedia permanently. Alternativly I asked that he be banned from editing that single article since it seems as if he has anything else than a NPOV going for him when editing it.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started about 5 years ago.
Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is about 3 or 4 weeks old and with an obviously single purpose. For what it's worth. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

5 years of harrasing new users you say? I may be an SPA and I may only have used this site for some weeks but these name callings and disruptive behavior are inexcusable. Or are you saying that it's perfectly alright that this user destroy my diplomatic request for move with personal attacks and name calling just because he has been around longer than I have?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above user is an SPA with a specific political agenda, as his own comments[58] about the referendum in question reveal. He couldn't get his way with the page rename, so he's trying to get his opponents blocked. He's probably also still annoyed at being dragged here 3 weeks ago[59] when his being an SPA was perhaps less obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on this at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move Ucucha (talk · contribs) closed the discussion as no consensus on 30 March. Then on 4 April you moved the page anyway. And now you want to complain because it was moved back? Even if everyone agreed the name was not suitable there was no consensus to move it to your preferred name, so don't be disruptive and don't accuse users of 5 years worth of harassment. something lame from CBW 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be clear on this, View the request for move and view the previous ANI thread and then tell me that this user should not be banned from the article please?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at it and I can see that there is no reason for banning that user from the article. Dispute resolution is thataway, I suggest you use it rather than raising pointless threads here. Black Kite 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it really I that is being disruptive? Who would want to participate in a move discussion that Physcim62 made so unpleasant with accusations of trolling and criticism of me?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here a month and this is his second outing on the admin noticeboards, plus there are a couple of prior warnings on his talk page about WP:NPA and using racial epithets. The editor is a single-purpose or agenda account. I think some kind of warning might be in order. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The one that should be warned is Physicm62 he has called me a troll, an spa, a pov pusher, a vandal, an escalator and a soapboxer. Talked about non contributions of mine and such. Last thing he did was tank a Diplomatic Request for move that I made for an article with a clearly problematic name. And you're saying that I should be warned for something? I ask that action be taken against the user for disrupting my Request for move request.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Five days after his initial request failed due to no consensus, Viking has again requested a move of the article to the title of his choice. Is 5 days an acceptable waiting period for such a discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the previous request was Tanked by incivility and personal attacks I should have done so much sooner or removed the editors personal attacks from the discussion since they were highly inapporpriate and harmfull to the discussion.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, that's not how its supposed to work and I strong advise you not to do that if you value your editing privileges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IVP needs to back off from the move discussion on the article's talk page. His or her views are now well-documented, and their continued insertion of them, sometimes in new WP:POINTily titled sub-sections, is in danger of crossing the line from participation to disruption. This editor's attitude brings up the suspicion that he or she will not accept any outcome except the one they desire, and will act in an increasingly disruptive manner if they don't get their way. I hope that is not the case, but the time to start showing it is now. They should stop posting to the discussion cold-turkey unless they have something new and relevant to say, as opposed to more disruptive campaigning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the line between participation and disruption was crossed quite some time ago. IVP's repeated assertions in favour of his preferred title (which still has no consensus in favour) are now disrupting discussion of possible alternatives. Physchim62 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My last few edits to the article have only been to correct obviously incorrect information that other editors are inserting. How that can be considered disruptive is beyond me.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Anyone for a one month topic ban for Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Guy (Help!) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that he only has one topic, that might be redundant. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not a simple block, given that this is an SPA? A topic ban assumes that the user has other useful contributions to make outside of the topic concerned, and there is no evidence of that to date (for whatever reason). Physchim62 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a topic ban allows us to find out if he's at all interested in becoming a useful editor. While his past history would indeed indicate taht a topic ban is tantamount to a site ban, we should AGF and see what happens. If he screws up, he can always be blocked.

I support a topic ban, incidentally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor annoying vandal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club

Resolved

 – blizocked. --Jayron32 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor annoyance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club. This was a hoax article by a new editor, Brianrehg (talk · contribs). They wrote the article, it was marked for speedy deletion, they put on a {{hangon}} tag, the article went to AfD, all voting editors agreed it was a hoax, and it was deleted. The same editor also created Olhendorf, which was speedily deleted. Now an anon (possibly the creator of the articles) is editing the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club and (an exercise in futility) edit-warring with SineBot, trying to delete their IP address. Suggest that WP:RBI applies. --John Nagle (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted through it. Shouldn't be editing a closed AfD anyway. --Smashville^talk 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Smashville did the R. I just did the B. Let's all I. --Jayron32 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Current troublemaker aside, is there any reason why closed AfDs aren't full-protected? From what I understand, there's no reason a non-admin would want to edit one... Bobby Tables (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it hasn't been deemed problematic enough in the past? There are still a bunch of people who idealistically oppose indefinite protection of anything. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The only previous example that I can remember of an edit-war breaking out over a closed AfD was for the same reason as this one; a disruptive sock trying to remove IP addresses. There just, to coin a phrase, isn't the demand for protection on closed AfDs. Black Kite 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Levineps yet again in violation of his editing restrictions

Resolved

 – AniMate blocked Levineps for two weeks.--Chaser (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Levineps (talk · contribs) has recently created categories and recategorized multiple articles, in direct violation of his editing restrictions (posted at User:Levineps); he is completely banned from making any such edits regardless of their merit. He was recently blocked for moving pages in violation of his editing restrictions (see AN/I post here), so he has a prior history of violations. I'll go ahead and revert/delete his category changes, as all such edits are to be undone on sight; someone else should block given my history of trying to address these issues with him. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I counted 56 edits in which he recategorized articles; 55 were from today, one was from March 29 (the day after his block expired) and had gone unnoticed until now. He created three categories today. All of this has now been reverted/deleted. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my ban had been lifted, I thought I was free.--Levineps (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say your ban was lifted? You just got off a week-long block for having violated it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't allowed to do edits at all for a week, so since that time was up and nothing was stopping me I thought it was fine. Suprised the technology hasn't caught up with wikipedia yet. If I am not suppposed to be doing certain editing, I believe theres enough technology in place not to allow me to do it.--Levineps (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked from editing because you were violating the ban. The block expired, but the ban is still in place. Pull that shenanigan again, and the next block will likely be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a blatant violation of his restrictions right after a block. The excuse given is simply ridiculous. How could we technically enforce such a wide range of editing restrictions? Besides, how was this not your excuse when you were last blocked? You weren't technically restricted then either, hence the block for violating the ban. It is plainly obvious you are simply to refrain from any editing that you are banned for. This has been the case since December. Now all of the sudden you are surprised the ban isn't enforced on a technical level? Sorry, but I don't buy it.--Atlan (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, you guys can cry about my "abuse" but the truth of the matter if you look at the moves I made there was nothing malicious about it. Sorry if I offended you guys--Levineps (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious from that statement Levineps doesn't take this ban at all seriously.--Atlan (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And from his ironic "grow up" comment on his talk page, it's clear he is either in denial or has no clue as to what "ban" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I came here supporting Levineps, but the whole defense of his actions does nothing to help him. A block seems to be in order here, but since I'm not familiar with him, I really don't know if this will be all that effective in changing his behavior. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It has not been effective in the past, and it's highly unlikely that it will be effective this time, or at any time in the future. It seems inevitable that this editor is heading toward a total site ban, but I guess we have to let the string play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The sanctions in full detail have been posted on his user page, so he should have no doubt that they are in force. His "I don't care" comments in response to attempts to explain to him, are probably a good predictor of the endpoint of this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

He's cared enough to post several requests for the sanctions to be lifted here on AN/I and on user talk pages. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But he doesn't care enough to actually follow the advice that he's been given on several occasions by multiple editors, which is that he should edit quietly, stay within his restrictions, not do anything to violate the spirit of those restrictions, show that he can be a useful Wikipedian, and then, after a significant period of time (measured in months) ask for the restrictions to be removed. Rather, he's chosen to push and pick at the restrictions, branch out into new kinds of editing similar to what he was restricted for, and outright violate them, with a series of feeble excuses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The underlying problem has always been his complete failure to work with others, instead unilaterally making changes to many articles rapidly while ignoring the complaints from all sides. He has been banned from categories and page moves just because those are contexts in which that same behavior manifested, and particularly problematic kinds of edits to make without consensus. So if the problem is he has been unwilling to work with others, we should force him to only working with others if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia—ban him from any edits other than proposing and discussing changes to articles on talk pages or project pages. I think doing anything else is just going to be a further waste of everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll bring it up again next round. See you in a few. postdlf (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent potty-mouth, cussing, and swearing

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

This IP took the liberty to use "go fuck yourself" in his edit summary and further insists via my talk page and edits after that that it's completely OK to swear and cuss like that in the encyclopedia, either in the edits or in the edit summaries. I'm afraid my response to his talk page won't be good enough here. –MuZemike 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wp may not be censored, but that's a clear personal attack.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a license for incivility. There's a difference between content and interaction. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I curse fairly often on Wikipedia, but using it against other users (either single users or Wikimedia projects in general) like that is over the line even for me. On WP, an encyclopedia where people work together to write articles, fighting and being rude just does not (or should not) belong. Other forums, etc. allow or encourage people to flame and prank others for lulz; this isn't one of them. Please do not. (I watch MuZemike's talk page and others, to help stay up-to-date with articles, rules, and such.) --an odd name 06:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker asked the user to cut it out and s/he agreed. Speaking normal English (like Dayewalker did) generally works better in this situation than leaving templates full of wikilinks (like someone else had tried earlier). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he did it again as a response to Dayewalker [60], but anyways, he hasn't edited in a while, so I suppose it's all moot. –MuZemike 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be naive but if we be nice to him maybe he will be nice back? TheClerksWell (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, this appears to be an editor who was just trolling for a response. Don't feed the trolls, and RBI. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

MarinaSapir's defamatory edits of Nancy Scheper-Hughes

MarinaSapir is continually inserting unsourced defamatory material into the biography of living person Nancy Scheper-Hughes. After her first 3 violations I warned her to stop, but she is continuing to insert the material.

• 1. [61]
• 2. [62]
• 3. [63]
• At this point I gave her a warning to stop:[64]
• However she continued with the following edits: [65] and [66]

This user seems set upon continuing to violate the BLP policies unless something is done. Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Errr.... last edit was a week ago... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bieberquake

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Move along. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not realy sure what to do about this. user: Minimac who made a comment on the now speedy deleted page: Bieberquake has removed the warnings and block notice from user Bieberquake talk page and replaced it with their sugestion of a reason for an unblock. --Wintonian (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be taken care of already by admin User:Gogo Dodo. Hence, I am going to mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds resonable. --Wintonian (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin make a note in the block log of this user about this legal threat? Possibly one on their talk page as well, or, if not there as well, at least there?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gogo Dodo was the blocking admin, so you might want to let him know about it via his talk. I don't think he is aware of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD problem

Right, the AFD for the article "Dorble.com" has a problem, the result of it was speedy deleted (by an admin, and it was closed by a non-admin) but the article has been re-created again. Should the discussion be re-opened or should the article get deleted (again)? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is exactly the same page, it must be speedy deleted per G4. Of course, substantially different, you follow regular deletion procedures. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

deleted again, facebook page doesn consitiute notability, also the author has a COI. Gnangarra 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

On my watch list if it is created again then (bar any objections) I might ask for it to be protected. --Wintonian (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SALT if it becomes necessary, I have also warned the creator about advertising. Gnangarra 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict x2 Protection might be a good idea (as Wintonian says) since the page seems to have been deleted four times within nine hours. It's likely if protection isn't inserted the article just going to be created again any time soon. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently now sorted for the next year. --Wintonian (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Extension of a Mediation

As agreed after an lengthy mediation among conflicting editors working on the Race and Intelligence article, David Kane revised the article. On the talk page of the article, he wrote "There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold!" I assume that the invitation extend to editors who were not involved in the mediation. This seems quite appropriate and fair to me.

User: Mustihussain was never involved in any edit conflict concerning this article. S/he was therefore not party to the mediation. Following David kane's announcement on the talk page, Mustihussain made a few edits to the article. User: Captain Occam reverted on the grounds that "This article is still under mediation ... if you think your own edits are necessary, you need to bring them up on the mediation page" [67].

I believe this was completely inappropriate. Mustihussain was not part of the mediation. Captain Occam's revert was basically thus based on the objection: I object to your edit because you are not in mediation ith me. Since when has this ever been a justification for a revert? The proper place to discuss improving the article is the article's talk page. In a stroke, Captain Occam is saying that we will no longer use the article's talk page to discuss improvements.

Mustihussain reverted the revert with this explaination: "this article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." She is right. It does say others are wlecome to edit as well. So how can Captain Occam unilaterally decide that Mustihussain is blocked from editing this page? In effect, Captain Occam has issued a page bluck. This seems wholely inappropriate.

But he did it again: [68]. And then User:Mikemikev reverted Mustihussain's edit: [69],.

I think that Captain Occam and Mikemikev should be reprimanded for having tried to bully a new user off the Race and IQ page with th argument that, boils down to "if you are not party to our mediation, you are not allowed to edit the page." The page does not have that level of protection; reverts should NOT be used to create what is in essence a page protection that dosn't exist.

Then, Ludwigs2, the mediator, told Mustuhussain that any proposed edits should be discussed at the mediation talk page.{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=353561143&oldid=353559433]. Here the mediator is abusing his power by basically saying he has authority to decide on any edit made to the article. But this is not a mediator's role! Mediation is meant to resolve conflict among specific editors. Since when does a mediator have the right to force anyone to participate in mediation? I thought participation in mediation is voluntary!! But by requiring Mustihussain to clear edits through him, Ludwigs2 is basically saying Mustihussain has to participate in the mediation. Or, Ludwigs2 is saying that the mediation page now replaces the article talk page, as the page to discuss improvements to the article. But this is wrong. The article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements. The mediation talk page is the place to resolve a specific dispute among editors who agreed to mediation. I think Ludwigs2 should be reprimanded for trying to compel another editor to join th mediation, and using his position as mediator of a specific conflict as a reason to control who can and cannot edit the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this seems like a clear case of ownership and I notice Captain Occam was previously blocked for edit warring for inappropriate reasons. Someone with more knowledge of the situation and an admin should get involved here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think (given the numerous ANI threads that have been opened about this mediation so far) that there are plenty of administrator eyes on the page. The incident was unfortunate, but is resolved. Mustuhussain was being a bit pushy and not respecting BRD (three or four reverts without discussion), and so I asked him politely (check Slrubenstein's diff above if you doubt my politeness) to bring up his concerns at the mediation page so that we could discuss it. There has been no issue since.

I suggest to all mediation participants to leave this thread alone unless an uninvolved administrator has a question for them, and to get back to the business of discussing the review notes we have so far, so that we can start making revisions to the page. Your choice, of course, but unless there are serious non-partisan administrative concerns, I don't see anything that needs to be addressed. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is a voluntary process binding only on those who agree to the mediation. As such, the mediator and the participants can certainly invite someone to join the process, but no one, including the mediator, has the right to try to force decisions arrived at through mediation on non-participants. From what I've read in previous threads, it would seem that the task of working with the people who have agreed to mediation is daunting enough that the mediator would want to focus all his or her energy on those people, and not spend time bothering uninvolved editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can folks please take all these AN/I threads to MedCab's talk page? You'll probably get better advice and sympathy from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean this page. Muntuwandi has questioned the procedures there. It's not clear whether he got good advice or sympathy from Ludwigs2. [70] "If you are not contributing to the development of the article, then I will not allow you to disrupt that development with an endless stream of meta-commentary." (later toned down [71]) Mathsci (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ownership is an issue for administrators to look in to.--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I took this here, and not to Mediation Cabal, for a simple reason: I m not complaining with how Ludwigs2 has managed the mediation. My complaint is how he and others are treating people who are not participating in th mediation. What they are doing amounts to a back-door page protection of the article, when none is called for, or article-blocking a new user, which is not called for. Ludwigs2 is unfair to accuse Mustihussain of edit-warring. It was Captain Occam and Mikemikev who were edit warring. Why? Because they reverted an editor without providing a valid reason, and because thy did not open a discussion on what they considered a bad edit on the article talk page. BR means Bold, Revert, Discuss and the proper place to discuss is on the article talk page. Captain Occam and Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 are refusing to do that. This is an abuse of BRD. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and this point was raised before and not satisfactorily addressed. This is basically a case of WP:OWN. Is two weeks up yet? Guy (Help!) 10:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While all of this is dreadfully interesting, it may be worth noting that significant progress is currently being made on improving the article. The lead has been drafted with the input of at least half a dozen editors and edited directly into the article, and is unlikely to be the subject of dispute that it has been in the past. Say what you want about this mediation, it is producing tangible results. --Aryaman (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The mediation process is gradually being wound down and discussion moving to the talk page of the article itself. By introducing directly a possible new lede written from scratch, which Varoon Arya rejigged, an end has hopefully been put to the interminable discussions that have plagued the mediation pages. I'm not sure what that proves. I don't know what will happen with the main body of the article, but hopefully that too will be worked out on the talk page of the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the fact that you actively rejoined the mediation helped this latest batch of edits go much more smoothly. You are to be commended for actually proposing a text which other editors could comment upon and tweak. We've been stuck in criticising abstractions, as far too few have been willing to stick their necks out in making concrete suggestions, and that helped to break the rhythm sufficiently so that something resembling a normal editing cycle could take place. In my opinion, we can begin to phase out mediation and move discussions over to the talkpage as soon as the open topics wind up. I'd like to request that any admins with axe poised please consider allowing this to happen naturally rather than strictly enforcing an deadline from on high. --Aryaman (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

-> I spoke a little too soon. One user has attempted to WP:OUT me on the mediation pages. Ludwigs2 has condoned another editor saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT about a source by Richard Nisbett that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. It looks as if Ludwigs2 is encouraging a poisonous editing environment just at the moment that progress is being made. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, here are diffs for Mathsci's comments above:

1. the editor who tried to 'out' Mathsci here is a problematic SPA - Horse wiz (talk · contribs) - whom I warned myself here for the comment, along with a more protracted discussion on my talk page. He claims that Mathsci has volunteered that information elsewhere, so that it is not outing, but I let the warning stand because it was clearly intended to be a disruptive edit.
2. what Mathsci has styled as my 'condoning another editor saying IDONTLIKEIT' refers to my redaction of the portion of this edit where Mathsci claims that user:Bpesta22's opinion carries no weight because Bpesta22's professional standing is somehow insufficient for him to render an opinion - a form of personal attack that is specifically prohibited by the mediation rules. (my redaction is here, along with an archival of an unproductive discussion between Mathsci and David.Kane on the issue.). The edit Mathsci is responding to is this edit.

--Ludwigs2 06:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is acting more as a hindrance than a help at the moment.. The article is now being edited in mainspace: on several occasions now he has made inappropriate remarks/warnings which show that he is clueless about the way edits are being made at the moment. In the latest incident, Bpesta22 (talk · contribs) has challenged the use of a book written by Richard Nesbitt, a distinguished academic and member of the National Academy of Sciences. Bpesta22 has admitted that he is the real life assistant professor Bryan Pesta teaching in the Business Management School of Cleveland State University. In real life he supports the minoritarian hereditarian view of the article Race and intelligence. He has attempted to use his real life credentials to dismiss a book by Nesbitt, whom he claims is not qualified to comment on the subject. Assertions like this, particularly about such a distinguished academic, run completely contrary to core wikipedia policy. Bpesta22 is a recently arrived and inexperienced editor with a declared WP:COI. Ludwigs2, apparently continuing his crusade against the National Academy of Sciences started on Wikipedia talk:NPOV, has supported Bpesta22's unjustified attack on Richard Nesbitt. This is outlandish behaviour on the part of a mediator. Ludwigs2 seems at present to be stuck in some kind of rut, in which he is trying two or three times a day to pull rank in an entirely unconstructive way on much more established editors like Slrubenstein and myself with no apparent justification.. Constructive editing on the article is occurring nevertheless and in spite of Ludwigs2, who currently just seems to be wasting time and to be encouraging editors to break wikipedia core policies. Ludwigs2 shows no indication that he is concerned with building an encyclopedia. He is exercising WP:OWN on the talk page of mediation and commenting elsewhere on edits to the article which go beyond any remit as mediator. Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

5 more days. I don't think it's intentional, but Ludwigs is using a rather effective strategy ;-)

Has there been no progress? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional

Xnacional (talk · contribs) has persisted in tendentious and disruptive editing against local consensus and the MOS for a while now. His regular activities are at:

• Operation Together (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, where he replaces the disambiguation page with a redirect; most recent reversion here
• {{Star Wars}}, where he removes an entry despite local consensus (and recent talk-page discussions that he hasn't engaged in) to retain it; most recent reversion here (a couple of hours after another revert).
• Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, where he alters caption text without explanation; most recent reversion here
• Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, where he adds two periods to end of captions that aren't sentences, i.e. per the MOS shouldn't have terminal punctuation; most recent reversion here
• Hannibal Rising (film) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch -- I haven't kept a close eye on the article, but his edit-warring led to a 3RR block couple of weeks ago.

Save for the dispute at Hannibal Rising, Xnacional has never technically violated 3RR. Xnacional understands 3RR well enough to file a complaint; he should similarly understand WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS -- but, he either doesn't hear multiple editors across multiple articles or simply gleefully gets off at these occasional tweaks. Xnacional has not heeded multiple talk-page requests (most of them still there; several removed by him) to stop his behavior. He rarely engages in talk-page discussion, but always curtly and never with any indication that he acknowledges his edits might be controversial or simply wrong. (As a side note, Xnacional's recent obnoxiousness includes persistently restoring his "warnings" at User:MikeWazowski's talk page -- even though Xnacional regularly removes the same from his own talk page).

Although Xnacional seems somewhat knowledgeable about combat in Afghanistan, his productive edits are weighted against his habit of ignoring other editors and wasting our time in reverting his obnoxious edits. Additional input, advice or action would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

....and he's just now gone through and hit three of those articles above, per usual. --EEMIV (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Image violation

Resolved

 – Image now disappeared.~ mazca ^talk 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt this is not the right place to post this, but I'm hopeful someone will just take care of it - this image: File:Lisa_Simpson_Meets_Michelle_Obama.jpg is incorrectly labeled as public domain and I assume not allowable without permission. I removed it from Talk: Michelle Obama - I stay away from image matters so don't know how to go about removing the image from the image files and would appreciate someone taking care of it. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tagged {{db-f7}}, it should disappear shortly. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to G12. Policy wonks love to turn down things tagged as speedy with DB tags that are supposed to follow an expired prod or something. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted. For reference, the tag you want for blatantly obvious image copyvios like that one is {{db-f9}}. Thanks all. ~ mazca ^talk 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Tvoz/talk 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've been here for several years and couldn't pin down the right one, I feel sorry for the newbies navigating this Byzantine mess. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Writer's Cramp

Writer's Cramp is Green Squares is SirIssacBrock - see User_talk:Green_Squares#Ban_suspended. It appears that WC has fallen off the rails somewhat - he is describing reverts of his edits as vandalism again ([72], [73]), is actively edit warring over an article he owns - ([74] - reverts today [75], [76], [77]), and is placing bad vandalism warnings on pages of good editors he is in conflict with - [78]. He is supposed to be mentored by User:John Vandenberg, who has not edited for over a week. Could some admin provide him some helpful attention? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

His talk page is on my watchlist following a recent communication. I have responded to his request for administrator assistance but as I am unfamiliar with the background have e-mailed John Vandenberg in the hopes that he is not too busy elsewhere to chime in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For reference sake: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Green Squares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this and feel like I should contribute. WC also posted an accusation of Vandalism against me on an AfD I started regarding one of his articles. The accusation is plainly off base, a bizarre violation of WP:AGF, demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of what vandalism is, and uncivil. WC has failed to respond to my request to have him either redact or explain his accusation. I am entirely unfamiliar with his being mentored status, background, or the other issues raised above, but insofar as I've noted similar activity directed against me by this editor, I feel compelled to contribute. That said, this probably isn't an ANI issue -- at least not yet -- but seeing as this conversation already exists here, and I have relevant experience, I'm contributing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have notified WC of this ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WC had already been notified of this ANI and removed it as "trolls nonsense". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Okay, see that now in his talk page history. Perhaps I can anticipate another vandalism warning for having notified him, then. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Writer get a bit bitchy when their article is targeted for deletion. News at 11!

I agree that WritersCramp needs a bit of an AGF tune-up, and have also inquired about a similar issue on his talk page.

ps, WritersCramp official mentoring period is due to end in a week. If there are concerns after that, feel free to contact me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This may sound petty, and perhaps I'm unaware of some mitigating factor from WC's history, but an apparent pattern of an editor running amok describing any edit he disagrees with as "vandalism" or "troll's nonsense," that editors he has had problems with in the past need to be blocked indefinitely (per his talk page), seems a bit more than "a bit bitchy." Honestly, I don't normally even involve myself with disputes like this, but I was very bothered by someone throwing a boldfaced "VANDALISM" at me in an AfD, and I'm all the more bothered to see that it's apparently a well-established pattern. I have the utmost respect for you as someone attempting to mentor a troubled editor, but I just want to make sure you know that, at least from where I'm sitting, this isn't just the standard "author gets a bit bitchy when his/her article gets AfD'd". I have dealt with that type of situation several times in the past and never have I been called a vandal, nor has the editor at issue had some established pattern of doing same.

Completely know that you're on the case, and this response isn't even slightly intended to suggest otherwise (and I sincerely mean that), just want to make sure it's clear that WC's behavior is, to this editor, very troubling. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(BTW: I write the above knowing full well that I don't seek WC to be on the receiving end of any truly impactful disciplinary action, so perhaps I'm just venting...WC's obviously someone who is trying to contribute in good faith) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, Writer'sCramp hasn't edited since that day and hasn't responded on-wiki to John Vandenberg's note on WC's talk page. He may be stepping back to take a breath (which I appreciate, if that is the case). It was starting to look like a ramp-up of his previous troubling behavior. Syrthiss (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's what WC's doing and why, that is indeed a very good thing. He's definitely trying to contribute in good faith, and it's a shame for anyone in that vein to go "off the rails." Regardless, good point, agreed, I'll shut up now :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver IP blocked

I've blocked 91.198.174.201 for 24 hours anon-only, as it looks like User:EdwardsBot is running while logged out. I'm going to contact the operator now, but please keep an eye out for any bots I may have accidentally disabled. If it seems to be a problem, please unblock without consulting me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is almost certainly caused by a change in logging in reported at WP:VPT#Bots and Logging In. Svick (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the site was patched for a security bug, causing the underlying frameworks (wikitools, AWB, etc.) to break. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would this be why the AIV bots aren't working at the moment? Syrthiss (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed. Odd to patch for a bug described years ago at such short notice, or was there more warning? Will (aka Wimt) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:RulerOfTheAirwaves

RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been going around various radio stations unnessarily changing the formats listed of the stations to information that is incorrect. I told the user this, and it was promptly blanked, which, yes, is his right. But his edits have gone over into vandalism territory. I noticed the user blanking a category and vandalizing the category page. When I warned him for vandalism, that too was blanked. This account is not sitting right with me, from the name to the actions of the user. Could an admin take a look and have a word with the user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added new rock format sub-categories (alternative, album-oriented, etc.) when I noticed that only a few (classic, modern) were present. I was re-categorizing the stations (you might think of them as orphans) which led to the generic rock category. Look, if you want to turn this into something sinister, go ahead. I have only been working to more accurately identify rock stations-- that's all! RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This may not be AGF, but for a user who just started yesterday, this user certainly knows their way around categories and other pages of the Wiki and already has the lingo down. Quack anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the vandalism this user claims was the removal of a very small category (only 6 entries) for a group of sister stations in a certain radio market. There is absolutely no way to verify this, but I will say it anyway-- I created the category myself some months ago using a different user name. Since I have been going through many, many radio stations and their respective categories/templates, I noticed that there was literally no other similar small category for sister stations in a single radio market. I simply thought it was appropriate the do away with the grouping, but if the user who began this discussion feels otherwise, leave it, that's fine! I can't stress enough my constructive intentions here. I simply have been trying to clean up some of the Rock-Radio categories and templates. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Admitted sock? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ROTA, it's a bit more seemly to post to the appropriate wikiproject (I'm sure there is one) before engaging in an operation like this. "Discussion" can consist of saying what you want to do, waiting a while to see if anyone objects, and going ahead with the plan if nobody has said anything. Then refer to the wikiproject thread in your edit summaries so that bystanders can understand what you're doing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I use no other username currently, and haven't used any other for some time now. I fully understand the policy regarded multiple accounts. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would seem to be this guy. Deor (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. Has a big interest in WMMS and other Cleveland radio stations. I recommend a Checkuser (any up this time of night?) and run one on his account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They also have the right to vanish, so if they would be willing to admit to one of us either through this thread or by e-mail their old account, I don't really think that we should go through all this trouble. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanish involves leaving wikipedia permanently. If they come back, they haven't vanished. Maybe you're thinking of CLEANSTART which doesn't apply to users under active sanctions. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I do think we should go through the trouble. If ROTA is the this guy, then he is evading MANY blocks and should be blocked (yet again) and range blocked to boot. ROTA has already disappeared, so it is obvious from their behavior they are guilty as sin. I have taken the liberty of reverting their edits, 90% were completely incorrect and downright vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By trouble, I meant speculation. Go ahead and re-open the SPI if you want, but assuming a link isn't credible enough to most editors to block. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit more than speculation. He admitted above that he created Category:Clear Channel Cleveland "using a different user name", which would make him User:TheBlankingCompany79, one of the number of users blocked as a result of the SPI I linked. Deor (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying that we shouldn't just assume a link between users. There have been many times where I have and I have then been proved wrong. I've also seen users accused of being a sock and the accusations were proven false. A quick investigation wouldn't hurt anyone though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I already suggested a checkuser, so anyone know one that is up? Could have found one about 5 hours ago when it first suggested it, but they ain't up know and this dude has probably made 10 accounts by now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to ping a specific checkuser, just open a case at WP:SPI, say that CU is needed, and fill out your info. Someone will take care of it before long. -- Atama頭 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Identity Theft S-F

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

I just wanted to inform you of Identity Theft so to speak --> This User:StevenFraser account was created without my friends consent and It is a account which contains his First and Last Name which is in a way Identity Theft as he did not create that account. Tho I do have a idea on who did actually create it but I will not get into that. Steven has asked me If one of the Admins could either block or delete the account created in his name. Thank You 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting the name "Steven Fraser" into a Facebook search gives 714 results - it's a very common name. Do you have any reason to suspect whoever created that account even knows who your friend is? It could very easily be someone else who's actually called Steven Fraser, and the account hasn't edited in several months. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The account's first edit was in 2008 - chances are it's legitimate, and just another person with the (quite common) name of Steven Fraser.  f o x  12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My ex friend created the account due to the fact she and he both are at war with each-other (they hate each others guts) and i already know it was her that created it since He goes on Blue Kaffee and the fact knowing her She would probably create a account on here with my name as she did on Facebook by creating a false account on there with another ex friends name Then go on a hating/harassing/spamming spree as I witnessed when I was her friend in the past. 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you have noticed, but the world doesn't revolve around you. The account looks legit. Syrthiss (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Not sure whether the account is legitimate, but this edit, the first one that the account made, does not look legitimate.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It was also made 2 years ago. The edits from February appear legitimate. Nothing to see here. --Smashville^talk 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible threat

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding.  f o x  17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

66.99.248.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what could be read as a threat in this edit (stating that a specifically named person was an endangered species) ... to me, it seemed relatively minor; but I wanted to report it here in-case others viewed it more seriously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Disregard ... the user made a subsequent edit claiming the same person was "the cutest" endangered species. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see where the possibility lies, but yes, not a threat.  f o x  17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LynnCityofsin

User:LynnCityofsin has been asked to not accuse other editors of being fans or editing to insert POV at Talk:Glenn Beck multiple times (comment on the edit not the editor). She had previously been involved in long and heated discussions that were overall more suited for a forum than what is needed for improvement of an article. A final warning can be seen here regarding what I find to be surprisingly offensive (I don't want to be lumped in as a Beck fan for trying to keep a BLP acceptable). She took some time off but recently had a quick edit war ([79][80][81] and then made another inappropriate accusation on the talk page here. Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bring it out in the open then. That page is being over run by POV in favor of Beck. Note that up until this point all of my criticisms were contained in the talk page. Only recently did I try to edit the actual page. And my edit was reasonable and within the scope of the section in question. Still the Glenn Beck page certainly needs review from an editor without a dog in fight, because it is clearly the front in partisan war. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Others do not agree that it was OK for inclusion. I don;t care since the reason this is open is you continue to assert that editors are fans of Beck. You have been asked not to do that multiple times and this situation seems to have emboldened you. You are disrupting the editing process.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am not the user that swears at people and attacks them. I may complain about bias, but I have generally refrained from personal attacks. You want to complain about someone on that page, DIGGITY should be the one. DIGGITY has crossed lines of basic decency. I've just tried to defend the entry that I think belongs on the page (and apparently others agree with me). I happen to believe that the pro-Beck bias is very obvious. I think like a lot of public personalities, he has fans who routinely comb the article and remove entries (rather than improve them) for the slightest violation. This is very common on now. I shouldn't be banned or punished because I noticed a trend. The trend should be brought to the attention of the higher ups, and the Glenn Beck page should be locked just like the pages for many prominent figures are locked. And just so you know. I am not an anti-beck liberal. I just want some objectivity on the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So I really don't mind the above being said here since it seems to be the appropriate place. Can an admin make it clear that the repeated allegations on the article's talk page are not acceptable? If it continues, can a block be considered?Cptnono (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Glenn Beck it seems that everyone is getting understandably frustrated with everyone else. However, LynnCityofsin needs to assume good faith, especially of Diggity. Yes, they have a high criteria for inclusion of material into the article, but that is a good thing. LynnCityofsin has repeatedly refused to provide Diggity with sources to back up their claims, and should refrain from complaining so arduously about certain aspects of the article if they are unwilling to support their accusations with anything except escalated conflict.

However, Diggity has also been abrasive and rude (with swearing, which I really look down on) towards LynnCityofSin. I can understand them being frustrated but that is not the way to handle the situation.

I think both parties deserve a slap on the wrist, with promises to be more civil towards each other in future. LynnCityofSin perhaps needs someone to also explain how to easily find sources to back up their claims, what qualifies as a reliable source, and how they can work towards improving the article within the rules of Wikipedia. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, I want to point out that at the time of those disputes, I wasn't contributing to the page. I was just commenting as a reader of the page. In the last dispute, when I actually contributed to the page, I felt the rules were being applied selectively, as there is a POV phrase in that section that attacks Mark Potok for misrepresenting Beck's treatment of conspiracies (though it may have since been removed). Also, I don't mind that people want me to put more sources up. I haven't been seriously editing for very long, so I know I am not well versed in the methods of wikipedia. But I felt like guys like Diggity, immediately piled on me and called me ignorant and attacked me. It just seemed like there was a political axe to grind there. I have had a history of run-ins with diggity. While my position has been strong and adamant (perhaps too adamant), I haven't resorted to the kinds of personal (and frankly unacceptable) attacks that Diggity has. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

In my opinion, this page is being overly manipulated by people with pro-Beck leanings, and is often vandalized by Beck critics. I think the editors should review the page, and I think it should be locked, so regular users can't edit it. Only reputable editors should be allowed to edit the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think attention needs to be drawn to the Glenn Beck article, please bring it up here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a quick look over at Glenn Beck and the talk page as I've tried to help with the article in the past. Late last summer the article was indeed extremely skewed in Beck's favor (literally making it appear that there was nothing at all controversial about him, which is obviously absurd), but some balance was eventually brought to it. There was at least one editor who was editing in a highly POV manner/dominating the article and who was chastised by several people for it (I also had to block them for egregious edit warring), but they do not seem to have been active recently. In general the Beck article is a bit of a POV war zone (shockingly), and without saying anything definite about this ANI report I'll just point out that it's understandable that people working there would get frustrated. Experienced editors or admins who are willing to wade in and offer outside advice would probably be helpful, more so than doing anything in direct response to this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the words of wisdom bigtimeLynnCityofsin (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GameZone

Right, I'm not really sure if this is the right place (or if a right place exists), but I received a bullying-sounding email from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone based on a comment I made on a talk page. Basically, I noticed a user's (DarkBlade4658 (talk · contribs)) sole contributions were adding GameZone reviews and previews to articles - a little bit of looking and the user turns out to be an editor for them. I gave the user two warnings before reporting them to the COI noticeboard. The user then replied on my talk page and I explained the situation on his talk page. Here's where it gets interesting - I then received an email to my personal email account (the address of which is available on my website, the email wasn't sent through Wikipedia) from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone, criticising my expression of opinion on the talk page (I questioned GameZone's reliability in passing). Now, seeing as this is essentially off-wiki, I'm not sure if it should even be here, but then again, seeing as it's (essentially) the head of a company sending (what I found to be) a bullying email for someone saying something about said company on a talk page, maybe it should. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think he might just have qualified for a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edson Rosa

User:Edson Rosa (Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa; Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa Brise) was recently banned for one week for persistently uploading images without proper documentation. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Edson Rosa.) That ban was extended to two weeks after the user created a alternate account and continued editing in the same fashion. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa.) Today, following the expiration of the block, the editor again uploaded a non-free image, claiming it to be his/her own work and releasing it to public domain.

None of these incidents seem to be malicious vandalism. The user seems to sincerely wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Yet they are clearly persistent violations of Wikipedia policy, and at least in the case of uploading non-free images constitute serious problems. To my knowledge, the user has made no attempt to discuss these issues or seek ways to redress them. User talk:Edson Rosa and User talk:Edson Rosa Brise include more than 110 warnings, but no responses from the user. Cnilep (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See also: Special:Contributions/Edson Henrique Rosa Junior, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa/Archive Cnilep (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor indefinitely. It's obvious that he/she is not getting the point here, what with no apparent intention of stopping the incorrect uploads and no attempt to communicate at any point in time. The multiple socks are definitely a problem as well. If the editor is willing to discuss their actions and learn why they're doing things wrong, then I'd be fine with an unblock at that point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical threat on user's page

There is a user page that I don't wish to name on this board, containing a physical threat against, as he put it, "Wikipedia." Is there any way I can notify you without having to use a public noticeboard? Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You could use the "Email this User" button on the side of the admin you would want to contact.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You could email WP:OVERSIGHT, but I would only do so if it was a threat against an actual user or person. If it was just to Wikipedia, I don't think that really warrants attention. Aiken ♫ 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iamstiff

This account appears to be a single-issue, "throwaway" account, used primarily to make a series of drive-by edits to remove the term "Northern Irish" from all articles about Northern Ireland football clubs.

Perusal of Iamstiff's contributions should confirm this.

There are dozens of edits making the same change, and so I'm not posting them all, but example diffs are:

[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

I reverted the edits, as per WP:BRD. User:Iamstiff did not engage in discussion, but rather made the edits all over again. He subsequently declined to engage in dialogue and has apparently disappeared. I would like to be able to revert the edits without this being considered edit-warring.

I suspect Iamstiff may be a sockpuppet for User:Vintagekits who made similar edits in the past, and who is now banned. Mooretwin (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't think it's VK, other edits are US-centric, and some show poor grammar, spelling or wiki-knowledge. Having said that, I don't think there's a problem with reverting all of those edits. Black Kite 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So Black kite you are encouraging an editor to edit war there is a discussion on this matter on the talk of the Northern Ireland and consensus on which to prefer is far from established, if it is a sock then revert away if not wait for consensus, edit wars never do any good and I am surprised an admin would encourage them. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This guy Mo ainm is probably BigDunc based on dates of registration/retirement, and his interest in edit warring over this phrase. Has anyone got that tool that compares editors interests? I know there is no policy against users 'retiring' and then re-appearing under a different name, but they aren't supposed to edit in the same areas of past conflict thereby avoiding scrutiny, and this guy is referring to BigDunc in the third person [89] too. He also bizarrly declares on his user page he is an alternate account of an established user, without naming the user, I know for a fact that's not allowed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Infact Mo ainm has picked up where BigDunc left off at Gainsborough Trinity F.C., edit warring over use of the Ulster Banner, I'd say all of this adds up to evasion of scrutiny and if BigDuc is infact not 'retired' (seriously, why does this stupid template still exist?), he needs to revert to his main account forthwith, or link to it from this new account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If Mo ainm is BigDunc then he, too, has a history of edit-warring over this issue on the very same articles. Regarding the discussion at Tatlk:Northern Ireland, I started that to try and obtain a consensus, but it is clear that there is no consensus either that "Northern Irish" is acceptable or not acceptable. On that basis, under WP:BRD, User:Iamstiff has failed to achieve consensus to his changes and reverting them is quite legitimate. Ohterwise, Iamstiff's edit-warring will have been rewarded. Mooretwin (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is just the usual disruptive forum shopping that Mooretwin usually uses when he does not get his way in his point-of-view campaigns. He brought it up here, was told to go away, went here where the discussion want against him, so now he comes here to try and get answer he likes. This is a content dispute, no administrator action needed other than someone stopping Mooretwin's relentless forum shopping. 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The username, Iamstiff, seems a bit... questionable. Now, I'm not one to be offended by anything, but I've seen less suggestive names get blocked as violations of the username policy (I've been around as an IP before this). But given that their last contribution was March 21st, this may be a little late. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

General disruptive editing

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive editing on March 17 per this thread. He has since made several posts on my talk page, persistently soapboxing about:

• "sick americans", "Nudity rocks" - [90]
• "Sick American aversion sex syndrome", "USA has been hijacked by a pack of religious Christian and other evil sects", " Nudity in films rock and thats a fact, no crazy American priest or evil sects are gonna tell me otherwise" - [91]
• "And while we are at it: Health care in USA! Only 100 years behind Europe!" - [92]

At times, he makes attempts to make his edits look legitimate, such as starting posts like this one. I've replied to that post of his and even notified him of this when he kept persisting for a reply on the article talk page. My talk page is full of communication with him where I was very patient and offering advice in the unlikely event that he decides to do something useful. My last comment to him stated, among other things: "should you cause any further disruption to articles or talk pages, I will report you and ask that you be blocked". He replied to that post today (from a different IP, 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs)) by calling me an "American self appointed dictator asshole", "American fag" and told me to "Run home to mother you fuck" ([93]).

He edits from a dynamic IP and I think he deserves a block; a range block would be appropriate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you list the IPs from which the edits came? It will be easier to nail down a rangeblock (if deemed appropriate). TNXMan 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the only ones I've seen so far. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A CheckUser could help identify more info (IPs) and calculate a rangeblock more accurately.--mono 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there has also been activity from registered users in the range I don't think a checkuser would be much use here. Right now I'm seeing some blockable activity from two IPs, but it's very sporadic and there just hasn't been enough activity to nail down exactly what range is being used here, let alone justify blocking it. I blocked the recently-used IP for harassment but that's all that's warranted right now, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 19:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, CheckUser is not needed when it regards only anon edits. That said, 91.150.16.0/20 blocked 2 weeks for abusing Americans disruption. –MuZemike 00:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP:76.184.84.73

IP user 76.184.84.73 has made persistent uncited additions to Luger P08 pistol. Specifically, the users list in that article. The section he is editing has an edit banner stating that all additions need citations and warning that any additions without citations will be removed. He has also been warned by myself and others in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page] not to make additions without citations from a reliable source. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page, and I have not been able to find a source for his claim. ROG5728 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm vandalizing

There is currently a sockfarm (of who I don't know) going around creating inappropriate articles and vandalizing pages together. One account makes this edit [94], then another one creates a bogus article about Alex Beckman (now speedied). Several other accounts continue to vandalize the same articles in the same way [95], [96]. Quack Quack, can we please block them? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to modify my topic ban

Resolved

 – Grundle2600 is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. See below.--Chaser (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

---

On October 23, 2009, the following restriction was placed on me:

"Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks."

I am asking that my topic ban be modified specifically and exclusively so that I may be allowed to make suggestions at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am only asking to be allowed to edit that article's talk page - not the article itself. And I am only asking to be allowed to edit that one particular talk page - not any other talk pages.

I believe that such a modification to my topic ban will give me a chance to prove that I am capable of making constructive suggestions at a talk page for this topic. This would give everyone a chance to see that I have become a better editor in this topic area, without putting any of the articles at risk.

By restricting this proposed modification to the talk page of just one article, it makes it extremely easy for administrators and other editors to keep track of my activities. In addition, if any administrator believes that, during the course of this proposed modification, I have not been a constructive editor, the modification can easily be reversed.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written and reasoned request. I ordinarily think such trials are a good idea, but having read the discussion leading to the ban, I'm hesitant. I'd like to hear from others.--Chaser (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Grundle, your comments in this[97] thread, from just three days ago, make it clear that you still don't understand the reasons for your topic bans. As long as you think you're in trouble because you're being "censored by liberals", I don't think you'll ever be able to contribute to political articles or talk pages. Sorry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to be able to suggest things for inclusion, for one article, as a test case. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If such a modification was to take place, I would be very reluctant to let the "test" page be such a controversial one. Black Kite 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I chose that one precisely because it is current, controversial, and very much within the subject of my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm almost tempted to say that in the goodwill and spirit of Zombie Jesus Day, sure, why the hell not? The problem though is that the proposal is bit flawed, logic-wise. You're asking for a trial run to edit the talk-page, and if you aren't disruptive during the trial period then that is proof that the editing restrictions should be removed? argumentum ad ignorantiam to a T, IMO, so I dunno... Tarc (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I thinking of doing it more gradually. If this request was accepted and I did well, then after some time, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of a few more political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of all political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit one political article. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit a few political articles. And finally, if I do well on all of that, I would eventually ask for my entire topic ban to be lifted. I was thinking the entire process could take six months or a year. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no. The diff provided by PhGustaf shows you don't understand why you're topic banned, and the article you've picked is far too controversial. You've said you see it as a gradual thing - so why pick the hottest topic in the American media at the moment as a starting point? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose modification request. We as a community imposed the restriction indefinitely so that it stays in place for as long as it takes to sink in - it clearly still hasn't, even as of 4 days ago ("No one ever showed any diffs to justify banning me from talk pages. I halve always been civil and polite on talk pages"). PhGustaf's link to the April 1 2010 discussion reveals more than a severe lack of clue in vandalising an article. It demonstrates that Grundle2600's tendentious conduct that led to the topic ban has not changed (he refused to get the point when repeatedly told by Theresa Knott that the discussion was not about his topic ban), and then Grundle2600 made was the following comment which makes things quite clear: "The real reason for these bans and blocks is to censor the articles in question from my additions of well sourced, relevant content that is critical of the subjects. Everyone who favors banning and blocking me is on the political left, and wants to prevent me from adding relevant, well sourced information that is critical of politicians on the political left. That's why none of the people who favor my indefinite topic ban have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions." We cannot suitably manage talk page disruption short of a ban, while an undue amount of time and effort would be needed to supervise him (which will not be productive) - Wikipedia is NOT therapy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per [98]. My minimum standard for these things is a three month drama-free period. Not even close with this one. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A user named “Grundle”? Say ‘tain′t so! ―AoV² 10:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I explain on my userpage, it's a video game reference. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Quite strongly. First of all it's worth pointing out that Grundle again referred to his notorious "7 questions." Whilst he was indefinitely blocked (for the second time) back in December he agreed (see bottom of his post) to refrain from asking or referring to these questions again (this had been proposed on ANI, with the suggestion that if he did bring up the questions he would promptly be re-blocked). As far as I know no one has said, "Okay Grundle, it's okay for you to bring up those 7 questions about the Obama articles again." Technically he should probably be blocked for a lengthy period of time for even referring to them. Part of the problem here is that there have been so many restrictions, agreements, and unblocking with conditions of Grundle that people cannot keep track of them all, and while it may be a bit of WP:ABF on my part I think Grundle uses the passing of time to his advantage—only people who have been paying attention to this for a long time realize how long the disruption has gone on and how much time it has wasted. To this specific proposal to allow editing on one talk page, I am quite opposed. When Grundle was first topic banned from certain articles (implemented by User:Thatcher) he was allowed to post to article talk pages. The disruption did not stop. Grundle essentially took over (I know he contests this, but it's what happened) entire talk pages relating to Obama, posting dozens of suggestions (most of which were completely inappropriate/POV) which numerous editors wasted their time responding to. He even created sub sections of talk pages just for his suggestions, and article work largely ground to a halt. As far as I know this problem was never "fixed", and as such Grundle should never be allowed anywhere near political topics, be it in article or talk page space. It's been almost a year now (literally, I believe I first warned Grundle about his editing on 4/21/09) that this editor has been wasting our time with this nonsense, and the mistake we made was lifting the indefinite blocks placed back in November and December. This is an editor who has said repeatedly [99] [100] that everyone should get to add whatever bias they want to articles (as far as I know he has never rescinded this argument), suggesting that it will all come out of well in the end. It's a collective failure on our part that Grundle is still allowed to edit at all, and our inability to simply show editors like him the door wastes an extraordinary amount of time and community resources. Note that I am not one to lightly advocate what amounts to a ban of an editor (indeed I very, very rarely do so), but I've been watching/trying to forestall this train wreck for 12 months now and got completely sick of it at least 6 months ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Bigtimepeace, you're claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.

Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?

How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?

How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?

What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?

And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but the above statements concern me. Comments such as "censored by liberals" show that you're still not quite to the point where even a test case, let alone a test case on such a controversial topic, could end well. This isn't to say that maybe a less controversial subject matter may be appropriate, but I don't see something like this ending well. You've been indef'd twice, take some time to do some non-controversial editing and show that you're really here at the project to help, not argue. I feel that after three or four months of positive editing, I would be more inclined to support at a later date. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I was going to sit this one out and see what the rest of the community thought, but BTP reminds us that you brought up the "7 questions" again recently, which I'm pretty sure was explicitly covered in one of your restrictions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bigtimepeace. --John (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I understand that the consensus is very much opposed to my suggested modification. I understand and accept that. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I still believe that I am being "censored by liberals," and as proof, I offer this. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per BTP, and others, above. And just above, Grundle links to the damn questions again? Why is he allowed here at all? Jack Merridew 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the reasons above. It seems he is definitely not ready to contribute to these types of articles. –Turian (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Grundle, Zombie Jesus is not happy. Isn't posting or referencing those insipid "7 questions" grounds for an indef? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Why, exactly, is Grundle2600 getting more last chances?:

  As an example of how my topic ban has made wikipedia worse, I'd like to point out that even though it was reported by the New York Times, the article on Obamacare does not say anything about how Henry Waxman is planning to hold a hearing to question companies about their statements claiming that the plan will increase, not decrease, their expenses. As another example, even though the Boston Heralrd reported that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents, the Obamacare articles does not mention it all all. If I had not been topic banned, I would have added both of those things to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Grundle2600 is requesting that his topic ban be lifted so he can disrupt Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Misattributing a claim "that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents" to a "report" by the Boston Herald—
  which reprinted a story DeMint to Rock Hill: Government is to blame by Matt Garfield of The Herald in Rock Hill, South Carolina—
  about a Tuesday, March 30, 2010 address by U.S. Sen. Jim "Waterloo" DeMint (R-SC) to a business audience of 300 people at a York County Regional Chamber of Commerce monthly membership luncheon at the City Club of Rock Hill:

  During a Q&A portion of DeMint's address, an audience member stood up and said it was his understanding that the health care bill creates a "ready reserve army" in the surgeon general's office.
  DeMint said he didn't know what the guy was talking about, but quickly added there would be thousands more IRS agents as a result of the health bill.
  Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee warned that the bill could require the IRS to hire 16,000 additional agents to enforce the new rules.

  The IRS claim was from a March 18, 2010 partisan report by Republicans on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee—
  that non-partisan fact-check organizations FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com found to be false and misleading. Newross (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

King Punisher?

Not sure who this is or how it ties in, but I'm a bit suspicious of a user whose account isn't even 1d old, already running around and adding indef tags to Grundle's user page and a rather unhelpful comment on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Account has been blocked, also a sock report is up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That new bunch are User:John254/User:Pickbothmanlol. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose outright ban

Resolved

 – Community ban imposed.--Chaser (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, this entire situation has gone on long enough, and there's no sign of it stopping. Grundle is again referring to these so-called "seven questions" he brought in October and which, as mentioned above, he agreed not to mention anymore (I just reminded him of that in the thread above) with the knowledge that a long block could be the result if he broke that promise (Grundle had been posting these (already answered) questions over and over again to the point that he was about to, or maybe even did, get blocked for it). The fact that he is again bringing it up in the context of "liberals are censoring me" only makes it worse.

This comes on the heels of the recent April Fools' incident where Grundle made this edit to Guam (referring to a jokey or just plain dumb comment made by a Democrat in Congress), argued that it was well sourced when called on it (it was sourced to YouTube), then argued that he was obviously making a joke "mocking the fact that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth," then promised to stop. Please note that this cycle of: 1) do something disruptive; 2) defend it at first; 3) then apologize; 4) then promise not to do it again is standard procedure for Grundle—indeed it's exactly how he got out of his most recent indef block that arose from this situation which involved egregious WP:SYNTH to defame a biography of a living person (this version of Grundle's talk pages shows the first three failed attempts to get unblocked and the way in which he finally succeeded in doing so).

In the process of responding to the recent April 1st incident, Grundle made a wikilawyerish statement arguing the Guam edit had nothing to do with politics (it was based on a dumb statement by a Democratic congressman), technically violated his topic ban about politics by essentially saying "if I wasn't banned here's what I would be working on," and claimed he never really did anything wrong (while still managing to reference Obama, who I believe is a politician of some sort) and that he was being censored by liberals, a point he is now repeating with reference to 7 questions he asked back in October and agreed to stop asking while he was indef blocked and trying to be agreeable and get unblocked.

Can we please get a consensus that it's past time to put an end to this, and that User:Grundle2600 is banned from editing en.wikipedia, period? If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but bear in mind that what I describe above is about 1/10th of the total disruption of the past year, that the editor has already been sanctioned by ArbCom, sanctioned twice by the community, indef blocked twice and then gotten the blocks lifted when he promised to improve, and discussed ad infinitum on noticeboards.

If someone feels this should technically be moved to WP:AN then feel free to do so as that is where we generally have ban discussions, but this seemed like the better place since there is a current thread. Sorry if my frustration comes through too strongly in this comment, but as I said it has been almost a year of this stuff at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All I've ever waned to do here is add true, accurate, relevant, well sourced material to articles. Your suggestion is extreme and unwarranted. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be open to a ban on me starting new discussions at ANI. That would solve the problems that you are complaining about. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it would i'm afraid. What would solve everything would be for you to get a clue, but what are the chances if you haven't by now? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to get a clue and learn, which is why I would like for someone to please answer my seven questions. Please go ahead and teach me - help me to get a clue - and answer my questions. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)'

OMG I can't teach you! I can't believe that you would bring up the 7 questions again immediately underneath a post proposing a total ban because you keep bringing the seven questions. There is nothing to work with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe we could recall every AN & AN/I topic on Grundle2600 and we would see that they invariably contain some variation of "All I've ever...". That is the heart of the matter; this user, like his good buddy ChildofMidnight, still feels himself to be the victim. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support site ban per BTP. Clue ain't gonna happen, apparently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per BTP. Victim card played too often. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You people keep saying that I'm ignorant and I don't understand wikipedia policy. But at the same time, you refuse to answer my seven questions. That's very hypocritical of you people to do that. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

[redacted]

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, shit. I'm frankly sympathetic to the idea that Grundle should be able to express his concerns about neutrality, because I think we should listen to concerns about the political neutrality of our articles on political topics - but he just can't stop shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth. It's perfectly plain that every discussion he's involved with in the future will come down to the same issue above, and everyone is already out of tolerance for that. It's also perfectly plain that no attempt to have him edit under restrictions will ever work. There's no real alternative here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• As the user reneged on the promise that lead to his unblock ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. Discussion may continue whether this will be considered or replaced with an 'outright ban'. –xeno^talk 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Earlier I composed a post warning Grundle that if he mentioned his 7 questions again, I would block him for disruption for a week, but was neutral on the permaban. However, since I edit conflicted with him posting his 7 questions again, I Support a siteban. And since I edit conflicted again on Xeno's block note, I'll add "good block". Just doesn't get it, and apparently never will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• The indef block notwithstanding, as Xeno says above the discussion should really continue as to whether we are imposing a formal community ban or not—that needs to be perfectly clear going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Put {{done}} on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Doesn't get it, too many last chances already given. --John (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Nothing will change if given more opportunities. –Turian (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment for the future - Keep an eye on any editor who uses "2600" in their username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - Given clear warning to stop editing disruptively in some topics, topic banned from them, and continued to return to them in the belief that they were doing no wrong. At this point, clearly doesn't agree with the reasons they were topic banned and doesn't believe that they have a problem. Until and unless they come to the point that they do understand the basis for this and agree to abide by lesser restrictions, a ban seems reluctantly necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was going to skip this incident but I am supporting a site ban after noticing that Grundle keeps referring to the misguided seven questions (example). The user has no understanding of what should happen here, and anything other than a site ban will lead to masses of more wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support If he thinks he is being "censored by liberals" he can go edit Conservapedia. An editor who is both disruptive and blinded by their POV should not be tolerated here. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - History of POV pushing and tendentious behavior indicates Wikipedia would be better off without this editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, but how was this guy not blocked per WP:BADNAME? Are we not aware what that term means? Şłџğģő 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The name “Grundle” apparently comes from the video-game Adventure (Atari 2600)—a perineal favorite I′m sure. ―AoV² 03:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • So that's the lie he told when he decided "taint" might be too obvious. Huh. Şłџğģő 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What on earth are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • cf. ^{Caution: NSFW link ahead.} Grundle. –xeno^talk 12:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Interesting. I'm certainly no stranger to vaginas, but I've never heard that term before. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Who says wikipedia is not educational? However, this still leaves unanswered, the question of the significance of the 2600. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Perhaps he believes information wants to be free. –xeno^talk 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
                • See also 2600 hertz, the frequency that AT&T once used to hold a circuit for a long distance call. Early phone phreaks used a whistle which came as a prize in Cap'n Crunch cereal to capture a circuit and make free calls, hence the nom de phreak of John Draper, "Captain Crunch". Whistles begat black boxes which begat blue boxes.... (Oh, it was a heady time, indeed.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
                • I was at HOPE, 1997, this Grundle is definitely not the type. The video game angle is far more likely. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier comments in response to his restriction modification request above and per above regarding repeatedly toeing the line and violating his unblock agreement. Sadly, I have to agree with Bigtimepeace's earlier comment also that it seems to be a collective failure on our part that he's been allowed to edit at all for as long as he has. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Grundle keeps coming back to this board with the same problems, like Theresa I don't think that we can have hope of improvement at this point. -- Atama頭 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support due to utter lack of clue, and lack of any evidence Grundle thinks he has anything to learn. Or am I being redundant? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Dancing on people's graves is highly uncool. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to, George? I see no personal attacks above. I see many people wexpressing concern that this user simply does not get it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If his topic ban was against editing articles about US politics or politicians, how is an edit to Guam a violation? Using a reference to a comical (sad, really) YouTube clip might deserve reversion, but it doesn't deserve a ban on all contributions. And some of these comments (e.g. "victim card") make it sound like you're holding it against him that he defends himself, and you don't care whether it might be justified. But the duty of any judge is to wade through such paper morasses and not to allow impatience to trump the law. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How is an edit relating to a US politician's comments about a US territory not a violation? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Once the political comment is introduced, the article becomes political. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, wouldn't it be clearer to say "he is prohibited from any edit relating to US politics or politicians" instead of "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians"? People here really don't like repeat visitors, so you should be sure to say what you mean. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's redundant, and an unnecessary clarification. Any article that has political information added to it is by definition a political article, that's what Bugs was getting at. Take something innocuous, like doughnut. Currently there is nothing political about the article, but if someone were to include some political scandal involving a US senator, a doughnut, and a pair of underaged congressional interns, the article would from that point become political. Especially important is whether or not the topic-banned person were the person who added the info, or was editing that info. Getting past the wikilawyering of language, the intent of the ban was to stop Grundle from getting mixed up with political BLP information which he has abused in the past, and these edits were more of the same. -- Atama頭 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know this case and I'm not taking a side, but I think you do have a general problem, possibly with many topic-banned editors, when you say that users are banned from editing certain pages, but then it turns out what you mean by that is it's OK to edit some parts of certain pages but not other parts. I mean, whether you count doughnut as a political article or not, either it should be a political article or it isn't.

I just don't see any way to get past wikilawyering when you're running a wikicourt, and when you're judging topic-banned editors not based on whether their contributions are accurate but simply based on whether they're following the ban you placed. Obviously you can place any ban with any wording that you want and editors will prefer it to being blocked outright - but you should take a moment to make sure it actually says exactly what you want, so you don't end up holding proceedings like this one based on differences in interpretation. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no holdup. People know exactly what this topic ban was about, which is why there has been practically unanimous support of the full ban. -- Atama頭 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the trouble, isn't it? If the ban said "articles", then it was not precisely worded. It's supposed to be a "topic ban", right? But if it says "articles", wikilawyers would say Guam is not (primarily) a political article. So instead of just saying "articles", such a ban should say "political articles and/or political topics", and that should cover it. If they want to talk about the types of trees found on Guam, no problem. If they want to "coatrack" a political comment (a comment that really has nothing to do with Guam as such), then it would be a violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. Read here, where the ban is listed. It says, "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians". It's explicit with the word "pages", which means that his restriction applies to places outside of article space (talk pages, deletion discussions, etc.). Also, the "type" of ban on the page is "topic", not "page", which means he is banned from the whole topic Again, these arguments are meaningless wikilawyering over semantics, the ban is pretty clear, and nobody has actually objected to the enforcement of this ban. -- Atama頭 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe job

I noticed a username that had the same four numbers at the end of his username as the guy that you are talking about and I filed a SPI case on him out of curiosity. The Syntax (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, the sock was already blocked. The Syntax (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked JzG to clarify what evidence there was that this was actually Grundle2600. I think it's more likely this is #King Punisher? continuing to troll. –xeno^talk 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Contribs were not that innocent, in my view, but "2600" is an old meme for phone-phreakers and hackers, so should not necessarily be acted upon without supporting evidence. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2600 Magazine is still around. I pick it up once in a while and it's generally lame. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, this was just an attempted joe job. I've deleted the SPI, changed the block reason for Wobble2600 and unblocked an apparently innocent party who got caught up in this. –xeno^talk 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request/Ban proposal

Grundle is now requesting unblock on his talkpage with more wikilawyering and empty promises. Propose ban enactment. Also his talkpage access should be locked. It is just ridiculous at this point. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have denied the unblock request, and if the attitude evinced in his request persists (indeed, he insists on a lifting of his editing restrictions as part of any unblock) I cannot imagine a situation where an unblock request could be successful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Malice 123

Resolved

Malice123 has been blanking the Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver article. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV is over here. HalfShadow 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TheClerksWell's inappropriate "prank"

Resolved

 – User blocked, then unblocked for one more chance, the message bar has been removed.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

If you go to TheClerksWell (talk · contribs)'s Talk page, you will see an orange bar saying "You have new messages". It's fake, of course. It's one thing for people to get pranked by the message to lead you to some funny page, or something of that ilk, but in TheClerksWell's case, clicking the link logs you out. He has been repeatedly asked to change it, and he steadfastly refuses. This is a major problem if there are users who don't want their IP address displayed. They may wind up logging off and then edting with their IP address visible. TheClerksWell needs to change the prank, or be blocked and the thing forcibly removed from their page and their page protected. Woogee (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

TheClerksWell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours by Bkell for violating WP:3RR. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And I agree that this is not funny or a joke, getting people to logout in this way does not in any way contribute to the project and if TheClerksWell persists in this he should be blocked again. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently not the first time TheClerksWell has been disruptive. They edit warred to retain a fair use image on their User page, and then called those who explained to him why it wasn't appropriate, "assholes". Woogee (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He's also got the copyrighted Wikipedia logo on his User page. Woogee (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, I think you are nitpicking about the Wikipedia logo. Thousands of admins have the wikipedia logo on their page, this is Wikipedia after all. You are being silly and pendantic. TheClerksWell (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo, although copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation, is permissible in the uesrspace so he hasn't done anything wrong there. But I agree, the name-calling is a definite no-go. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That stupid orange bar prank should be banned everywhere in wikipedia even if doesn't do something as rude as log you out, but the logging-out one is flat-out vandalism. I'm dismayed at the length of discussion on the user's talk page about it. Just explain to the person that we don't do that here, refer them to WP:NOTMYSPACE, and block for disruption if problem recurs. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be kind of annoying, and it's not April 1 anymore, but why does an IP care about it? If you're already there as in IP, what's it going to do, log you farther out? It does say explicitly that you've been logged out, which you would find out soon enough anyway once you went to your watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't an IP care about the smooth functioning of Wikipedia? Do you know that some people contribute to Wikipedia without registering? Do you understand that a registered user can also edit while logged out, thereby offering opinions as a registered editor whilst appearing to be unregistered? The point in consideration here is a point about policy, not whether any given editor has the right or experience, in your eyes, to comment on policy. Especially considering the discussion is about a misplaced logout button that could transform a registered user into an IP at the blink of an eye.

Also consider that not everyone rushes to their watchlist so quickly, it is possible to experience and contribute to Wikipedia without scanning the same few article continually to see if someone has made a change you might disagree with. Weakopedia (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me started on IP's. And whether you return to your watch list or not, the screen tells you you've been logged out. Maybe that's a little too confusing for some. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of including a remark like "good thing I'm already logged out". It's pretty easy to not notice that you've been logged out. That happened to me a lot before I gave up on logging in. (Think of clicking on the link in a way that opens it in a background tab). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I logged out and tested it. If you're an IP, it will say you've just been logged out, even though you were already logged out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So how are things in 'Frisco? :) I dunno, I don't do anything fancy-shmancy. If I get logged out (like when the system will hiccup occasionally), I always know it immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well bully for you because I don't. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When I save an edit, I go back to my watchlist immediately. I have never, ever found myself mysteriously logged out during that approach. Sometimes when I return to wikipedia I discover that I'm in a logged-out condition. Why that would be, I don't know. But I always start with the watch list, and when that log-out has occurred, obviously there's no watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logs you out automatically after 30 days. Try logging out and back in - you'll see a message when you log back in that it remembers you for 30 days. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I can always tell when I've been logged out, because it says so. Paying attention to the screen, figures into things just a tad. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have protected his userpage for a bit. When he returns from his block he will not be able to edit it and so may instead chose to make constructive edits to the encyclopaedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, the userpage clarifies the situation. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In his defense, that bloody trick was used on one or more April Fools fake RFA's Maybe that's where he got the idea it was cool, from us mature adults. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the fake message stuff had been debated here awhile back, and it was decided to not allow it. Maybe only the first part of that statement is true, i.e. a debate with no resolution, which wouldn't be the first time. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in response to anyone who's worried about not knowing they've been logged out, it would be easier to tell if you change your Monobook skin (since Im presuming you all use Monobook) to look slightly different than normal, for example having a different background color. For me, all pages have a slight orange or green tint (orange for mainspace, green for everything else) whereas when I'm logged out both types of pages have a white background. However, I believe we are about to switch all IPs over to the Vector skin and for those of you who use Monobook you will see a very big difference between the interface that appears when youre logged in and the one that appears when youre logged out. —Soap— 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy this code from Soap's monobook.css page. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole thread is just daft. It's only on his userpage and it's mildly irritating at best but you could always just hover over the link. Bugs is, however, correct. I can't remember exactly when, but it was debated on this board a couple of months ago and I believe the resolution was that this falls under WP:SMI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This comes up periodically yes, but the usual situation is a link to practical joke. I think this is a different case due to the anonymity concerns Woogee raised in the initial post in this thread.--Chaser (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another user had the logout prank on April fools. So I copied it.

If I knew it would make a big deal, I would have removed it. Can I put it back but have it link to a page instead of logging out? TheClerksWell (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest since you were just unblocked for a disruptive link, you remove this new link [101] also. It's just not funny. Dayewalker (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It causes no harm. Funny is an opinion. TheClerksWell (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny may be an opinion, but "it causes no harm" is demonstrably false. For starters, it got you blocked. :) And as pointed out earlier, even though they "should" be aware that they are in a logged-out condition, it's not appropriate to log them out without their permission. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I'm moving this thread to the bottom for block review. Fastily indefinitely blocked TheClerksWell (with talk page editing disabled and email blocked. The indef block came at the end of a 24-hour block (discussed above) for a fake "new messages" bar with a link to Special:Logout. After the 24-hour block expired, TheClerksWell replaced the message bar with a link to Goatse. Fastily blocked him indef.--Chaser (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. This guy was having a laugh. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• A necessary block. The user claims to be 14, which probably accounts for a lot of his (apparent - AGF!) obliviousness to the problems this specific joke can cause. Maybe when he gets about 4 years older he might have an improved perspective and could apply for reinstatement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think an indef block at this point is a bit hasty. Blocking him with e-mail and talk-page-edit disabled is a huge problem though and needs to be undone posthaste. ÷seresin 06:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, at least give him a chance to file an unblock request. If he abuses his talk page after that, then stifle him for the next 4 years or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - Apparently here to screw around, not to build an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - yes, I agree that cutting off his talk page & e-mail went too far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's perfectly fine with me if we all agree that talk page access and email should be restored. I believe it was a necessary step to take at the time, but if someone feels the need to restore ClerksWell's email and talk page access, go right ahead. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No - what has been agreed is not that talk page access and email should be restored. It is that you shouldn't have taken them away in the first place. Now rather than putting the responsibility of correcting your actions onto other editors why not correct your overzealousness personally? Weakopedia (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That was inappropriate. I agree that the talk page/email block is perfectly fine. He has made his intentions known. –Turian (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a talkpage if the user had put a goatse image there was a perfectly good call. 66.127.52.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

You're right. It was a reasonable judgment at the time, as the user seems to not be here for any constructive purpose, and it's reasonable to let the user have a chance. It only takes a keystroke or two to modify the block conditions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sound block due to extreme lameness and resolute failure to get it, but we need to make sure he has some route to contact us if he ever stops acting like a child. I'm looking for a diff of the talk page which is actually abusive,. rather than simply lame. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Amend block to offer him a way to contact us saying he's not going to act the muppet any more. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• It looks like talk page access was restored @ 06:37, April 5, 2010 (but not email), about a half an hour after the heavy indef. This suits me just fine, providing an avenue for a constuctive unblock request after a deserved block. — Scientizzle 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I restored his talk page access. Sorry for not noting it here.--Chaser (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block- He was asked repeatedly to remove the prank (which I have no problem with, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me), and he refused. The Goatse thing was completely uncalled for. Try again in 2-4 years--SKATER ^Speak. 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block rather reluctantly because he is only trying to have a laugh. But the thing about having a laugh is that you need to be able to stop when it isn't funny, and he has shown himself unable. It's probably that he is too young. Give him a couple of years and who knows. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• No comment on the block itself, but if he's got his talk page back so if he wants to file an unblock request promising not to be a twat in future and accepting what he did was wrong (or at least poorly judged in the case of the logging out message banner thingy) I think it might be worth considering. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block We all remember Mister Wiki don't we? We certainly don't need a copycat of him. With regards to the talk page and email access, I wouldn't have revoked his access to them as I don't feel it's necesary, but if Fastily saw the need, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Resolved

 – The user has actually already been unblocked for more than 15 hours, further supports or opposes are probably not productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now asking for an unblock. Imo I'm skeptical that he could have a change of heart so fast...--SKATER ^Speak. 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be worth reading this thread:[[102]] It's a rather similar situation, involving a teenage editor who created a prank redirect in mainspace, which resulted in an indef block. IMO, this editor was slightly less disruptive than TheClerksWell. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind chalking it up to hormones or him taking out frustration on us for something, and generally it's my opinion to at least give them one more chance. Idk, I still believe he could be set off like this again.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as he kept his nonsensery out of the mainspace, I'm inclined to grant this unblock or at least reduce the block length on the condition that he understands he will be reblocked if he tries something like this again. Nakon 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair, not trying to tell you what to do but I'd leave him blocked for 24 more hours and then put him on watch.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Except there is a lot of support for an indef above, and while I haven't weighed in, I'll support the block as well. Considering the effort that's already been expended on him, What's the benefit of to the project of an 11th hour plea? He says he's no longer here to troll, etc which means that was his original intention. Someone who comes here to intentionally disrupt doesn't get n chances when they're finally shown the door.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point Nakon, but I think that we should leave the block in place for at least two weeks to a month to show him we're serious. Also, with regards to skater's comment about "Chalking it up to hormones", keep Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy in mind. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, I'm not even going to attempt to justify his behavior through this whole situation I'm just saying it's a possible cause.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also take note of how he changed his unblock request after reading what Crossmr say. --SKATER ^Speak. 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really think we need to keep him blocked at this point; AGF is a good principle. If he relapses into problematic behavior, it is no great thing to indef him again. So I support unblocking him with the understanding that he has no more chances after this. ÷seresin 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblocked per WP:AGF & the user's apology. Second chances are a good thing. — Scientizzle 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • He already had a second chance and stated that his intention was to come here to disrupt. AGF is not blind. Unblocking when you don't understand the situation is not a good thing.--Crossmr (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure why you would assume I don't understand the situation. In any case, I concur with Seresin's post-unblock warning: a re-block is easy to do if there is further disruption... — Scientizzle 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. People get caught up in second chances and they almost always get burned. Keep blocked, and lets stop wasting time. –Turian (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to Assume good faith, he's actually done some good work here and isn't like, say, Willy on Wheels or Grawp requesting an unblock request. He's been warned, let's see what he does.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't see contrition in unblock requests very often. Unblock the guy, and re-block in a New York second if he betrays that good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs here. The fact that he was forthcoming and admitted his disruption (rather than try to explain around it) is refreshing. Reblocks are cheap. –xeno^talk 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree to unblocking on the condition that any further disruption results in an indef block. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock, with the condition that this is "probationary" (which it essentially is). -- Atama頭 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User page unprotection request

User:TheClerksWell asked me to unprotect his user page, with the promise he won't add back the controversial stuff. I can't do that, as I am not an admin. I would like for an admin to review and decide what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, Theresa has already declined to unprotect [103]. Personally I think the editor would do well to contribute to the mainspace for a while, rather than their userpage. –xeno^talk 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

and he's already getting back into it with some wikilawyering an inappropriate edits (like fixing other people's comments) and hilarious jokes about kicking people in the testicles. So I wouldn't exactly reward him for that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I had missed his note to Theresa. And if he said something about kicking another user (diff, please?) then he has already used up his "New York second" and should be at least given a few days off. And then if he still doesn't "get it", indef him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The kicking diff. — Scientizzle 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And he is continuing with the disruption. This was a fantastic unblock. This kid is here to do nothing more than disrupt. he admitted that, and you unblocked him. Since then he's gone around trying to "fix" people's comments all over wikipedia. Even after having been told multiple times, and as far as 2 or 3 days ago[104] he's carrying on. Even after "archiving" the discussion on his talk page where several people pointed out to him not to do it, he continued doing it [105]--Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said I was only on here to disrupt. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[106] You said you were no longer here to disrupt, which means before that you were here to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The kicked in the nuts is a pop culture reference, and it targets vandals, not others. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC) No, if you look in my contributions, you can see my first edits were intened to improve Wikipedia. I am no longer here to disrupt does not necessarily mean I was first here to disrupt. I was first here to contribute, second here to disrupt and third to start contributing again.

I fixed spelling. I thought it was okay to fix a spelling mistake, but not modify comments in any other way, I was not trying to be disruptive by fixing someones spelling. Clearly, I was wrong, and apologize for that. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kicking has been removed. Guys, if smoething on my page upsets you, I'll remove it. Just ask. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the archiving stuff. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk I'd really advise you not to worry about your user page right now, just focus on article space like everyone says. If you don't and continue to change other people's comments and the other things you've done not to do the AGF factor's gonna go out the door.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll focus on the mainspace. Good Idea. I just made an article Castle of Magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've talked to this user on his page, and I think his heart is in the right place by this point, he's just unsure of how to go about things. I would suggest leaving the page protection for now to help inspire TheClerksWell to work on actual wiki pages, but I'd have no problem with lifting the protection after, say, a month of block-free editing. Dayewalker (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:CheesyBiscuit requesting unblock of 1RR

Resolved

 – It's expired now anyway (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

CheesyBiscuit was blocked for 1RR in violation of an Arbcomm decision. He requested unblock, which I declined. However, one of the options to overturn the block is community discussion. Seeing as he's drafting an Arbcomm appeal, I'm being bold and bringing it here for discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would unblock him with a strict warning about 1RR in future. He's only one of many editors who have reverted a now-blocked editor who is inserting information in the article which effectively tries to deny that the event happened as stated. I don't think we'd ever block anyone for reverting holocaust denial propoganda in a Holocaust-related article, regardless of whether they'd stepped over our technical limits; this strikes me as a similar situation. Black Kite 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Given his explicit mention of 3RR in his edit summaries I get the strong impression he was unaware of the specific 1RR restriction there, and the person he was reverting was clearly being an awful lot more disruptive than he was. I'd be inclined to unblock with a warning. ~ mazca ^talk 11:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that in this edit he indicated that the article is under 1RR. This is before he did any of the reverts. Tim Song (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes. I don't doubt his intentions were good, but it's clear he consciously and intentionally broke the restriction he was aware of. These 1RR restrictions really do exist to stop exactly what happened here, he definitely should have reported the other user and then left it alone. I can definitely see the justification for the block here. ~ mazca ^talk 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't support an unblock - his justification was that he was reverting borderline vandalism, which if you look at the edits it clearly wasn't - he was involved in an edit war. He knew about the 1RR restriction, yet he still decided to break it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Restrictions are restrictions. He knew it and broke it. Don't really see why that is up for debate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, CheesyBiscuit first went to that page yesterday to service a semiprotected edit request from TheDarkLordSeth. I also got involved with that request and I, for one, was surprised to find that TDLS was able to edit the article unassisted. It seems to me that CheesyBiscuit merely got caught up in the moment and perhaps could be given some leniency, since it's not his war. Also, since he has expressed that he will gladly agree to not edit that article, the block doesn't appear to be preventing anything. I think it would be best to unblock him and let him continue his gnome-like activities. Celestra (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Suggest reduction to time served. It was a mistake I am confident won't be repeated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The three-revert rule

Resolved

 – Quaplaxicked. Tan | 39 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR made more than three revert actions on Bleiburg massacre article within a 24-hour period. Pada78 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take it to this noticeboard. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like DIREKTOR is reverting the contributions of sockpuppets per WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users. They are puppets of this person. Pada78 above is yet another of them. No admin action necessary, except perhaps either at WP:SPI or simple blocks per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week, it looks like all the activity on the page recently has been an edit war between a sockmaster and a couple of editors. -- Atama頭 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seemed pretty obvious it was an attempt to get me blocked by one unfamiliar with Wiki policy. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing of Natural born citizen of the United States by IP user

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected.

108.7.96.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP user 108.7.96.216 has been repeatedly attempting to add material to Natural born citizen of the United States, purporting to explain why an exception to the "natural born citizen" rule was made for people who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. No source has been cited, and the accuracy of the explanation is questionable. I advised this user regarding Wikipedia's sourcing policies on his talk page after the third instance of this, but he went ahead and did it a fourth time a short while ago, without addressing (or even acknowledging) the problem. I fear this user is just going to keep doing this over and over again unless some stronger action is taken. Richwales (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no source, and it's wrong anyway, since without that "Grandfather Clause", the first several U.S. Presidents would have been ineligible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that 108.7.96.216 appears to be a Verizon "pool" address. The same user has apparently had this IP address for at least eight days (March 29 - April 6), but it doesn't seem to be a static address and there's no assurance that he'll keep it indefinitely, so a block on this one address may not be very useful. Semi-protection of this article would seem a bit extreme, but I'm not sure if there is anything in between that would be useful. And since this editor has ignored warnings, both on his talk page and also in edit summaries, it doesn't seem like an article ban is likely to have any effect. What do people think is appropriate to protect the article in this situation? Richwales (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

He did it again. Reverted about an hour later, with another warning on the IP address's talk page, but something more effective really needs to be done here. Richwales (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. That will cool the IP's jets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And it was granted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting editing block for 76.170.239.56...

Resolved

 – old stuff, apparently Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request that user 76.170.239.56 be blocked from editing because of a threat to sue because of something that happened here on Wikipedia. If you direct your attention to Talk:Mutual_Broadcasting_System, the user 76.170.239.56 is threatening to sue because of something that happened on Wikipedia. If you direct your attention to Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment/Archive_5, even though all I said was that Wikipedia is like a newspaper & mentioned the possibly that a newspaper can be sued because of something being printed that caused defamation to someone, I was told

(and just to point something out, threatening to sue because of something that happens here can cause you to be blocked from editing)

In this case, user 76.170.239.56 IS threatening to sue because of something that happened here on Wikipedia. So, I am requesting that 76.170.239.56 be blocked from editing indefinitely. I have reported his website, the DigitalDeli, to Westwood One for copyright infringement. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are linking to stuff that happened back in 2006 and 2009. What's your actual problem? 76.170.239.56 has not made any edits since 2007. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP has apparently concluded that the IP and User:TJ Spyke are the same guy. Spyke is currently nearing the end of a week-long block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

User Quiet till stirred (talk · contribs · block user) recently made this edit after being inactive for almost 2 years. This latest edit was the reinsertion of what seems to be a bogus message on the Gravitation talk page, asserting that the article has been vandalised with the insertion of the words "Penis hole" into it. But there are no such words anywhere in the article. The bogus message was first inserted by user Anonoslo (talk · contribs · block user) and then repeatedly reinserted by an IP user 67.101.149.9 (talk · contribs · block user) in defiance of repeated warnings left on its talk page.

One other possible explanation that occurred to me is that these users had all being looking at a cached older version of the page. However, on a brief check (admittedly far from exhaustive) over the last 9 months or so of the article's history, I couldn't find any version of it that contained the alleged offending text.

I have posted notices of this discussion on the talk pages of all the accounts mentioned in it.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{General relativity}}, used as a sidebar in that section, got vandalized to display this text - see [107] [108] [109] [110]. Logged out users might typically see a stale cached version of the template contents displayed in the article that wouldn't be displayed to logged-in users. There's nothing bad going on with these reporting users. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. The user of the IP account is owed a grovelling apology, since it was blocked for repeatedly reinserting the notice advising other editors of the problem. I will take care of this. However, a note should probably also be inserted in its block log to indicate that the block was unjustified.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats and Sockpuppetry

A couple days ago User:JourneyManTraveler recreated a previously deleted (via TfD discussion) template. I nom'd it for deletion again and this IP posted that it would be recreated and I would be taken to ARBCOM by User:JourneyManTraveler. I said point-blankly if it was created again after a second deletion, I would take the offending user to ANI (TfD discussion is leaning toward merge right now). So about 10 minutes ago, I receive this from the same IP user. Claiming if I take User:JourneyManTraveler to ANI, he will file ARBCOM "charges" against me (whatever) and "should that not work, there is external resources to appeal to for relief, such as the Wikimedia Foundation or consultation with a legal counsel to see what to do about you" and furthermore "[my] campaign against the re-creator of the un-retired template is criminal harassment, plain and simple. It won't be tolerated. You continue, we go to arbitration at once."

So, I bring this here. It is clear sockpuppetry and legal threats. Both accounts should be blocked and an SPI started (which I will do). If they want a fight, I aims to bring 'em one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI started here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Both have been notified. 1, 2. Forgive me if they are a little snippy. I hate being threatened by trolls. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP user has threatened to go to ARBCOM in a followup message. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The threats continue. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Tim Song for 72 hours. TNXMan 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Very Strange

Back in the end of march Sonic120 (talk · contribs) for some reason created userpages for a bunch of users, none of whom have many edits, or any recently, all saying "This account is no longer used", and I deleted all of them. Then, over the last few days several of them have been recreated, by the original owner, to say the same thing, "This account is no longer used", User:Home2000, User:Heater120, User:Check mii out channel, User:Fantasy zone, User:Pencil12. Is this some sort of strange sock-farm? Or mass account hacking? In addition, Sonic's talk page is a redirect to User talk:Keyboard mouse , despite there being a user by that name--Jac16888^Talk 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All the "no longer used" accounts seem to have very similar patterns - 1-3 edits of extremely blatant and silly vandalism, mostly in the area of computer games. I'm assuming this probably is some disused sock farm, it may be that the master account (Sonic120) wants to turn over a new leaf or something and felt the need to inform us of that fact by declaring his vandal accounts disused. I'd probably suggest blocking all the old accounts at the very least. ~ mazca ^talk 13:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle. AGAIN. (and Bali ultimate)

In this discussion and it's related links, Delicious carbuncle is misstating the purpose of that RfC. The RfC is regarding Ash's BLP editing behavior, while Dc and Bali ultimate are deliberately using this as a platform to make points (attacks) about other possible and/or perceived violations.

If any other issue is to be raised in this RfC besides Ash's BLP editing, it should be addressed promptly, properly, with diffs, details, summaries, and certifications. Otherwise, those comments should be immediately stricken as hostile and Wikihounding/bullying. Isn't that right

Please advise. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The irony of a SPA bringing up DC's supposed single-minded attempt to ban Ash is amusing in an ironic sense. What admin attention is needed? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some admin attention at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty Trombone might cut this round of trolling short. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the irony of those points and possible socpuppetry, the IP seems to have a point and an Admin should look at this. 69.86.55.52 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

These three again? Can't we just tell the to pack it in, stay away from each other and enforce it by block if necessary. I say this without any bias for or against any of them, but they've all been reported or reported each other to ANI more times than almost any other editor (if we exclude the indef'd and perma-banned, they're probably on the top spot). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an open RFC/U, I don't think there's any need for such precipitate action on the say-so of two New York IPs.   pablo_hablo. 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell wrote: "but they've all been reported or reported each other to ANI more times than almost any other editor (if we exclude the indef'd and perma-banned, they're probably on the top spot)." Really? I haven't reported the trolling IP (the second IP appears to be the same guy evading his current block, but whatever) or Ash, ever. I think the last post i initiated at this board was months ago and resulted in the indef blocking of a pro-pedophilia account. As for complaints about me, there have been about 3 this year (leaving aside the question of there having been any merit to these complaints). I suggest you actually do a little research before you insert yourself into these kinds of conversations Mitchell.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:212.120.237.89

Probably banned user Gibraltarian vandalising Gibraltar related articles. Could someone please block it and revert the changes. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard stuff from the long-since permabanned User:Gibraltarian (those not in the know, see User talk:212.120.237.89). I've reverted it. Pfainuk talk 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I blocked it. Review and discuss as needed. 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Dlohcierekim

User:Lanasteer

This user has written some very very offensive remarks about me on the Richard Littlejohn article and also linked my name to a profanity article as an attack on me. I am very upset and annoyed by these disgusting remarks so I would be most grateful if you would block this user and delete his comments. I think it is possibly an IP user trying to get their own back. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit had been reverted already, but I indefblocked the editor. Syrthiss (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Dlohcierekim 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Christian1985 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and a BLP issue on article Conservapedia

Future Perfect at Sunrise has repeatedly removed a particular quote from the LA Times regarding RationalWiki editors "admitting to cyber-vandalism". FPaS argues that the LA Times article isn't strong enough and that the quote violates BLP policies. Other editors argued on the talk page that the LA Times was sufficient.

Links:

• (diff) FPaS latest removal of quote
• (diff) FPaS explains himself on talk page
• Conservapedia edit history
• Talk:Conservapedia#Removal + Threat - lengthy discussion, several editors disagree with FPaS
  • discussion title referring to this edit summary

Can a few impartial admins look into the issue? Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to propose an alternative wording that might bypass the BLP issue. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to spare people some searching work: Last of the links was archived --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More move warring at Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010

This time it involves Lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs), who is a reasonably established user. I have lost count of the number of times this user has moved the page today, and that's partly my fault as I made a mistake in trying to restore it to its current name on one of the moves. Nevertheless, there is an open page move discussion going on at present and such unilateral moves should be more than discouraged. If an editor is not willing to joing in the search for a consensus as to the correct titele for the article, and to respect the opinions of other editors, he or she should desist from making such changes or be forced to desist from editing Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs) has been informed of this thread here. Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've move-protected it for a week. Hopefully the talk page discussions will reach a consensus during that time. --RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

please be aware also that consensus has been clearly reached and the only person who has been reverting the page is none other than the only person who opposes the change, who also displays a significant bias in the talk page. please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article and see that consensus has been reached by an overwhelming majority --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are actually more Oppose votes in the discussion than there are Supports - I suggest you read the entire discussion! Black Kite 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Titles with "Icesave" in them have singularly failed to gain consensus on the talk page, and their proponents are disrupting the discussion of alternatives. Physchim62 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to determine consensus or lack thereof right now. There is an open discussion for a requested move that has a few more days to go, assuming the usual seven-day discussion window. Hopefully an uninvolved admin can sort out if there a consensus then. Until then, no one benefits from having the page name bounce around like a ping-pong ball. Hence the protection. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would've protected it myself but couldn't, being involved in reverting the incorrect move. Incidentally, since the article is protected in the version it was before the RM started, wouldn't that count as protecting in the Right Version^TM? :) Black Kite 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

oh, i was under the impression that protecting the page title is no endorsement of the actual title. at least that´s what i read. silly me... --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the smiley face on BK's comment. But just to be clear, I looked and saw that the current page name is the same as what it was before the move dispute began, so I protected it as-is. Otherwise I would have changed it back to the last stable name. I have no opinion on what the "right" name is. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doesn't really matter, as the discussion is about changing the title, not about keeping the current title. Until there is consensus on a new title, the current title will stay: that is an incentive for all involved editors to find a consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just call it "Iceland Referundum 2010" and be done with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Iceland Referendum 2010. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be even better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on userpage

bickering, edit-warring IP addresses that need to grow up
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could we protect User: Abby_94's protection page or something? 142.163.148.8 keeps reverting, and in a past argument when I edited from accounts I had I was claimed to be the stalker and he was basically your king(to some users anyway, when he had the account Blackmagic1234). I bet my request will be turned down, I will be blocked, and his side will be taken, I don't care. I didn't even edit any of his articles when I had that account, yet he found out my username. 142.177.43.154 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Already been done. SGGH ping! 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) 17:38, 8 April 2010 (hist | diff) User:Abby 94 ‎ (Undid revision 354754567 by 142.163.148.8 (talk)Since when do you own this page Sean?) --> Well since that day you decided to vandalize my User page as User:Blackmagic2604 and blame it on someone else. Rebekah you are so predictable 142.163.148.8 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600

Resolved

 – IP blocked, not really important who was behind the IP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 71.182.219.167 is complaining to Jimbo about Gundle2600 being blocked. I am inclined to think it is Grundle2600 per WP:DUCK avoiding his block and placing an Appeal to Jimbo. Please take appropriate action Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time I've told the IP that its deletion review, not Jimbotalk, that he wants to try. SGGH ^ping! 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

? Why Deletion Review for a complaint about a block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC) <Emily Latella>Never mind.</Emily Latella> Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that we have one confirmed Joe Job already documented I'm far less certain that this is Grundle2600. If this IP needs to be dealt with, fine, but I'd like a little more then calling this WP:DUCK before we call them the same person.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

His only other edit than the appeal to jimbo is Restoring Grundles user page thats enough for me personally but i see what you mean if there is spoofing going on Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the fact that's "enough for you personally" troubling.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I geuss thats why i am not an admin ;) and frankly me jumping the gun is why i probably shouldn't beWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• One should keep in mind #Joe job, this could be round 2. –xeno^talk 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't fit Grundle's style. It's either a follower, someone trying to make sure he'll never get unblocked or someone trying to smear his name. My bet is on option 1 or 3. But Grundle - nope, not him. Still causing disruption though. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's one, it could be fellow banned user User:ChildofMidnight, who was well known for being Grundle2600's staunchest defender before he was banned a few months ago... --Jayron32 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I blocked the IP address. Logging out to disguise your Wikipedia identity for this purpose is expressly not allowed per WP:SOCK. Hiding your identity to defend a banned user is not allowed by several of the "Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts" section, both in letter and in spirit. --Jayron32 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough to go by here to open an SPI and connect this IP to either Grundle or (more likely, IMO) CoM? Tarc (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that SPIs are generally rejected for duck blocks. It doesn't particularly matter who is behind the curtain. –xeno^talk 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll happily chalk the mystery IP down to "unidentified troll" - I'd personally bet against it being Grundle or CoM, it doesn't strike me as either of their styles. We have more than one recidivist troll that could be stirring this up. It's blocked, job done. ~ mazca ^talk 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with xeno here. We don't have any hard evidence to connect this to a specific account, the fact that this is obviously someone who has an account or is an otherwise well experienced Wikipedia editor, who is using this specific IP address to hide their identity to comment on matters of policy (in this case, the banning of Grundle2600) is the compelling reason for the block. We don't have to actually know who this is to know that it's someone who should know better which is enough to sustain the block. If they reveal their actual main account, I would happily unblock. Its the attempt to hide their identity for this purpose that's the problem. --Jayron32 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Pennsylvania, which Grundle claims as his home state. But that still doesn't prove anything. It could be the same impostor who tried to get Axmann8 in further trouble last summer... and/or who tried to get Grundle in further trouble earlier this week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "King Punisher" account and a couple others were identified as Pickbothmanlol socks in the previous discussion. This kind of behavior is classic PMBlol. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Divisive userpage?

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

Ok Xeno, next step?

---

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:MFD - Not really an ANI issue; proper venue would be MFD if concerns linger. –xeno^talk 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the userbox at the bottom of User:Nableezy, or the page itself, divisive at all? The page isn't there to help other editors at the project, which is really what userpages are for - take mine for example. No soapboxing, just who I work for and a picture of me looking rather attractive. I'm not angry, nor do I find the page insulting, but some users might, and the box is not really necessary. I came across it when responding to the comments left on Talk:1950–1951 Baghdad bombings. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew that name looked familiar-- saw that yesterday. I don't think it is "divisive." I wonder how others feel about the soapboxing. It did help me understand this user better. Dlohcierekim 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You really think supporting resistance against occupation and aggression (which is a war crime) is objectionable? I would think supporting war crimes would be objectionable. Also, could somebody explain to Chase me ladies what the term "conflict of interest" means? He appears to think that if somebody has an opinion on a topic that they then have a COI and has been slapping tags on articles for this reason. nableezy - 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just not the purpose of Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. Which is why I have never placed that userbox in an article. I have exactly 1 userbox on my userpage. A huge number of other users have many more that display their personal political beliefs. My one is a problem why? nableezy - 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you are indicating your support for terrorist attacks against innocent civilians (ie: Hizbullah) through the link in the user box, even though you were specifically told that you are not allowed to do so. Your link to that decision is a clever but frankly immature way to get around the rules. And it is clearly offensive to many users who understand the context of the discussion. Note: Nableezy is not the only user with this box on his page. Breein1007 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please could you provide a link to this being told. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Who told me not to? And where does it say Hezbollah? And what you think are "terrorist attacks" differs from what I think. But I prefer not to elaborate on that. The userbox says that I recognize that all groups and states have the right to resist occupation and aggression. How is that objectionable? nableezy - 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is linked in the user box here. I know it wasn't about your exact userbox. Yours was created in order to refrain from specifically referencing Hizbullah, was it not? Why is it yellow? Pretty colour? Breein1007 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago we discussed banning non-expertise related userboxes, IIRC, as they were not supposed to help making the encyclopaedia - but decided not to. Personally, I prefer to have information about potential biases of contributors, and have always expressed mine on my user page - for the simple reason that I think we will end up with a better, more NPOV, encyclopaedia if these prejudices are public. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen: Actually that is discussed over and over. The most recent I saw was on a user talk page, and quite recent.

Breein, I have to agree with Stephen: if one has an opinion that is strong, it will likely appear in one's writing, however neutral one strives to be. The wikilink is to a discussion which is archived, and that seems quite appropriate. The editor clearly expresses dubiety, makes it knowm the editor has strong opinions on the matter, and accepts but objects to the restrictions.- Sinneed 21:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the user's stated position, how likely is it that he can edit politically-oriented articles with a neutral point of view? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be possible, but very difficult.- Sinneed 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have lots of editors, and WP:NPOV and WP:V to adjudicate. No individual is expected to be without bias on all subjects. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Voila. My point. Possible, but very difficult.- Sinneed 21:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Chase: The userbox itself seems appropriate. The purpose of user pages is covered at Wikipedia:User pages, and the user box seems to fit in "...about the work that you are doing on articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working" there.- Sinneed 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Woudln't one saying "I am interested in X/Y side of conflict A/B/C" be slightly better? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It says that all groups have the right to resist against occupation and aggression. Not one side or the other. Israel has the right to resist against aggression, so do Palestine, Lebanon and China. nableezy - 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly divisive and violates WP:SOAP. It needs to be removed immediately Dreadstar ☥ 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How so and why? nableezy - 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We have editors who work in the Israel–Palestine area who declare themselves to be Zionists or anti-Zionists, state they favor or oppose the "two-state solution", even those who say Jordan is the Palestinian state (denying Palestinian claims to any land illegally occupied by Israel). Why would we assume (in bad faith) an editor with this particular userbox is unable to edit with NPOV in mind, and yet assume all the other combatants who have declared their views—or simply made them clear through their edits—are neutral? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an ANI issue, since it's not an actual WP:userbox, and doesn't necessarily fall under WP:MFD. It's divisive and should be removed. Dreadstar ☥ 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Dreadstar in that we need to thresh this out here. I have engaged Nableezy in discussion here. Dlohcierekim 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification? The userbox or the page content? Dlohcierekim 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There'e no "userbox", it's just a comment on the user's page. It looks like consensus so far is removal of the divisive comment. Dreadstar ☥ 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Please excuse my confusion. The removal of the !userbox/divisive comment seems reasonable to me. Dlohcierekim 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As Xeno has said above, MfD is the best venue for this. We aren't going to get a representative consensus on a drama page. Black Kite 23:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What "page" are we MFD'ing, Kite? The entire userpage or just the pesudo-userbox? Dreadstar ☥ 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just the userbox. There'll be a comment below when I can stop edit-conflicting. Black Kite 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of [this], Kiteboy? Dreadstar ☥ 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Kiteboy"?? Nice. I have no idea what you are talking about with the link either. Do explain. Black Kite 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were a boy, no offense intended "Black Kite'.. :) Um, yeeah, WP:MFD applies to...what? perhaps I'm mistaken and it just refers to user comments...is that what you think "Black Kite", WP:MFD is for user comments or perhaps other other user comments? Please clarify. Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done that. If there is a consensus that a userpage comment violates WP:USER then it can be deleted. My point was that I don't think this is obvious enough to do that, and hence it should be taken to a venue where it can be discussed. The obvious venue is MFD. Black Kite 23:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You got one of those, Dreddy? Unomi (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I got lots of things "Unomi", how many would you like? Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the question is not the "userbox". The question is the content within. And I think we'll get more visibility and be better able to fully air the matter here. Dlohcierekim 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unconvinced. There's nothing that I can see in the content that breaks any policy here because it's so general and names no targets or situations. Although clearly such content may cause problems with collegial editing here when editors who the user is in conflict with take such content to mean what they believe it to mean - it's fairly clear what it's referring to. There'w nothing wrong sith the rest of the userpage at,all. 4font color="black">Black Kite 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the last few edits[111] [112][113][114][115] of Dreadstar it seems clear that he is getting too emotionally invested in all of this. Unomi (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: MFD is not just for userbox: it can focus on a portion of a page and is the appropriate venue for this. –xeno^talk 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to engage Dreadstar on his talkpage; I don't think I got very far. It may well be best for someone uninvolved to archive this, to be honest. Black Kite 23:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I said Kiteboy was sweet..what more can anyone ask for? The comment that started this whole thread is divisive and shourld be removed, if anyone agrees (and I think they do), that the "userbox" on the user's page should be removed and we should make it happen. Period. And Xeno...we can't make this happen here? We have to MFD or XFD or ARBCOM? What? Dreadstar ☥ 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the userbox is fine per the usual argument for keeping something on your user page that others dont agree with, if your offended, don't bloody go and look at their page. Simple. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not well-suited for this. –xeno^talk 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not, now is it? Guess we'll leave divisive hate-speech to other, "more appropriate" venues. Great idea Xeno. I look forward to how you move this issue forward. Dreadstar ☥ 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

AskPaulinaGirls

Resolved

 – spammers blocked. APG protected Dlohcierekim 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a group of accounts hanging around APG and a few other places, advertising about this "AskPaulinaGirls" spam. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 91.135.102.195

This IP has went around adding Israeli POV category's to several areas in the occupied territories, not only that, check out this comment: "Jews lived in the Middle East long before Arabs went out of the desert in Arabia and started subjugating and oppressing people all around the world. These Jews were there before Islam, the most heinous and cruel religion the world has ever seen, was invented by a rapist nomad named Mohammad. And these Jews ate the food long before some wikipedian nobody will say that they lack true history and connection to the region." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I warned them for vandalism. They already stopped. Dlohcierekim 01:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

blocked user abusing talk page

The Pank claw Tyrant (talk · contribs) (indef blocked sock) is abusing his talk page, copying content from other pages (including at least one of the admins who blocked him). Can the talk page be protected, or his ability to abuse it revoked? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage reverted, talkpage editing privileges revoked. Acroterion _(talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Another blocked user abusing talk page

Resolved

Riptor88 (talk · contribs) is another indef blocked sockpuppet (same puppet master as the above notice). Same issue here, abusing talk page, posting harassments directed at other users and copying talk/user page content of other users (and changing/rewording that content).

Can the talk page be protected, or his ability to abuse it revoked? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Acroterion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's blocked ... but he still has access to edit his own talk page, and he's abusing that access. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Tim Song (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Articulationagency

Articulationagency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - should I block this as a role account or as a spammer? Guy (Help!) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not both? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:82.109.59.130

This user has been editing Peter Kenyon quite regularly in recent weeks, adding claims that the transfer deals that Chelsea and Kenyon have been involved in are "dodgy" or "contentious". Obviously, without a source, this is a violation of WP:BLP, and I informed the user of this on their talk page three days ago. However, the user returned today with a slightly differently worded version of their libel. I think they need to be blocked for a short time, but since they edit so sporadically anyway, anything less than a week would be pointless. Ideas? – PeeJay 10:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• The thing is, that it isn't actually difficult to source the statement that Kenyon has been involved in some controversial transfer dealing; after all he was central to both the Ashley Cole and Kakuta deals [116] [117] both of which led to Chelsea being fined or sanctioned by the footballing authorities; indeed the Cole incident is already sourced in the article. The only question is really whether it is WP:UNDUE to have such a sentence in the lead paragraph. Black Kite 10:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Dougweller on Talk:Christopher Columbus

Currently a there is significant amount of harassment of User:Dougweller occurring on Talk:Christopher Columbus; likely sockpupetry and vandalism/disruptive-editing-only accounts. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't block of course, but I have raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations#Calgo but that was after only two edits by this editor who has adopted a name similar to mine, he's obviously decided it was too much fun to stop. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked User talk:Dougswelts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so offending accounts include at least User:82.67.217.237 and User:Dougswelts, and possibly User:Calgo. Any others? ClovisPt (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When I checked the edit history of the IP, it hadn't edited since Tuesday, so I didn't block it. It has now made 3 personal attacks against doug, so I blocked it. The Calgo account hasn't edited for 2 weeks, so while it may be related, until it is definitively tied to the other two accounts or becomes active again, I'm not going to block it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good 'nuff. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: The IP block was for 24 hours, the Dougwelts was indef blocked. We may have to escalate the block time for the IP, but I didn't want to indef a clean IP even though it looks like it is a set one.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CU confirms that the IP and Dougwselts are the inactive User:Calgo, should something be done about Calgo? I've tagged Dougswelts and the IP appropriately as they were already blocked. Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would indefblock Calgo, at least until he reappears and someone can have a serious talk to him about socking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Calgo indefinitely. Blueboy96 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Judy Wood Wikipedia Page Unfairly Deleted Without Valid Reason

No adminstrator intervention is needed. Article is at deletion review, the proper forum. Please stop posting this everywhere...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
APPEAL OF DELETION 04/09/2010 Page: 'Judy Wood' - Notable Person, No Copyright Violations Dear Wikipedia, I am a member, and I have donoted $20 to your organization. I would like to donate more in the future, but I am just a broke college student, so I cannot afford more at the moment. My name is Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, and my username is Pookzta. Recently, I have created a page titled Judy Wood, after the very notable 9/11 researcher known as Dr. Judy Wood (www.drjudywood.com). I am in close contact with Dr. Wood, and have gotten permission from her to create the article. I have also used many references in the article, to prove that the claims in the wikipedia page are true. However, some people do not like the research of Dr. Judy Wood being discussed on the internet, even though she has her own website and the information is wide-spread. These people are people we refer to as "trolls", because they purposely try to suppress the research that Dr. Wood has done, by slandering her, criticizing her, and trying to delete or add false information to any Wikipedia pages or Forum posts created about her. The page I recently created can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wood Someone is trying to delete the page by complaining that it does not contain credible sources / references, and that I do not have permission to user her pictures. I can assure you I do have permission to use her pictures, because she has given that permission to me, and she should be sending you all an email soon to let you know that I do in fact have permission to post this information and these pictures about her. Also, the persons trying to get the page about her taken down, are also claiming that the sources are not credible. The sources are credible, and I encourage you to verify them yourself if you are concerned about this. I will add more references as I find them, but there are at least 4 or 5 so far. Please be aware that Dr. Judy Wood's research is extremely important, and that is why there are many paid people all over the internet that are threatening her and trying to discredit her work. She has received many threats due to the importance of her research, and one of her students was murdered in 2006 (Michael Zebuhr), which was followed by a threat directed towards her stating that she "could be next". Please do not allow people to soil the spirit of Wikipedia, because the article I have created about her is not only important, but it meets all of the guidelines that I read before I created the page. Is there anyway I can report users that make false claims about the page? For example, if someone claims the references are not legitimate even though they are, can I report them for lying? Thanks for your time and help. Also... Considering Dr. Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October 2009, she is MORE notable than many 9/11 researchers that have their own pages, yet only hers seems to be deleted. When I try to input her name into the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page, someone keeps deleting her name and any links to her research or court cases! This is UNFAIR, and this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Censorship and Unfairness and NOT what Wikipedia is about. I am also NOT in Copyright violation, because her information and phtos are FAIR USE and are posted Publicly, but in addition to that, she has also given me permission personally, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. I also have donated to Wikipedia and plan on donating a lot more. Sorry for forgetting my signature, I am new here. In addition, 3 of the 5 references used are from EXTERNAL SOURCES. 1 is from a government website, and 2 are from Academic Universities. The only 2 sources used from her website are links to the legal documents she has scanned in. Please help Wikipedia, people are trying to censor Dr. Wood, and administrators have deleted the Wikipedia page that I created! This is unfair! Thanks for your time and help, Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez M1 Medical Student B.S. Biology / Neurobiology Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 08:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Looks like the topic needs salted. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Donations can't buy you articles, sorry. It's nice to see that the renowned 9/11 researcher Dr. Judy Wood works so closely with a broke college student though.--Atlan (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC) This user has been told in a number of places, to take this matter to deletion review. This incident should be closed here as forum shopping and he should take this matter to deletion review. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Gods preserve us from indignant truthers. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Abraham, nobody is "trying to censor" her. She just isn't notable. (It's ok, lots of people aren't notable.) If you think that is "censorship", then I'd suggest that you need to look the word up. She is free to publish her rantings jokes "theories" all over the place, but until she is notable, she doesn't get a wikipedia article. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) If she's not notable she's not notable, and won't have her own entry. You could try using dispute resolution at the 9/11 truth page about whatever additions you were trying to make there. Rd232 talk 09:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Someone who spells it "scortched" needs to get a better proofreader. Not to judge Judy, but... I think she should refocus on something more viable, such as perpetual motion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Response: someone is indeed trying to censor her, because they won't even allow her information to appear on the 9/11 Truth Movement page '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 9/11 Truth Movement & Dr. Judy Wood Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page: 1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research. 2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth. 3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [[118]] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [[119]], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [[120]] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth. These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy. Please help. Thank you, -Abe '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

You need really to stop spamming here, there and everywhere with this - let the Deletion review run it's course. Your actions are being disruptive. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

legal threat from Raymond Francis

Resolved

From Raymond Francis (talk · contribs) a direct legal threat [121]. Please attend to it. --Triwbe (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Attended to. Blocked and article in question deleted. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 13:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And I made a major cockup and managed to block the complainant. Maybe 3 hours of sleep last night is affecting me, many apologies. I undid it within 2 minutes with an edit summary explaining it was the wrong editor, but I feel really bad about this. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And the Autoblock on my IP address also please !!!! --Triwbe (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it just now. Syrthiss (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thanks and no big deal Dougweller |-) --Triwbe (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bogonvermillion - indef block review

I have indef blocked User:Bogonvermillion after first handing out a 3-hour block for their OR edits to Lysergic acid diethylamide ('LSD'; example of edits). The editor inserted parts of original research, and User:Viriditas beat me a couple of time to reverting this editor. Viriditas warned the editor a couple of times, in the last warning mentioning a block. The editor did no attempt to discuss until then.

After the block, the editor left this sum of diffs on their talkpage, directly addressed at Viriditas, which prompted me to make the block an indef block.

The editor mentions in the mentioned sum of diffs "I am not new to wikipedia, I have edited wiki for years. I am more than familiar with the process of editing wiki, ...". Anyone recognise this editor? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After continued trolling, I now also revoked the right to edit their own talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes your block was sound. Doesn't change the fact that you are totally up yourself. Crafty (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Henge me bringing ip here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Touche, Crafty (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bogonvermillion also refers to themselves as "we", so there may be more than a single editor behind it.--Atlan (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination)

On WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination), I see possible violations of WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, WP:NPA, and WP:THREAT^[122]. I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but could someone please take a closer look at that discussion? — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the AFD for its duration due to excessive off-wiki canvassing on both sides. –MuZemike 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bogonvermillion - indef block review

I have indef blocked User:Bogonvermillion after first handing out a 3-hour block for their OR edits to Lysergic acid diethylamide ('LSD'; example of edits). The editor inserted parts of original research, and User:Viriditas beat me a couple of time to reverting this editor. Viriditas warned the editor a couple of times, in the last warning mentioning a block. The editor did no attempt to discuss until then.

After the block, the editor left this sum of diffs on their talkpage, directly addressed at Viriditas, which prompted me to make the block an indef block.

The editor mentions in the mentioned sum of diffs "I am not new to wikipedia, I have edited wiki for years. I am more than familiar with the process of editing wiki, ...". Anyone recognise this editor? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After continued trolling, I now also revoked the right to edit their own talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes your block was sound. Doesn't change the fact that you are totally up yourself. Crafty (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Henge me bringing ip here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Touche, Crafty (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bogonvermillion also refers to themselves as "we", so there may be more than a single editor behind it.--Atlan (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination)

On WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination), I see possible violations of WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, WP:NPA, and WP:THREAT^[123]. I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but could someone please take a closer look at that discussion? — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the AFD for its duration due to excessive off-wiki canvassing on both sides. –MuZemike 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Something's Wrong

Some guy started War of the Castes in Haiti and didn't even expand on it. I suspect it's vandalism. B-Machine (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it's vandalism, it sounds right according to what I know of Haitian history, and it looks like our article on the Haitian Revolution and of Haitain history in general could use some help. I wouldnt have mainspaced an article as small as that myself, but this looks like a new user who probably is just doing his best to contribute. I dont have a firm opinion on whether it should be left alone, merged, or even deleted but I really dont think it's vandalism. —Soap— 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like we actually do have an article about this already: War of Knives. I will encourage the user to edit that article instead and work his content into it wherever possible. —Soap— 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have opened up an AfD, which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of the Castes in Haiti. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter needed

An individual in Indonesia has been a problematic user who has been constantly vandalizing articles (primarily ones relating to the Digimon anime 2 3 4) since before July 2009. He has also recently begun vandalizing other television series' articles with similar content. The full list (as given to me by User:Nanami Kamimura in February with the new IPs added; in order of use) is as follows:

The following is his MO:

• The individual has access to multiple ISPs based in Jakarta
• The individual seems to believe that the Digimon anime are connected to the Resident Evil video game series (characters from RE are often put into the Digimon articles)
• The individual believes that various famous American actors were involved in the production of these series (claiming Mary Tyler Moore is the voice of Rita Repulsa or Carol Burnett is the voice of the Digimon Terriermon)
• The individual believes that Paramount, MGM, and CBS own the rights/produced these TV series
• Other companies are involved that have had nothing to do with production are inserted

Due to the insane amount of IP addresses that have been used by this individual and his more or less predictable nature, it would be beneficial to the project to create an edit filter to prevent this individual from putting his false information into these articles, as semiprotecting all of these pages is more harmful (as after a period of time he branched out from the four Digimon pages into other anime pages and into the Power Rangers pages). What myself and other editors in these topic areas need is someone with edit filter coding experience to pick out the patterns of edits and make a filter to prevent them entirely, because a year of this nonsense (and it appears that he was active for longer) is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's an insane amount of IP's and semi-protection would be more detrimental to the articles then helpful.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested--Jac16888^Talk 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really help because I do not know what to ask. That is why I am asking here in a wider audience to get assistance in picking a string or other things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you go there and ask the will probably be able to sort it out, the regulars theres have plenty of experience with this kind of thing--Jac16888^Talk 01:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And he's shown up today as 114.58.33.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't identify the characteristics of his editing, I'm not sure how anyone else is supposed to be able to do it. If he's making a lot of different changes, it might be too big a job for a filter. Can you list what he actually does? Is it always the same? eg adding "Mary Tyler Moore" to articles in the category "Digimon" , or replacing "Digitv Corp" with "Paramount" would be detectable, and could be flagged, or blocked, but you need to pull the criteria out of the guy/gal/goon's edits.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The characteristics are identifiable. But I'm not sure of the patterns. I can tell you that "Mary Tyler Moore", "Paramount", and "CBS" never need to be added to articles with "Digimon" or "Power Rangers" in the title, so that should probably cover it. There's also the content spamming he does on articles like List of Disney television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), CBS Television Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), List of MGM Television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles like 114.59.198.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Renejs and disruptive editting

An editor using the handle Renejs has been aggressively trying to force fringe material into the Nazareth article for literally years. I strongly suspect that Renejs is actually René Salm, a crank author who has been advocating this thesis off-Wiki for a long time. He's recently reverted material on the Nazareth page twice in 24 hours. While not technically a 3RR violation, given Renejs' history of disruptive editting, the fact that his is a WP:SPA, his clear status as a POV warrior, and the fringiness of his edits, could someone please do something about this? Eugene (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(Informed editor) Dlohcierekim 21

25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, Flavius Julius. I would help here, but it's a bit too religious of a subject and I'm not very good at picking out good sources on that topic. That said, Renej does look like he needs a talking to or the like. Has someone mentioned consensus to him? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, that's it? No one else is going to say anything? Eugene (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bringing content disputes onto ANI isn't going to get you much of anywhere, you might as well go fishing in the Bonneville Salt Flats. Your best bet is dispute resolution. He's not spamming, vandalizing, or harassing anyone is he? -- Atama頭 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not doing any of those things; he's a single purpose account engaging in a slow-motion edit war who violates WP:WEASEL and WP:CLAIM in an obviously POV way. Eugene (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely an edit war brewing on the Nazareth article. So far, there have been several of us that have reverted his edits for POV reasons. So, it seems to me that he is not abiding by a clear consensus. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

May I say a word here in my defense? If anything, I am ALWAYS conscious of the underlying facts, namely, that all of my edits regarding this contentious issue of Nazareth are rigorously referenced. And I hope everyone will hold me to that requirement. I don't understand how Ari89 and now others can remove well-referenced and significant material wholesale with apparent impunity, claiming simply that it is "fringe." At this point, I don't think it's a question of "fringe" or anyone's agenda. Whatever side we're on here, we have to make sure that the facts are correct and properly supportable. I start to wonder when statements by Bultmann, Cullmann and such top scholars of the past are discarded as "fringe." The whole Nazareth issue is now in a state of flux- - there are new digs and new publications. IMO, the first requirement is to get the facts right, and not to edit out statements that we may not agree with or which do not suit our "agenda." Several editors of late have taken to deleting whole sections ("The skeptical position"), abridging paragraphs and moving material about, all in a very imprecise, agressive, and even 'rude' way- - please look at the edit history, with comments such as "Zindler's goof-ball book" (he didn't even write the book), "fringe material," "mainstream response". . . Somehow, *I* get into trouble for reverting, whereas everyone else seems to be able to revert my material with impunity.Renejs (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edit history of this article, I find myself to be too dense to see what the material is which violates WP:FRINGE here. Obviously there is an edit war over some secondary points, but why the information Renejs wants to add -- & why it is important enough to justify this edit war -- is a mystery to me. Can one or both sides in this dispute provide some diffs? This new material would encourage more input on this dispute. (This dispute doesn't even touch any of the many contentious points involving the origins of Christianity & the archeology of the region. Yet.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Renejs' slow-motion edit warring recently sped up a bit, I've registered the issue on the 3RR board. There's no further need to discuss it here. Eugene (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP: 71.111.129.147

Resolved

 – IP account blocked for 31 hours Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP user 71.111.129.147 has made persistent unconstructive edits to AK-74, Makarov PM, and other articles. Specifically, the users lists in those articles. He is adding text along with a citation that does NOT support his text, and removing information that IS supported by the same text. I added the information to the article to begin with, using the same book he is trying to pass as a citation, and the book does not agree with any of his edits. He has been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page]. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He has now moved on to Type 56 assault rifle, where he is attaching another citation (another book that I own and cited when I first added the section) to his entries. As before, the text quality in his edits is extremely poor, and the additions are not supported by the citation. ROG5728 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent non-native English speaker (maybe Russian). He does seem to at least be making an effort to contribute worthwhile stuff. Could he have a different edition of the book? Any Russian speakers around who can try talking to him? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is unlikely, and even if he did somehow have different editions of the books (two different gun books were used so far, and both of them contradict him completely in my copies) that would not adequately explain his behavior. Most likely he is editing based on original research and mixing the citations in with his edits (either by mistake, or intentionally to try to give his edits authenticity), and then removing the text that is actually supported by the citations because it does not match his personal beliefs on the subject. Regardless of his intention, his edits on all of the articles are extremely poor quality and he is persistently reinstating them without any explanation. ROG5728 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours per the issues ROG5728 raises. This seems to be yet another IP editor who enjoys adding fictional lists of users of firearms. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More disruption from User:Icelandic Viking POWER

Yet again, Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting discussion of a requested move at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010: this time s/he is pretending to vote for other editors on the basis of their previous comments on that page [124][125][126]. A proposal for a one month topic ban was made just three days ago by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Guy), but unfortunately has not been acted on. This is a clear single-purpose account, and should be both banned and blocked for its continued disruptive activity, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been notified of this thread. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only disruption I see is from Phsychim62 who reverted my edits without any good reason. He claims that I am trying to "Vote for others" while I am only citing facts from the talkpage history clearly viewable by anyone that wants to see them.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am blocking Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for disruption and incivility (e.g. [127], which is not vandalism). This is a single-purpose or agenda account and I'm getting tired of it. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I propose that Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be topic banned from articles pertaining to Icelandic debt repayment referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Icesave dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) generally, for six months. It's that or an indefinite block as a pointlessly disruptive agenda account, I reckon. Hopefully if we can persuade him to do something where he does not spend his entire time in a state of righteous apoplexy he might come to realise what he's doing wrong, but I am really on the verge of not caring. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Might as well ban him totally, as he's a single-purpose account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock or joe job

Resolved

 – Three socks blocked per WP:DUCK. —DoRD (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2Mistresses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to be either a new sock of puppetmaster User:Sorrywrongnumber (background info) – User:2Misters was one of his socks – or a joe job. Either way, they should probably be blocked, since they've already edited disruptively on 2 of SWN's favorite articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user, who deleted the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I deleted it, noob. Stop editing my user page - that's not allowed. You can't sock tag on other user's userpages without checkuser evidence, newbie. You're free to checkuser me; I'm not a sock and I don't even know what a "joe job" is on Wikipedia - that's a professional spamming term and I can't imagine how you'd apply it here. You're talking out yer butt. 2Mistresses (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• New sock: 2LiveCrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Both now blocked by User:Department of Redundancy Department. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, this rocks! All I need to do is say that I suspect someone is a sock, because they edit an article, and BINGO! They're blocked as a sock! Thanks admins! You've effectively deputized me! I RULE WIKIPEDIA! Beyond My Ken(sock of Sorrywrongnumber) 23:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not quite resolved: Well, here's a new twist, SWN's new sock, which posted the comment just above, is "<redacted>", which just happens to be my real name!! What a coincidence!! Hardblock, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

99.88.78.94

99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added content into film plot summaries and several editors have attempted to acquaint the user with the pertinent guidelines. User: Deftonesderrick has pointed the IP directly to the appropriate guidelines here and here. The IP’s responses of “I don’t understand, “why?”, “how am I supposed to know?” and “Do you know what’s the limit..? are wearing thin and have begun to appear disingenuous. I honestly don’t know what admin action I’m in search of, but this user is not hearing what is being said to them. If this post would be better addressed at another venue, feel free to copy wherever or let me know and I’ll do it. Thanks Tiderolls 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. See also my talk page, where the same question is asked, and then repeated twice. Or see the history of the user's talk page (they blank it constantly). Drmies (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm just guilty of not assuming good faith, but my sense with this guy is a troll. There's something about the syntax of the posts and pattern of behavior that seems to be attempting to mimic someone who either has english problems or is very young. But it just just quite ring true when looked at as a whole picture; the combination of asking, not reading, and page blanking... I don't know. Maybe I've just been doing to much vandal patrol and the editor is just really, really misguided. Just reverted another edit on disturbia; same ones as usual. Millahnna (mouse)talk 03:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked for three months. They have been blocked thrice for exactly the same behavior, so I figured that a longer block can't hurt. Tim Song (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Raymond in der englischen Ausgabe

Raymond in der englischen Ausgabe (talk · contribs) appears to be a troll who is trying to get a good-standing German user in trouble. He needs blocking, badly. I have not notified him of this notice because all attempts at warnings are greeted with "fuck off". Woogee (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Woogee (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

I've just made a collosal balls-up! :( 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (correct title) is now a redirect to itself! Can't seem to undo the error. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to be fine now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested block

Resolved

Can someone indef block AvicennasisTest568596? Reason is on userpage. Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Coftinued attempts(at wp:OUTING

Cla68 haw been warned multiple times to stop [[wp:OUTINGU] attempts. Warned by me multiple times and at least four warnings by admins. See the four admin warnings here [128][129][130][131] Yet this person is still continuing. Here are three more attempts that all occurred after the four warnings from admins previously linked [132][133][134]. This person has asked that I inform them before I post here because I warned them I would come here if they didn't stop. However, I have not informed Cla68 of this compaint because my fear is that they know that they will be blocked and they will just use the opportunity to make more edits attempting the wp:OUTING. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Informing another editor of an ANI case isn't optional. I've let Cla68 know here [135]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dayewalker, Here's some more background information. I believe that Cla68's campaign to harass and badger me began with this edit that was really nothing more than a wp:OUTING attempt.[136] Consensus quickly formed that the COI accusation was unwarranted yet Cla68 continued. Cla68 was warned about wp:OUTING but countered that he is allowed to out editors on the COI board. [137] Since that COI didn't work Cla68 files a frivilous SPI investigation.[138] From that point on, 01:28, 7 April 2010, for about the next 24 hours, Cla68 seems to have become consumed with trying to find ways to continue his/her harassment, meaning that almost all of Cla68's edits from that point on seem to have that goal.[139] I would appreciate it if Cla68 could be stopped. Thank you for your consideration. TallMagic (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• TallMagic is operating two accounts concurrently. Atama has asked TallMagic in this thread to give up one of his two accounts. Unfortunately, TallMagic has not responded to that request, instead initiating this ANI complaint. I'll notify Atama and Amorymeltzer, who closed the SPI request, about this thread. I support Atama's request that TallMagic's first account be blocked and/or deleted or otherwise abandoned and that he edit with only the TallMagic account. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so cut and dry, it looks like TallMagic started a new userID so they could defend their privacy from, ironically enough, you. Besides, SOCKing isn't grounds for OUTing, they are seperate matters. I'm no admin but I'd suggest you stop trying to OUT this person and let them pass/fail SOCKing on their own. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Atama will be along shortly, but in the meantime, what he actually wrote is " I would be a lot more comfortable if you retired the old account. It's skirting along the edges of WP:SOCK as it is, and if you continue to use it, it becomes more difficult to justify it." I'm not sure why both accounts are being used, but the alternative one has only been used this year on one article's talk page and TallMagic has not been posting to the article or the talk page, so I'm not particularly bothered right now although of course I would be if they started posting to the same articles/talk pages etc. I suggest that Cla68 simply leave the issue and the editor alone, others I am sure will take care of any problems if they occur. I'm an Admin, I watch several of these articles, and rest assured I won't overlook any misuse of multiple accounts. I don't see any benefit to continuing this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, Cla68 did file a wp:SPI. It was closed yet, Cla68 can't accept that fact and still keeps bringing it up and has even been lobbying for getting it reopened.[140]TallMagic (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller, Cla68 has been told the same thing on multiple occasions yet he/she continues along the same lines. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that Cla68 is still defiant and unremorseful. Cla68 is still arguing above that I'm the one that must change my behavior not him/her. I consider wp:OUTING one of the worst infractions possible here on Wikipedia. I'm very disappointed that Cla68 is allowed to continue. Please make Cla68 stop. TallMagic (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)TallMagic (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'll try to provide some background, if it helps. Cla68 brought a concern to the conflict of interest noticeboard about TallMagic and others in regards to what seemed like a crusade against diploma mills. It was a reasonable concern, but in the process of making the request, Cla68 violated WP:OUTING (intentionally or not). TallMagic used to operate under another account that had personal information attached to it. TallMagic has abandoned that account for the most part, but at one point had accidentally made a comment using his old account, unsigned, which Signbot attached an automatic signature to. TallMagic went back in with his new account and signed it. That accidental slip showed that he was the owner of both accounts.

The problem is that Cla68 used the name of the old account to find TallMagic's off-wiki activities and was using them to attempt to prove a conflict of interest. Since TallMagic's disclosure of his identity was an accident, and he had been trying to distance himself from the old account (no longer editing articles with it and for the most part only using it to respond to messages sent to it), I warned Cla68 about outing. I also looked over the info myself and determined that there wasn't a conflict of interest anyway. Cla68 persisted somewhat, stating that outing was allowed in order to prove a COI (which is untrue), and finally brought up a sockpuppet investigation into TallMagic's two accounts. The investigation concluded that while the two were acknowledged as being the same person, they weren't abused and therefore no action was taken, and the case was closed. Since then Cla86 hasn't advertised the information about TallMagic, but has instead confined discussion to user talk pages (especially mine).

While I do feel TallMagic has been a victim in this to an extent, his responses haven't been helpful. He insists that Cla86 is "still outing him", presenting the same old diffs each time. He has been aggressive in his responses, to the extent that he has been been warned about shouting. I've also told him that if he truly wants to distance himself from his old account, for privacy reasons, he needs to abandon it completely. He has used it as recently as a few weeks ago, and operating two accounts without disclosing the connection is at the very least frowned upon.

I apologize for not using diffs, and being a bit vague in my explanation, but I do want to avoid making connections between TallMagic's two accounts, though at this point it only takes a bit of digging for anyone to make that connection. (We may need assistance from an Oversighter for that.) -- Atama頭 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with what Atama says and I appreciate Atama's sensitivity and insight on describing the situation background. I would just like to add that I feel I've had to rachet up my reaction only because Cla68's jihad against me was allowed to continue. I tried to almost ignore it in the beginning hoping that the admins would take care of the wp:OUTING attempt because admins had mentioned it first. I feel that I've been forced to this point, i.e., an ANI, simply because Cla68 has not stopped and every step of the way has given every indication that he/she intends to continue even in Cla68's response to this ANI, I believe. TallMagic (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

you have a choice it seems. 1) agree to ditch the old account, then cla68 will clearly be in the wrong. or 2) keep the old account and put up with people bugging you about it. You seem to have cut back on the problematic edits that brought you to others attention. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the problematic edits that you refer to? Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have been dealing with some owners of questionable institutions for a long time, they are extremely determined and will never give up. It is of paramount importance to them to chip away, bit by bit, at any evidence on the Internet that their businesses are fraudulent. In some cases - Gastroturfing of colleges offering ministry degrees to fundamental baptists for example - the world at large does not care; in others, often handing out worthless medical and other professional degrees, it definitely does, but the assiduous use of misdirection, threats, outright falsification and so on will often lead sources to simply remove all references. When that fails, they just rebrand and start all over again. In my view the foundational principle of WP:NPOV is well served by the involvement of people who spend significant time and resource outside of Wikipedia investigating the credentials and claimed credentials of marginal institutions. For every editor who is doing this there are likely to be several with buckets of whitewash. So, TallMagic, keep up the good work but make sure you stick with reliable independent sources and if in doubt post to the talk page first. Any whitewashing of degree mills should lead to a speedy ban, it is almost invariably WP:COI and functionally equivalent to using Wikipedia for fraud. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is very true. They are very determined and don't give up to the point that I've gotten threats to me and my family in my home email account. It is because of problems like this that I consider Cla68's wp:OUTING actions to border on evil. It is problems like this that the Wikipedia policy includes wp:OUTING and WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Which people seem to be ignoring. TallMagic (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

His point was a fair one, but I believe he has pushed it to (perhaps past) the point at which it becomes probelmatic. I think any further discussion of real-world identities should be conducted by email with the arbitration committee, and at the same time you should ensure that you are open about any conflicts you may have in this area. For example, is this a spare-time interest of yours, or are you professionally engaged in the business of investigating diploma mills? I suspect the former. As to Derek Smart, there are too many trolls there, leave it alone. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG, you're a very wise man. Obviously wiser than me. I really appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I don't know if I've told you that before or not but if I haven't then I'm sorry. I've made the transition in my mind and no longer consider myself a Wikipedian. So covering it in email, while an excellent suggestion, really doesn't matter at this point. Cla68 conducted a most brilliant campaign, Outing, COI, SPI, notice boards and even a request to arbCom. Nothing of substance, everything closed in what could reasonably be considered in my favor and against Cla68's request, yet brilliantly successful. (I don't really know about the arbCom thing. I suspect that will just be dropped since I'm no longer around.) Anyway, congrats Cla68, you win I lose. My only consulation is that I can be glad that I'm me and not you. My view is that Cla68 is no longer my problem because I feel that I'm no longer a member of Wikipedia community. He is a good editor but his campaign waged against me has left me scratching my head why? And with the firm conviction that there is something wrong with Cla68. Cheers, TallMagic (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, back to the subject of this thread. TallMagic's primary account has been the subject of an ArbCom finding, apparently because the person behind the account has a personal feud with and is running an attack site on Derek Smart and wants Smart to know that he is messing with his WP bio. I suspect that this is the reason that TallMagic doesn't want to give up that account. So, if TallMagic is really worried about being "outed", why has he made it clear that he is unwilling to have that account deleted? Although the Committee made a finding on TallMagic's other account, it did not suggest a remedy. I'm assuming that TallMagic did not notify ArbCom that he was operating a second account, even though the first one had been the subject of a case finding. So, since TallMagic appears to be unwilling to follow the advice of the admins here and shed the account that supposedly carries his "real" name, perhaps we need to take this to the ArbCom enforcement board? Or, since the Committee apparently neglected to make a recommendation about what to do about this person's on and off wiki campaign against Smart, perhaps a clarification or motion is needed? Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic just needs to tag the second account as his legit sock and follow the guidelines and he is not editing the COI article and that is correct as I am understanding the issue, sock puppet investigation was rejected as no overlap or subterfuge ans presently he is only editing the talkpage of the article so there is no issue, is there? As he is not editing under his real name then excessive discussion about his identity is not really correct, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):And the connection of that to the price of fish is.....? Is Tall Magic (or REAL NAME) editing Derek Smart. I thought we were talking about degree mills, not game designers. At the end of that 2007 arbitration, the Arbs issued no sanctions against REAL NAME, and confined themselves to a six month ban for all SPAs editing Derek Smart. That ban expired three years ago, and does not seem to have any link to today that you have so far elucidated. So educate me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "real name" account edited as recently as 26 March 2010 and if you check the talk page history I linked to, that account is active in trying to influence the content that others add or delete from Smart's bio. For that reason, I don't personally feel that TallMagic's other account should be editing the Smart article's talk page, because he is obviously using an indirect way of carrying his off-wiki crusade against Smart onto the Wiki, using WP as a battleground. Now, if TallMagic would follow the advice given here and abandon his "real name" account and let it be deleted, there will be no problem, as least as far as issue of two accounts is concerned. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you already filed a wp:SPI. That investigation is complete. Please try harder to accept that this ANI is not about a wp:SPI. This ANI is instead about your continued harassment and wp:OUTING attempts. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:OUCH. You have no immunity when you bring an issue to ANI or any other board. After all, Cla86 brought a complaint to the COI board and the discussion was more about his outing than the COI complaint. The fact that you brought the complaint to this board about Cla86 doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to discuss any problems with you (or me, or anyone else peripherally involved).

Having said that, I'm not comfortable with anyone having two accounts that are active and not disclosing a connection between the two. I suppose the question is, why do you need both of them? And if this REAL NAME (I might as well say it since it's out in the open now) isn't your real identity, why the privacy concerns? After all this discussion over the past couple of days, I'm just confused. -- Atama頭 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add (Atama, once again, said everything more beautifully than I could have) but I too remain at a loss to comprehend either of your motives here. Socking and Outing are both serious concerns, and neither need have anything to do with a discussion on a conflict of interest. Your use seems to be within the legitimate uses of WP:SOCK, but if your goal is to not be (further) outed, TallMagic, I don't understand why you would start a thread saying "Here's proof I'm being outed." If we assume that to be true, this can only hurt that goal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs that TallMagic posted, I don't see any attempts at outing. In those diffs, Cla68 is not making any connection between the "real name" account and TallMagic's account. I don't think it is reasonable to claim you are being outted if you are using your real name as an account name. I would highly recommend that if TallMagic is using more than one account, that they stop doing so. DigitalC (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, As I mentioned above, in response to JzG, my family and I have been threatened by apparent owners of diploma mills. Trying to edit Wikipedia articles on unaccredited institutions can make some people very mad when an editor tries to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia policies. Some people only care about their own wallet not about Wikipedia policies. I already responded to you in email about your other question or at least I thought I did. Here's my question to the admins. Is wp:OUTING by Cla68 going to be tolerated and even enabled by allowing him/her to keep leading back to a wp:SPI discussion which was done and is already closed? Why is Cla68 allowed to violate wp:OUTING while showing no remorse and only being defiant that he is allowed to behave in such a way? TallMagic (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DigitalC thank you for making what I consider to be an on topic comment, in the editing diffs, Cla68 attempts to link me to a real name and to an external website. That is the definition of wp:OUTING, at least as I understand it. My further understanding is that such behavior is against Wikipedia policies and when people do it they are subject to an immediate block. TallMagic (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't see any evidence in those diffs trying to link the account TallMagic to the "real name" account. Furthermore, I believe that if the "real name" user was truly concerned about their privacy, they wouldn't use their real name in the first place, they wouldn't continue to use a real name account, and they wouldn't have their real name attached to a website. DigitalC (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My patience with TallMagic is exhausted. While the SPI concluded that there wasn't enough disruption to warrant action at the time, TallMagic is violating Wikipedia policy by using two unacknowledged accounts. He has refused to either abandon the original account, or to openly link the two. He has no legitimate reason to maintain both accounts, and I believe at this point he insists on doing so to avoid scrutiny on his recent account while his undisclosed old account continues to communicate with other editors and participate on article talk pages, and has used both accounts on the same article (see the history of this article. I have lost faith that he has legitimate privacy concerns at this point, because he insists on drawing attention to the outing concerns in multiple places. Frankly, I can't see why he should be allowed to continue to deceive other editors and defy WP:SOCK policy. -- Atama頭 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, please point at one edit where you believe I was trying to deceive other editors. How does your assertion mean that I'm avoiding scrutiny? Why does wp:SOCK#LEGITprivacy not apply? Why is not wanting to be threatened (or worse) by owners of diploma mills not a good reason to try to keep my account from being outed? TallMagic (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, you cannot edit the same page with two accounts. Period. Secondly, you have yet to answer why the REAL NAME account is being used, such evasiveness is very troubling. Frankly, I don't believe you anymore. I think that your claims of privacy concerns themselves are a deception. If you really didn't want people to connect that account's name with a real life identity, you'd have retired it and essentially brushed it under the carpet. Using that account to participate in discussion on an article as recently as 3 weeks ago isn't keeping a low profile at all. The only explanation I can think of as to why you want to maintain two completely different, undisclosed, and active accounts is to avoid scrutiny per WP:ILLEGIT. Forgive me for having to speculate about your motives, but you force us to, because you won't explain them yourself. -- Atama頭 02:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After the events of the last couple of days, I agree with Atama here. This seems quite easy to fix, TallMagic, pick an account and retire the other one. Scramble the password or whatever, but just get rid of it and don't edit with it again. Stick with one account, and that should solve this sock problem. As for the outing, if anything further occurs after you're back down to one account, contact an admin. Until then, let's just fix the big problem of two accounts. Dayewalker (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I rarely used the other account. I was interesting in trying to make the Derek Smart article a better article is the simple reason that I continued editing the talk page for that article. I did not edit it with my new account because there are people associated with the Derek Smart flame war that scrutinize editors of the Derek Smart article and I didn't want to bring attention to my TallMagic account from that bunch. I will retire my TallMagic account after this ANI. It is no longer usable thanks to Cla68 anyway. I will no longer edit Wikipedia except perhaps the rare addition to one talk page. Trying to get back to wp:OUTING. I found this interesting information on Cla68. It would appear that Cla68 failed an RfA because of some past history on wp:OUTING, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cla68. It appears to me that Cla68 has not learned the lesson that wp:OUTING Wikipedia editors is against policy and he/she is likely to do the same thing to others in the future that he's done to me. Please don't allow this kind of behavior to be condoned on Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very unfortunate outcome and hope you reconsider as we need your expertise. Dougweller (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I do feel some sympathy for the additional load that will be placed on some Wikipedians because of my departure. Most I've probably never communicated with except perhaps through an edit comment or two. But for those that might be reading this please understand that I did appreciate each and every one of your edits. However, I think the overload will be short term. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that there's many great editors that seem to fill a needed void when there is a need. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Atama's assertion that I'm an evil liar by saying it is important to try to avoid the real life wrath of people associated with diploma mills, I think the following forum should demonstrate that the danger is real. [141] TallMagic (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to Cla68 for driving a knowledgeable and productive contributor away from Wikipedia by outing him. Folks who would follow in the footsteps of James Kirk and Ronald Pellar, and the perpetrators of the University Degree Program fraud will surely be gratified to know that Cla68 is working hard to make Wikipedia into a safe platform for them to promote their fraudulent operations. TallMagic's privacy was pretty thoroughly erased by this posting on the COI noticeboard, and the rest of the campaign against him was merely frosting on the outing cake that was already well baked. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of your portions of your post, I don't see how debasing even more individuals can be helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When I posted that, I thought that the people I named were all convicted felons, but I have redacted the names (which may in any event be aliases) of the people who may not have actually been convicted of felonies. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted every incident of the real name from this thread. I suggest that long-term contributors know better. While I am dissapointed that TM will not just retire the REAL NAME account, as that would solve all problems, I note that his accounts are in good standing and that he should not be outed just because someone dosen't like something he did. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic, we respect your right to privacy but don't take advantage of that by attempting to use accounts duplicitously. Cla68, your anti-COI efforts are noted but don't violate policy by harassing users. If we agree that nobody is perfect, is there any reason why we can't just hang this up with an agreement that the two of you won't keep badgering each other like this? It's getting old real fast. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Aye, it's stick-dropping time all round I think. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism and general problematic editing

User:Irvine22 has a long record as a provocative editor and a block log to go with it. His habit is to make small but deliberatively provocative edits and then claim innocence. After a more or less inevitable block he then goes silent for a period and starts all over again. User:Elonka recently placed him under probation with a warning of a permanent block. This silenced him for a period but he has now returned.

His previous record was in Troubles related articles, generally taking a strong Unionist stand and making provocative changes such as listing Bobby Sands as a suicide. He latest fad is to find any Irish or Welsh person with an English birthplace and label them as “English” or equivalent. At one point this included a commander of the Provisional IRA! The shift from Irish to Welsh matters seems to have happened after the final warning from Elonka; moving to pastures new with new admins. A quick check of his edit history will show that hardly any of his edits survive scrutiny, but his enjoyment seems to come from provocative remarks and exchanges on the talk page.

He is fairly skilled at stopping just short of a level of provocation that would result in a report here or elsewhere. I have been on the verge of reporting him for deliberate attempts to provoke me by edits on the article about me (I make no secret of my identity) and by matched remarks on my talk page for which he was warned. Its part of his general habit of hitting BLP pages. While that can be lived with, he has now made direct accusations of racism against editors in good standing and to my mind this needs to be addressed.

The article in question Welsh People

The lede states “The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation associated with Wales and the Welsh language” Irvine22 has made the following attempts to change this

• Unnecessary and irrelevant addition of “There is no separate Welsh Citizenship”, although the article is not about any subject that relates to citizenship. As is normal with Irvine he reverted once but then backed off.
• Insertion in the lede of a statement that there are Welsh People of Pakistani origin. While this is true, there are also Welsh people of Polish, Irish, Argentinian, Chinese and many other origins none of which are listed so he was again reverted twice
• Unnecessary insertion that people who identify as welsh may draw on other cultural heritages, again reverted (this was my first involvement on this thread), on this occasion he gave up after one revert
• Removal of reference to nation and also citation from John Davis dismissed as “just one among many historians”). FYI Davis published probably the most respected academic histories of Wales and is a principle source on nearly all Welsh related articles. Again the normal pattern of a single revert then he backed off and moved on again
• In response to his questions on the talk page a range of editors tried to explain to him why his changes were unnecessary, he then proceeded to insert their explanations into the article here and here in the later case with a misleading edit summary.

The accusation of racism

In the discussion on the talk page a range of editors sought to explain the issue to Irvine22 who gathered no support for his changes. The other editors involved are all established editors with clean block histories and good content track records on welsh related articles. They include User:Ghmyrtle, User:Daicaregos, User:LindsayH and User:Pondle. The discussion was going the normal way it does with Irvine22, a series of arguments with an isolated individual going no where, until yesterday. The whole thread is here but we then get the statement out of the blue from Irvine22 that “the article at present is deeply racist”. An inspection of the thread will show that I made a sermes of attempts to get him to stete that he was not making any accusation against any of the editors involved as that could be implied from the phrase. I also gave him a cooling off period in the hope that he would retract. Instead we got:

• He took a coement from another article talk page from User:Daicaregos out of all context (a rather dubious article on anglophobia), falsely claimed it had been made on the talk page of Welsh People and then made a direct comparison with the leader of the whites only party in the UK, the BNP along with the snide comment”Nick Griffin(a good Welsh name there, no?). This is a direct and unprincipled attack.
• I asked again if he was saying that editors were racist, in response he stated that three editors, myself, Lindsay and Daicaregos were removing his edits the effect of which was to make the article racist. We also had another false claim, with his suggest that the welshness of Shirley Bassy had been questioned; the only reference on this page was my statement that she was Welsh. He later dragged up a six month old exchange on a completely different page in which none of the editors of this page was involved.
• His final statement was to say that he did not judge the intent of the editors but the result which he viewed as “exclusionary and racist”

Given the history of this editor, especially his provocative and disruptive edits I think it is time for the community to do something. When I told him that I would make an ANI report if he did not withdraw the innuendo/insinuation against three named editors he started to make the separation of intent and result. This is a pretty typical bit of Irvine22 wikilawyering, trying to pretend he has not really said something.

I never like permanent bans (which he was warned would be the next step) and he is an editor who could make a valuable contribution. However despite many opportunities he has never done anything other than use the Wikipedia as a play area for the provocations that obviously give him satisfaction but consume huge amounts of time. If the decision were mine then at the minimum I would expect Irvine22 to make an unequivocal statement that he does not consider the editors racist (he declined over three invitations to do so). I do think its time either for an extended ban, or possible a topic ban from all articles to do with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and BLPs associated with those areas? --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Support community ban I don't know the ins and outs of this but since Snowded's talk page is on my watchlist I've seen User:Irvine22's hounding of Snowded over the past couple of months. He seems like a nasty piece of work. --RA (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Irvine22 indefinitely based on this and the long history of past behavioural issues. He clearly has no intention of ever reforming. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• support block. User seems to have been given sufficient opportunities to reform and hasn't.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. I think we have put up with Irvine's disruptive editing for far too long. He never had any intention of reforming. He has had plenty of opportunities to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia; instead he just wastes everybody's time and patience with his tedious, contentious editing coupled with snide, nasty little comments. Enough is enough!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, I think Snowded's summary is very accurate. It's very rare that he steps over the line with one particularly obvious blockable edit, but the overall pattern of his behaviour over a really extended period is highly unhelpful and provocative. ~ mazca ^talk 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, the editor-in-question has become a liability to the project. He/she refuses to reform. PS- Irvine's reaction to his block, confirms my observations. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, this editor was given several chances on the basis that they are 'articulate', 'intelligent', 'misguided' and 'capable of reform' (don't think it ever quite got to 'misunderstood'). Multiple commitments to contribute constructively have evidently been a long term deception. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban the diffs say it all. The rest per the above users. Outback the koala (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, as per above. I have been, rather anonymously following Irvine’s disruptive and frankly provocative/racist edits. Games over boyo.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's just been trolling. Woogee (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a tacit admission of a subpontine agenda if ever there were one. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Langbar International

Langbar International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a highly negative article on a company that is, by all appearances, fraudulent. There is a complaint from one Mariusz Rybak about this article and the edits of Nigelpwsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is Nigel Smith of the Langbar Action Group, http://www.langbaractiongroup.com - many of the links in the article are to material on this website, I have not reviewed it for copyright. This needs urgent and careful review, please. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent about 10 minutes on this, spot checking a few of the references and looking at other press coverage from a news database. This obviously falls short of being a careful review, but it's a start. Langbar Action Group claims to be an investor group trying to recover assets scammed by Langbar International, so Nigel Smith has an obvious COI. The links to his website appear to be Regulatory News Service releases, in many cases from Langmar International itself. The article is negative but press coverage of the company is also negative. There is a series of articles in April 2008 by James Bagnall in the Ottawa Citizen about Langmar's collapse. The parts I read are partly sympathetic to Mariusz Rybak, but paint him as a con artist (my interpretation). There is a ton of press coverage about this company and its general slant is consistent with the article, though I haven't checked every detail. The only thing I can think of to suggest is have a discussion about COI with Nigel Smith. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have blanked most of the article as a copyvio, but it's possible Smith is the original author (obviously it would be up to him to verify that). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice also, there is a banner on the talk page saying OTRS received copyright clearance, ticket number 2007xxxxx. A lot of the article was written in 2007. I don't know if later material needed clearance, was cleared on the same ticket, or what. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more that the material was sourced to copies of documents on the action group website with no evidence that the action group was rights owner - so even if it were a reliable source (which it isn't) we could not cite that content from that source anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the docs were press Langbar press releases (implying permission to republish) and some were browser snapshots of RNS news stories, containing the url of where the stories came from (the ones I checked were still there, so the links could be updated). I see nothing new on Nigelpwsmith's talkpage since 2008, but he seemed responsive to earlier communication, so contacting him (including notifying him of this ANI) seems appropriate. The "action group" obviously has a stake in the matter, suggesting that Nigelpwsmith is possibly best off contributing to the talkpage rather than writing the article, but on first glance it looks like a reasonably sane investor consortium, not some crazy conspiracy theory group. I haven't looked that carefully but I don't see much distance between the mainstream/neutral POV (as observed by skimming press coverage that I located with an independent search) and the action group POV (as observed by looking at their web site). So quite a bit of the old content is probably recoverable, though it should be carefully checked before restoring. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Implying is not the same as being, and we don't know that the hosted material was still as it originated. It's problematic to link to copies of material on polemical websites especially when some of it is copyright with no evidence of release. There's also the issue of Nigel Smith's obvious COI. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eudemis, personal attacks, improper canvassing and edit warring

I have been dealing with this editor for the past few days and his behavior has continually been an issue. It has now crossed into being disruptive. He was warned twice about violating 3RR [142] [143] and finally was reported for potentially violating it in spirit by waiting just outside the 24 hour mark to make the 4th revert here although nothing has come of the report at WP:AN3. Russell Crowe is article that is a frequent target of vandalism and this editor repeatedly accused me of ownership here based on the number of edits (mostly vandalism and other inappropriate edits) I have made to the page and repeated it again here and went to the trouble of posting how many edits I have made to the page here, repeatedly trying to run me off the page while responding to talk discussion. At one point he accused me of "tenacious" editing here. He continued to post the name of a non-notable individual to the article and tried to argue that I didn't know policy regarding this when I cited WP:BLPNAME. I filed a request at WP:BLP/N following that and notified him that if he did not desist from personally attacking me, I would file a report here. A request for comments was started on Talk:Russell Crowe to garner opinions on the issue. This editor began attacking responders to that RfC, including this one where he attacked Dayewalker because I thanked her on her talk page for commenting and continued to disparage her for having edited in common with me on articles in the past and indicated familiarity with me and came back to the topic again here, calling out about a supposed "hypocrisy of that statement from someone here because she knows you and fails disclose the connection", although I was unaware that that the fact that I am familiar with an editor because we edit in common was an issue or that it necessitated disclosure. In the same post he attacks Victor9876 because he responded and he knows me, once more announcing how many times in the past almost 4 years he has posted to my talk page, and goes on to disparage Xleterate for having created an article on Eve van Grafhorst and casts disparging remarks about that editor because he created that article which "is about a child banned from school for being hiv positive and you (meaning me) are a principal editor for Ryan White, a child banned from school for being hiv positive", as if that has anything at all to do with the subject at hand. In fact, I did not know Xleterate prior to this and you will not find cross posting of talk page comments or even much of any cross-editing. This entire post by Eudemis is an ad hominem attack on any editors he can manage to weave into his bad faith attacks on the Crowe talk page. This last post is absolutely the last straw of tolerance for a bad faith editor and attacks on multiple editors and it must stop. In fact, nearly every statement the editor has posted to Talk:Russell Crowe has launched an attack against one editor or another. Well, the chance of XLeterate showing up at the Crowe article is highly likely, considering he regularly edits on the article and has no other connection to me than that. These ad hominem attacks must stop.

In addition, the editor has engaged in inappropriate canvassing regarding this issue: see here, where while he was canvassing for support, he characterized (incorrectly regarding my location) me as "a New Zealander who owns an article (WP:Russell Crowe[144]) and cited material gets reverted if it does suit the New Zealander. A Warning - his understanding of wikipedia concepts is shaky at best. If you could cruise over and take a look as you find the time I'd be most grateful." and repeated the same here and here. Here he with his attempt to canvass editors by rather bizarrely posting "Your Grace, the minions are squabbling again. Sadly, a small group of what appears to be New Zealand based article owners have planted their national flag here: Russell Crowe [145]. Well meaning, foreign crusaders for truth are quickly identified and their edits reverted into oblivion. I pray that you will, as time allows, visit said article and liberate her from the death grip of the Kiwis." and the ad hominem attacks he makes on me in those posts. He was then warned about civility and canvassing here. His conduct has continued to deteriorate to the point of making completely inappropriate ad hominem attacks on editors who have responded to the RfC, behavior he has indulged in from the get go and he has been repeatedly warned about that as well. This tenditious editing to the talk page must be stopped. This is entirely outside what sort of behaviors are appropriate here, there is no civility in the posts this editor is making and he is basically launching full scale and widespread person attacks on the editors who are interested in responding to his own WP:RfC. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that Eudemis continued his ad hominem attacks on yet other editors after I posted here and to him. He posted "You don't find that an odd coincidence? There are 300,000 editors on wikipedia but the ones here have very narrow shared interests that are not Russell Crowe. Nil Einne above who just stopped by after seeing the BLP/N, was in a science discussion involving XLerate and contributes to a Judy Garland talk page as does Wildhartlivie. If comments were coming from contributors to Vermeer and whales and I claimed there was no connection, I would expect you to be incredulous." He has failed to respond here, but he continues to seek and attack yet more editors who responded because two of us posted at the reference desk in January 2009 and two of us post to the Judy Garland article. To clarify this great and astounding editing coincidence, I edited Talk:Judy Garland the last time on February 29, 2008 and Nil Einne made one post on May 19, 2009. There is well over a year between my last post to Talk:Judy Garland and the only post I can find by Nil Einne. The first edit was over 2 years ago. This conspiracy theory hunt of his has crossed all bounds of civility and he is actively seeking ridiculous examples of how two editors on that page have posted to the same boards or articles. This has become ridiculous and this bad faith attacking of all the other editors who post in response to the thread on Talk:Russell Crowe needs to stop yesterday. This is quickly escalating out of all rhyme or reason and is so contentious in nature that it is literally painful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis attempted to add some speculative and BLP issue information to the Russell Crowe article five days ago[146]. When it was knocked back they started to edit war, serial undo with addressing the concerns. The page was protected yesterday to prevent the disruption, and several editors came along to comment. In response Eudemis started campaigning[147], and berating other editors with false accusations of ownership, conspiracy etc in all directions. I think they have no interest in improving the article, just creating disruption. I don't know if trolling was the intention all along, but they've had plenty of warnings about incivility and to stop attacking other editors[148]. I think the project needs to be protected from this kind of distruption. XLerate (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis's behavior has continued on Talk:Russell Crowe. He seems to have a bizarre idea of consensus and continues to attack editors who responded to the threads, here where he accuses other editors for responding by stating "The suggestion that they had just wandered in after seeing 3RR report isn't the case. If editors know each other and have edited together, an editor should probably disclose that before weighing in especially when his claim is that another editor is seeking non neutral opinions." Yet he has nothing to show that suggests that anything improper was done regarding responding to the thread and continues to attack the editors who have responded because any given two editors responding may have actually edited the same article at some given point (please see the point above where he claims that two editors who replied to Talk:Judy Garland over a year apart should disclose that they both edited the same talk page, one in 1998 and the other in 1999, and did not respond to the same topic or thread. There is no indication whatsoever that there was anything improper done regarding responding to this thread and they are essentially being attacked for bothering to respond to the RfC started by the editor, claiming that any responder should check back to ensure that they have not edited the same articles as other editors and claiming that should be disclosed although evidence was given above that Eudemis has willingly approached editors he does not know to canvass their participation in the discussion and here where he accuses the other editors of votestacking because they happen to either know one another or have EVER edited an article in common. Please note here where he attacks an IP editor for being an IP editor and and states "There is nothing random about this group." His remark about the lack of randomness is baseless and unsupported and is a continuation of his pattern of widespread attacks against the other editors on the page. Here he states "While I have enjoyed meeting all of Wildhartlivie's friends, I would like an experienced independent editor to review the history here. I think that was the original purpose." Yet, he has continued to attack the responders and his specious statement that all of the responders there are questionable is baseless and he gives no grounds for such a specious statement and here where he makes baseless and unfounded accusations of votestacking. He has been notified of this discussion. He has flatly refused to respond here, he continues to attack other editors and so far, no administrator on this board has responded to his baseless accusations and attacks. Will someone PLEASE respond here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE n00bz, much? Eudemis has 180 edits over more than a year. He's right about one thing; you've serious WP:OWNership issues, as I and others have said on WT:ACTOR. I think you're bullying this fellow, as is your norm. Jack Merridew 03:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis is not a new editor, and he seems knowledgable enough on Wikipedia policy to invoke it on other editors. I have tried on several occasions to get Eudemis to discuss the matter, or to clarify his position. He seems determined that the consensus exists against him only because of some relationship between WildHartLivie and every other single editor who disagrees.

That said, the edit war report and this one have both sat long enough to be stale, so I would suggest just letting this one go. I've asked the protecting admin to unprotect the page, as consensus on the talk page is unanimously against Eudemis. Hopefully that's enough, and everyone can go on about their own way. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, please stop trying to bring your issues against me into other incidents. This goes way beyond one person. We have an editor who has been active here steadily, if not prolifically, for well over a year and has to last count, attacked every single editor who has responded to his own RfC, trying to cast specious aspersions on each, even to trying to wrangle in "coercion" attacks for editors who have never edited before, attacking IPs for being IPs, and searching diligently for anything where two names are mentioned together. He doesn't seem to understand that his personal attacks are inappropriate and tenditious, and making false accusations of collusion when someone else mentions names together on a STAR TREK bulletin board. This editor's conduct exceeds anything reasonable and jumping here by you to try to skew the issue to your own agenda is both inappropriate and tenditious. And you want to be an administrator making such personal attacks as the one you just did against me? The conduct of this editor is so noxious that it is imperative that SOME administrator take some sort of action on this. This editor has attacked everyone who responded to the thread on Talk:Russell Crowe, right down to accusations of collusion because I last posted to a talk page in February 2008 and another editor posted to the same talk page one time in May 2009. This is patent bullshit and an adminstrator truly needs to respond here. Just because Eudemis refuses to respond here and continues making personal attacks as he has does not mean this does not deserve adminstrative attention and not specious attacks by Jack Merridew. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My issues? They're your issues. *You're* the one so regularly involved in mobbing behaviour, who's so regularly trying to spin criticism of your inappropriate behaviour into personal attacks. And, of course, there is your WP:OWNing approach towards actor bios. nb: it's tendentious, not tenditious [sic]. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war, much? This edit might seem innocuous per the edit summary, but it is actually a revert of the prior editor's last 5 edits. Your article, your way. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I see your comments here as baiting. Please stop, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Attacking me here does not take away from the horrific behavior of Eudemis regarding this article. Mobbing behavior? Get real. That an editor arbitrarily sets out to open a RfC and then attacks each and every single editor who responds is not mobbing behavior, it's lack of etiquette and restraint and completely obscene conduct on the part of that editor. Trying to discredit me here does not take away from the horrific behavior of that editor, and for the record, it garners you no shiny star for good conduct yourself, Jack. Being a regular editor of actor bios is as far away from ownership as your own specious characterizations of valid intent. That you try to run over legitimate complaints about the inappropriate conduct of another editor to spin it to being about me is less than administrative conduct, Jack. Noted for the nomination. And thanks for correcting my spelling, it's truly an auspicious thing to be in the presence of perfection and good conduct. There's something totally hostile about someone interrupting a good tirade to parade around his spelling abilities. It inspires the masses. Please stop trying to hijack this discussion to spin it into something else, Jack, it isn't about you. You're the biggest source of criticism about me and it's specious and assaultive and you long ago killed any good faith for when I see your name pop up. Please stop popping in to attack me wherever you see me. It's gotten old and tiresome. If you've nothing relevant to contribute to this legitimate complaint about an editor's conduct, then don't respond to the thread. It's just that simple. And for your stalking my edits and criticizing, the edits that editor made were not helpful, they were inappropriate disambiguations, arbitrary breaks in the line parameter and added nothing to the article. Your wikistalking and harassment of me has become quite tiresome. Give it up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, if you have a problem with WildHartLivie, please bring it up in your own thread somewhere. She's not the only editor who has a problem with Eudemis, and you bringing up unrelated edits in a different topic isn't going to help this one get resolved. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that this is not so clear-cut. I don't support whomever's name being mentioned in that article and I see that Eudemis is lightly tarring everyone and I don't support that. He is, however, half-right in that there are some friends lining up against him in there to defend their articles. Anyway, I do have another thread to attend to with WHL, &co. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And that is so much supposition and bullcrap. Because editors respond to something and view it the same way means nothing except your bad-faith accusations and suppositions. I think your judgment is lacking in regard to anything about me and you spread your bad faith attacks to anyone who gets in your way. Bad faith attacks from you aren't helpful Jack, or reflect good judgment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is really the right place to deal with this since I'm not convinced admin action is needed but it would be helpful if someone who has never, ever, edited a page that anyone of the like the 8 editors who've been accused of collusion have also edited would tell Eudemis to stop with the allegations of collusion, since frankly it's getting silly. He/she's bringing up basically random connections, most of which the people involved probably don't even recognise/remember (in my case, ironically the only people I definitely recognise not counting those on BLP/N who haven't bothered to post in the article talk page and so haven't yet been accused of collusion are Jack Merridew and CambridgeBayWeather and perhaps DayeWalker). Some have suggested to let it go, and personally I don't really give a damn (the accusations against me are silly enough that they're almost funny) but it doesn't appear Eudemis has learnt anything which isn't good moving forward. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've not commented in there because I think it's small beer and care little for Russell Crowe. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC) tall beer

Jack Merridew wouldn't be accused since he's just floating around outside of the talk page and trying to hijack this complaint to make it about me, instead of realizing that editor has conducted a full on war against each and every editor who responded. CambridgeBayWeather hasn't weighed in on the discussion either. He did attack Dayewalker, however. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lech Kaczynski

President of Poland apparently in a plane crash with no survivors, needs more eyes and possibly pre-emptive semi-protection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No evidence of unmanageable vandalism so far. Suggest leaving unprotected for the moment but keep weather eye on it. The article on the accident is being heavily edited, but again, no real problems. Mjroots2 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of monument for terrorists in userpage

Nothing can be done here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion, please. – Toon 15:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User Amoruso has a picture of a monument for Irgun terrorists in his userpage [149][150], is this appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It's been on his page for 3 1/2 years. If Nableezy can do his thing, I don't see why Amoruso can't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Its not the same thing, that image is specifically for Irgun terrorists that have killed many civilians, but Nableezys userbox is a completely different issue, it only supports resisting military aggression and occupation, he does not support any terrorists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC) One could argue that the Irguns were also "resisting military aggression and occupation", by the British. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) In fact, Nableezy's stuff is far worse. It's a nakedly anti-Israel essay, whereas the thing on Amoruso's page is a relatively small photo, with no caption at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) No it is not. It is not "anti-Israel" nor is it an "essay". nableezy - 02:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Yes it is. I can read plain English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Apparently not. Though you are free to think what you like, no matter how silly it is. nableezy - 03:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC) You've got a series of quotes talking about how terrible Israel is, along with a photo of some Palestinian kids. Now, if you just had the photo with no caption, and no accompanying essay, that would put you almost at the same level as Amoruso, except that it's still clear that it's about a particular group, whereas the picture of the monument is just a picture of a sculpture that you have to read something about in order to know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I have two quotes discussing Israeli actions. If you think that is talking about "how terrible Israel is" I am afraid I cant help you. And there is one picture of a Palestinian child waving a Palestinian flag. I guess I can see how that picture is "anti-Israel". Palestinian children with flags, and I put them on my page? How dare I support such terrorizers. And the picture in the center is a picture of graffiti on the West Bank wall. I am sorry you think that collection is "anti-Israel", but it isnt. Bye. nableezy - 04:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Maybe you need some quotes discussing anti-Israeli actions, and some Israeli children waving the Israeli flag, so that you could demonstrate your ability to be neutral. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I didnt realize that I had to be "neutral" on my user page. But in the mainspace I have, more than most other editors that others identify with one "side", inserted text that made the "other side" look "good" and made "my side" look "bad". nableezy - 04:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Looking at the context, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the use of the image. This is a non-issue. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC) A perfect example of the old saw that one person's freedom-fighter is another one's terrorist, and vice versa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC) If you'll pardon me, a reflection in the real world: Official Israel is shocked and outraged by naming a street in Ramallah after a Palestinian terrorist Ayyash (assassinated by Israel in 1996); At the same time, the Israeli far-right leader Ze’evi (assassinated by Palestinians in 2001), whose main political platform was ethnic cleansing ("transfer") of all Palestinians, has several streets, three promenades, two settlements, a highway, a bridge, and an army base named after him, and a law to commemorate him and even educate future generations with his "legacy."     ←   ZScarpia   12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Who is a terrorist depends on who you are talking to. Some people would consider Stanley McChrystal to be a "terrorist that has killed many civilians", but I doubt we'd have any zealots coming to complain about that here if someone had a picture of him on their user page. I don't see anything wrong with Amoruso having the image on his/her page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It seems fitting that Amoruso and Nableezy are in the midst of a food-fight at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I'm no fan of any terrorism, whether that's Zionist Terrorism, Islamic terrorism, American/British terrorism, etc, etc. I'm a supporter of free speech and as Jrtayloriv rightly says who is a terrorist depends on who you are talking to. However if we go on the Wikipedia definition of Terrorism then the Zionists, the Islamists, the British and the Americans ( and others of course ) have all been guilty of terrorism over the last few decades. On that basis I support fairness. Amoruso should have a right to put a monument to Zionist terrorists on his user page as long as others can put monuments to American, Islamic and British terrorists on their user page. Wikpedia must not be seen to be biased If my memory serves correctly, Nableezy and others were stopped from displaying userboxes saying that they supported the political wing of Hezbollah. What is everybody's thinking on that in the light of the current case?     ←   ZScarpia   02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC) If people are allowed to support Israel/Zionism then people should be allowed to support Hezbollah, and the same for other political ideologies in the world. Wikipedia either has a policy of NO POLITICS, or it allows people to display their political allegiances. There should be an official consensus on this and whatever the outcome it should be applied fairly. it's bias when people are allowed to support the Zionist state but not allowed to support Hezbollah, etc. Keep it unbiased or don't allow anything. Vexorg (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Israel is a nation, whether you like it or not. Hezbollah is not a nation, it's an organization with destruction of Israel as one of its goals. Hatemongering has nothing to do with what wikipedia is about, and doesn't belong on a user page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Being a 'nation' does not excuse anyone from certain behaviors. Your argument is void. Vexorg (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Although its presence on someone's user page can be useful, as it invites scrutiny of whether they are editing political articles neutrally or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Well exactly. But all I want is fairness. Like I say if someone can support Israel then others can support hezbollah. Fairness. Eitehr that or all political support is banned. take your choice. Everyone has a right to display their beliefs whether you like them or not. If you find it so offensive, then don't look at the freaking page. It is a rather miraculous conclusion. Also, whether something is a nation is irrelevant. From Hezbollah's point of view, Israel is a terrorist nation, and then vice-versa. Just because the majority finds something appalling or they happen to disagree with it does not make it right to single out the minority. If people can't control themselves from someone mentioning their support, then perhaps editing a wiki is not for them. Gay, straight, theistic, atheistic, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu: none of that really matters. If you happen to disagree with it, then grow up, ignore it, and realize that not everyone is a supporter of "the state". –Turian (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Well said Turian!! Vexorg (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Not that I'm an admin or anything, but if people would bother to read what all of Hezbollah's goals are, you wouldn't be so worried about this. Do you think most people in Hezbollah seriously want to destroy Israel? Of course not, just like most Israelis don't want to keep fighting Palestinians. Many people in Hezbollah are in it because they have no other way to get food or shelter (same with the PLO, by the way). But before anyone wants to accuse me of a red herring, back to the original issue. We're all allowed to have our idols, and it won't hurt to express it here. Many places (i.e. The Democratic Republic of the Congo) consider American involvement in their affairs to have been terrorism, rightly or not (see the history of Zaire, it'd be there). Not allowing people to declare pride in the United States military would seem absurd to most; therefore, it'd be difficult to justify. We have to hold the same standard to everything. It's not that big a deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, Hezbollah is more of a state organisation than the Irgun was. And apparently, just after its creation in 1948, the new State of Israel introduced a law which defined the Irgun as terrorist organisation.     ←   ZScarpia   11:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC) This isn't resolved yet, is he gonna let have a picture of Irgun terrorists in his userpage? Am I allowed to display a Hezbollah flag on my userpage? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) In my opinion, yes on both counts. The games that could be played with this are endless, and admins should refuse to get involved. There's nothing to be done here, suggest we mark it closed--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) What's this, Kindergarten? One is about people that have been dead for two generations. It's an aesthetically attractive image that you need to go to some lengths of investigation to find out any real or perceived support for "terrorism". It needs some work to feel offended by it. The other is a symbol in an ongoing bloody and divisive conflict, and uses imagery directly supporting violence. But yes, as far as I'm concerned, you can display this flag, unless you go out of your way to be offensive about it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It's not kindergarden. But we have people here who are strong partisans about the I/P and who don't mind ribbing the other side, and are smart enough to be subtle about it. Admins should not be drawn into it, otherwise we will endlessly be called upon for judgments about what is, and is not, offensive. And what about, say, a Confederate memorial (disclosure: I live in the former confederacy, though was not raised here and have little sympathy for its views). Look where that's gotten the Governor of Virginia this week. Anyhow. Both images are easily within the limits allowed for one's own userspace. End of story. Can we please mark this resolved?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I concur. If there is no attempt to force these views on others (and I can't find any, a userpage is not be definition an exporter of ideas) then it is fine. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, I do wonder if such a fuss would be made about an anti Al Qaeda slogan on a talk page. In my opinion this can be closed. SGGH ping! 11:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC) The content in question seems to be pretty mild, and even if it wasn't as long as this stays in user space, it is a total non-issue. This should be closed. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Interesting. Now there a "as long as it stays in userspace, it's ok" attitude in regards partisan displays on user pages? I feel bad for Embargo, who saw some pretty severe harassment in these parts over this user box. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Damn, if I wrote “this user has zero tolerance for intolerance” I might be banned for life. ―AoV² 13:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not really a fan of allowing people to turn user pages into glorified myspace pages but there is some value to the community in allowing people to customize user pages and people seem to like it. If we are going to allow any political speech on user pages it seems like we need to allow all political speech on user pages. I think this is in keeping with the open nature of Wikipedia and the ideals of free speech that it is founded on. Where would you draw the line? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It shouldn't need saying that individuals who are (or are suspected of being) gun-carrying members of Hezbollah should not be editting in the Israel/Palestine topic in Wikipedia. Anyone in this position should be reported to the authorities and dealt with as guilty unless proved innocent. Every edit they've made needs scrutinising and over-written if its dubious. In the meantime, its better if people are encouraged to fly their flags. Urbane23 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Speaking of flying their flags, have you edited using other accounts? Unomi (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Comment - Seriously, if you don't go looking for issues here, none exist. Amoruso's userpage contains many images, including five which aren't annotated; one of which is the "problematic" image. If he were using this image to aid soapboxing then yes, it would be a problem. As-is, it's just one in a series of images of the area. Leave it be. As for Nableezy, his user page is not even linked from his signature, so even if you do find the excerpts from published texts offensive (although frankly, this is a pretty sedate way to show your POV), you don't have to pass through his user page at all. – Toon 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Nableezy, who is obviously pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, skirts the issue by claiming that he's merely speaking out against aggression and occupation "in general". Amoruso could have similarly skirted the issue by not specifically identifying the photo, but instead by labeling the photo "nifty-looking sculpture I saw someplace". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Quite honestly I think it is missing the mark to label Nableezy as obviously pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel - from what I have seen at my short time involved in the I/P area I find that Nableezy is more moderate in his outlook and his approach to content and discussions than I am. I don't want to soapbox but it seems clear from RS that what is going on in the Israeli-occupied territories is deeply problematic; from a legal and human rights perspective, it lends itself well to as an emblematic cause for those against aggression and occupation. I am against userpages which lend themselves to being interpreted as divisive but I can't help but think that ANI is the entirely wrong place to have this discussion and that any kind of in-depth discussion will be mired in questions of moral equivalence and moral relativism. Unomi (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I would be more impressed with his concern for poor, innocent children being blown to bits if he also showed some Israeli children wrapped in an Israeli flag. Keeping his in-your-face partisanship on his user page is not appropriate - but it is useful, as it can be used for evidence in an RfC/U, if the user displays too much POV-pushing in articles. (Likewise with Nazi symbols, Commie symbols, etc., on user pages.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Just a word or three on appearances and options. Back when the articles about Sarah Palin's daughter were being discussed, and the articles were clearly anti-Palin, I was accused of being some sort of ultra-conservative stooge for trying get rid of them. If I have a COI, it is in the opposite direction. About the only hints of my political bent are my userboxes supporting Dr. King and a reference to a Rammstein song. One needs a knowledge of Rammstein or German to understand the latter. The point is, if one values the appearance of impartiality they should not appear partial. There's a line between validly using the user page to show the community things about yourself and using it to put a chip on your shoulder. The bottom line is, if someone feels the later is in play, they have the option of ignoring that person's userpage. And if the user looks within his heart and finds the latter really is in play, he should stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia. We should avoid distractions and diversions that don't do that. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Why do people keep bringing WP:MFD issues to ANI? This venue is not well-suited for these types of discussions. They're disorganized and they have no particular end-point for an administrator to step in and divine consensus. Please take this to MFD. –xenotalk 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Hear, hear. We just beat this horse a couple of days ago. Move to close this discussion and ask that if need be it be opened at WP:MFD Dlohcierekim 15:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I concur. Unomi (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Death threat (hoping just a troll)

Resolved

 – Blocked by Someguy1221--SKATER ^Speak. 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So User:99.227.133.212 has a history of incivility on talk pages. Calling people assholes, Nazis, idiots, and so on can be seen in his edit history. I gave him a warning based on this edit. He reponded with: "That IS APPROPRIATE TALK you fucking dipshit. I will come to your house and stab you repeatedly while you sleep and watch you bleed to death and cry and I will laugh."[151] Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As Hersfold once told me: "Someone giving you a death threat on Wiki is somewhat akin to poking an elephant with a toothpick." I really don't think you're in any danger...still he should be blocked immediately.--SKATER ^Speak. 06:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not to worried about it but assume the user should be banned for gross incivility.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP appears fairly stable, so six month block. If he acts up on his talk page, I'll block that too. In any event, the IP is in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. You're of course free to file a complaint to the local police or his ISP, if you wish. Or if you'd like, I could file a complaint with the ISP, but I'm guessing you don't mind enough for that. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I already checked it out just for fun. Sounds like a little to much effort for what is more than likely some simple screwing around. Thanks for the block.Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, you get to imagine the reaction of what is probably some 14 year old when two policeman show up on his doorstep to talk to him about his "death threat"--Jac16888^Talk 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Party Van's suddenly not so funny when it's outside you're house.--SKATER ^Speak. 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That scenario would be a good basis for one of those Southwest Airlines TV ads where something goes terribly wrong and the voice-over says, "Want to get away?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:D2earth

D2earth has been adding links to fatburn-secrets.com in the external links section of various food articles like Apple, Banana and nutrition. I reverted the last one assuming good faith but suspecting it was a poor choice in external link. I've now noticed that all the user's contributions appear to be in external link sections. Thoughts? SGGH ^ping! 10:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edit summaries, it appears the user is assuming good faith and not spamming. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll link them to the external link policy pages. SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the recently added links and left a message on D2earth's talk page. This seems like a standard case of someone adding many links to a single website, and should be handled using the normal procedures for such things. I stumbled across this user when they added a link to fast food restaurant. Graham87 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

IP User:70.246.227.39‎

70.246.227.39‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Quite a bit of vandalism going on from this IP today. The full extent of warning templates have been used. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. For future reference, these reports can go to WP:AIV. TNXMan 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dekkappai

• Dekkappai (talk · contribs)
  

On the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shukan Jitsuwa Dekkappai has made several personal attacks. He claimed that I was on a "crusade", he then expanded his comments to accuse me of "bigotry". I then suggested that he remove his offensive comments, but he proceeded with a rant about a bias towards not deleting Anglosphere articles. He then appeared to make it explictly clear that his aim was to offend by saying "And if there's anyone here I haven't properly offended, I apologise." EuroPride (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been warned at the AfD and on the talk page. I note that you did notify the user but the user then removed the notification with a "helpful" edit summary. Are you aware of the warning against personal attacks of the AfD? Dekkappai seems to be a vocal, if somewhat rude, defender of his views. Perhaps he will ratchet back his antagonism somewhat now that the warning has been given. If not, a personal attack is a personal attack and he can always be ranked up several warning levels. SGGH ^ping! 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll chill and not have his account dekkappai-tated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the warning on the AFD page. Thank you for your quick and helpful intervention! EuroPride (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5

This user has been engaging in long-term trolling and edit warring on the Kasumi Ninja page.

On December 5, 2009 I opened a topic on Talk: Kasumi Ninja suggesting that comments from a certain source should be removed since they were obviously not made in earnest(said source is an online comedy show) and requesting opinions. There were no responses, so on December 7 I went ahead and deleted the comments: [152]

ChrisP2K5 promptly reverted my edit, with no justification: [153] I restored the edit and directed him to the discussion page: [154] He again reverted my edit without justification, claiming that he didn't need rationale for the revert since my reasoning was "flawed": [155]

At the same time, he began at last responding to my post on Talk: Kasumi Ninja, but I use "responding" in the loosest sense of the word, since he never addressed or even alluded to the reason for my edit. Instead, he claimed I was using rationale that doesn't even remotely resemble any of my actual statements, accused me of being in violation of Wikipedia rules that he made up(some of which are directly contrary to actual Wikipedia rules), launched personal attacks, and responded to attempts to discuss the matter rationally by calling me "a sore loser". His trolling posts continued even after I had explicitly stated that I had no intention of wasting my time with the matter any further.

On March 18, another editor, 24.60.220.148 voiced his agreement with the edit on the discussion page and restored the edit: [156]

On March 29, ChrisP2K5 not only defied the majority consensus by reverting the edit again([157]), he dropped another trolling post on the discussion page and upped the ante by threatening 24.60.220.148 on his talk page, claiming to have the authority to ban WP editors at his sole discretion. 24.60.220.148 has since restored the edit and informed ChrisP2K5 that he is violating WP rules, but I don't expect that to stop him.

What really bothers me is that a quick look at ChrisP2K5's talk page and contribution lists reveals that this is almost routine behavior for him: make an edit that falls just short of vandalism, wait for someone to oppose it, and then try to engage whoever does in a flame war. If I understand what's written on his talk page, he's actually been warned by administrators in the past, yet no action has been taken to prevent his harassing other editors.

I will notify ChrisP2K5 and 24.60.220.148 immediately after posting this. However, I ask to be excused from monitoring this page, as I can't guarantee that I will remain civil if I am forced to interact further with ChrisP2K5. Lies and personal attacks immediately make my blood boil, and since that is invariably all that ChrisP2K5's posts consist of... you can guess where that would lead. If it is necessary for me to comment further on this matter, please notify me via my talk page. It might be a good idea to monitor my talk page, too, as I would hardly be surprised if ChrisP2K5 were to send threatening notes to me there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

--I refuse to partake in this. The user in question is misconstruing my words, as he has done before. Please do not waste the Wiki's time in dealing with this and remove it from the page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5 is blocked indefinitely - a review of the talkpage archives indicate that this is a long standing attitude problem; criticism is not tolerated and the editor becomes confrontational very readily. If they indicate that they will attempt to moderate their demeanour then unblock might be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with LHvU's assessment and conditions for unblock. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club‎ being edited, again

70.43.101.226 (talk · contribs) is still trying to somehow get Ladue Yacht Club (a hoax) into Wikipedia. The article went to AfD, and was deleted, but this anon keeps editing the closed AfD, now that their last block expired. (There is a Lake Ladue. It's a pond in a subdivision, and is about 500' across.) Minor nuisance, but I think we have a wannabe long term vandal. --John Nagle (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit to the closed AfD and left a warniong about creating hoaxes on the IPs talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I also semi-protected the AfD--and I'm thisclose to blocking that IP again. I noticed he came right back after a block to start this up again. Methinks he needs another timeout. Blueboy96 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk asking them to please stop. Dlohcierekim 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hogwash eliminator

Resolved

 – User is now discussing things on the talk page, no obvious action necessary at this time

Hogwash eliminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user started out by posting their opinion in the article text, of the article text. They were reverted by an admin and told to take it to the talk page. They reverted, saying 'no one reads the talk page'. I reverted them here, and gave them a second warning concerning such.

They have since taken it to the talk page, only instead of discussing improvements to the article in a civil manner, they have decided to instead speak in an insulting manner about those who made the article, essentially calling them idiots(acting like they thought 2 + 2 = 5).

This is of course, after I tried to politely tell them what they needed to do to fix the article, mainly telling them of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR.

I have tried to tell them to cool it with the incivility and apparent(at least to me) personal attacks, saying it was a quick way to get blocked, but all they do is continue.

I would like more eyes on the matter, and perhaps some help dealing with them. They have been notified of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a new and apparently knowledgeable editor with a bit of an abrasive style, who took issue with some errors in the article, and ended up having some unpleasant exchanges with Sandstein and Daedalus. I left messages at talk:nutrition and user talk:Hogwash eliminator to try to calm things down a little. This is another incident where talkpage warning templates and the like just get the person madder, so it's better to avoid using templates and just write in English. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice username :-) Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey GUY thanks for noticing. I am new here. Do you know how to stick your tongue out at someone with the appropriate abbreviation, template or what ever?? There is an entity within these ones and zeros that needs it.

Hogwash eliminator (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there's always :-P Dlohcierekim 20:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) There is also " ( [[Image:Misc-tpvgames.gif|20px]] ) ", though I suppose neither improves the quality of the discussion at hand :{ Dlohcierekim 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper deletion of talk

User:Automaton deleted a portion of a comment I wrote on a talk page. What i wrote was a civil response to a question, asking for clarification. Another editor (to my knowledge, not an admin.) informed me of this, and provided a link to the edit dif:

[158]

I don't want to get into an argument with this editor. I also do not want a big RfC, this is one single incident. But I have always considered it taboo to change someon'e talk, unless the talk violated WP policy; I think this principle is essential to the functioning of the community.

I just would like an independent theird-party to communicate with Automaton - I trust any admin. is familiar enough with WP policy that s/he can explain to this editor why this is serious and should not be done again. If just one person would be willing to address this I would appreciate it and consider the matter resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you bring this up to the other user or try to discuss it with him? Have you let him know of your concern, and btw notified him of this thread here? All are considered Good Things.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Automaton may have encountered an edit conflict and accidentally removed your comment...I've done it on accident before. Stuff happens...just restore the comment, and if they remove it again, THEN you have problems worth discussing with the other editor as suggested above. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will follow your suggestions, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Need a couple of deletions restored

Could another admin restore my last two deletions (the OlYeller21 stuff)? The editor tagged it with a csd-u1, but it looks like they just wanted most of the history deleted, not the actual page itself. I could probably try to stumble my way through restoring it, but would rather not muck up the situation more than I already have. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. SGGH ^ping! 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again. AlexiusHoratius 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I commented out the first speedy tag but couldn't find where the second one was coming from! SGGH ^ping! 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Darius Dhlomo

I'll be honest, User:Darius Dhlomo has been bugging me a lot lately. I used to give him barnstars and praise his work, but it has gone out of hand now. He edits at an extreme speed, and hence it's hopeless to track his changes to articles. But through article history I've come across a number of problematic changes to articles. The most grave is deleting prose text and replacing it with tables. I've tried to explain before that an encyclopedia should be about text, but to no avail. Lately he has begun inserting ugly and pointless tables with one entry. Often these are wrong contradictory to the existing article text, see for instance this: the text says correctly that the athlete did not reach the final, but the table claims that he finished tenth in the final. He certainly uses references very seldomly as far as I have seen (as I said this person has over 100,000 edits, so it's hopeless to check). The last thing to happen is that he deleted medal boxes, which are perfectly fine and contested by no-one — and replaced them with the table. I'll admit that my talk page messages to the user have been not-so-patient and cool-headed lately, but it's because he ignores every piece of advice and comes up with new, annoying ideas (such as removing medal boxes). This user does more harm than good to the encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, his last talk page edit was years ago (excluding the page moves). User talk pages are similar, and I don't know if there's a wikiproject discussing article formatting but I don't like the wholesale changes to articles without edit summaries like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions by User:DragonflySixtyseven

DragonflySixtyseven has apparently gone on a unilateral deletion spree, deleting many article talk pages and other pages. No CSD reasons are being given, and requests for restoration are being refused on his talk page. (Log: [159]) Some of these are heading for overturn in DRV. I question the value of deleting an article talk page because it has "homework questions" or "forum-like" contents. Such content can simply be removed without using deletion. Gigs (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Amanda Freitag I didn't understand so I recreated it. In the future the user can just remove/flag the forum content, but leave the talk. A number of the userpage deletions seem valid regarding spam and promotion. Have you attempted to make contact with the user other than notifying of the ANI? SGGH ^ping! 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the blocks seem to make liberal use of the "talk page editing block", hopefully the user can explain their justification further here. SGGH ^ping! 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I remove talkpage access for spammers, and for people who've created content that defames others. And what would be the point in removing inappropriate content from a page and then leaving it blank? Process is important, but it's not all-important. Go write an article, go review an article, go fix an article, go help a newbie. Don't waste your time with this crap. DS (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Because if you delete it, non-administrators can't see the removed content to decide whether your action was reasonable or not, leading to stuff like this thread and the DRVs, which are indeed a waste of time. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What boggles my mind is that the removal of irrelevant/inappropriate discussion is not only being contested but is generating new DRV entries because it did not technically follow process. Some would argue that process is important and stepping around it too often weakens the project; I would argue that a slavish obedience to process when it is creating roadblocks to sensible solutions is equally deleterious to the project. Shereth 22:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My only concern was the restriction of talk page access so I wished to hear the reasoning. So long as DS follows policy that is fine. It is there for a reason, all the blustering about "crap" put to one side. SGGH ^ping! 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Earwig has pointed out to me that 'homework' is not a particularly helpful rationale when I could instead be pointing to WP:HOMEWORK. I shall use that one instead. Similarly, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM is more informative than "not a forum". DS (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOMEWORK and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM are not speedy deletion rationales either. And considering the developing consensus at this DRV and this one it doesn't look as though your judgment on what constitutes a homework question is particularly sound; consensus seems to be that the questions you deleted were relevant to the articles and useful towards the improvement of them. And your response when challenged on your mass deletions is "Stop wasting time. Run along. Nothing to see here." I find that deeply worrying. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They're rational. And what do you expect me to say when you're wasting your time and mine? Why don't you go patrol the backlogged newpages in the lesser namespaces, so as to remove inappropriate material? I seem to be the only one who does that; if you have a problem with how I do it, you're welcome to help out. DS (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Protesting an administrator's abuse of tools is never a waste of time. Reyk _YO! 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be an imbecile. These are uniformly garbage pages. If you want to hoard them, I will copy the content of each and every one onto your userpage. (NOTE: That's an offer, not a threat. You can have them if you want them.) DS (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, if you haven't noticed by now that I think the articles' talk pages is the proper place for them you haven't been paying a lot of attention. Perhaps many of them are garbage pages, but the DRVs make it pretty clear you've made a few mistakes as well. And please don't call me names- I am not being stupid. My opinion is backed by policy and consensus. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In all these instances, why would Dragonfly67 or any other editor not prefer to post a short note ON THE PAGE explaining why (in that editor's view) the comment was inappropriate. That would have meant that the original poster would be far more likely to see the comment (as opposed to the deletion log, which a newcomer will probably not know to look for nor how to find) and perhaps be educated in how to used wikipedia. And other editors could also see the response and perhaps be educated. And if other experienced editors saw the response and disagreed, a short and simple discussion on the talk page or on someone's user talk page could occur, and who knows, someone might learn something from that, one way or the other. Placing such a response would probably be easier and quicker -- surely note significantly harder or lonnger, than deleting the page. DES ^(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, WP:CSD says plainly that "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination." True, this is not mandatory (although i once supported a proposal to make in mandatory) but it is now the almost invariable practice, and failing to follow it is in such cases a violation of WP:BITE, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Moreover WP:CSD#Non-criteria says "The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion....Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain....Reasons based on essays. Wikipedia:Listcruft, Wikipedia:Obscure topics, Wikipedia:Deny recognition etc. are not valid reasons for speedy deletion....An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English." Note that DF67 suggest above deleting based on the Essay WP:HOMEWORK. Several deletions of talk pages with non-English comments have had the logged reason "wrong language". It seems to me the DF67 is acting as if WP:CSD#Non-criteria does not exist, and as if admins have carte blanche to delete any page they may deem "not helpful to the project" Not so, deletion is to be by consensus, either discussed or pre-formed in the narrow cases of the CSDs. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

DESiegel, you are an articulate man who clearly cares about what is best for the project. I envy you both your copious free time to spend arguing about this, and your bureaucratic dedication to procedure that prevents you from restoring pages that you feel should exist. If you genuinely feel that any one of those pages should exist, then by all means restore it. I won't wheel-war with you over it if you genuinely feel it is an asset to the project. And you are correct -- deletion rationales are a crucial part of the project; that's why they exist. Mine will be better now. DS (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad that your rationales will be better in future. What I would really like -- what would be far more important to me than the fate of these specific pages -- would be if when you (and i hope other admins also) see such a page in future, you would do something other than simply delete it, under any rationale. I really think the best thing in cases such as the ones now open at DRV would be to add a simple response to the talk page, rather than pushing the delete button. If you really feel that such pages must be deleted, then please open an MFD page. If you use one of the various scripts available it wouldn't take that much longer, and would make things ever so much more transparent. If you are correct that such pages are widely felt to be of no value, they will be fairly quickly deleted at an MfD -- 2 or 3 once sentence comments, and a one-word close. If you are incorrect, that will soon be obvious also. If i had thought this was a one-time event i would have simply restored -- I believe that any admin is by policy allowed to restore an improper speedy. My concern is for all the other pages where I don't check your deletion log, and neither does anyone else. My dedication to procedure here is not, in intent, "bureaucratic" -- my concern is that in not following procedure you wind up ignoring consensus, and hurting the project, mostly by driving off potentially good contributors. my use of procedure here is intended as much to bring the issue to more general attention as it is to restore the specific pages in question. If you indicate that your approach to deletion -- that is, your choice of whether to delete and not just of what reason to cite (although clear log reasons are important too) -- will change in future, I'll be happy to stop arguing. DES ^(talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DES that the rationales are not the issue, it's the deletions. Perfectly harmless content, and, as argued at the DRVs, not irrelevant to the article--the two there seem to represent complaints that the articles did not give enough information, and both complaints seem correct. DF has never explained why he thinks them homework, but if they are, for someone to come here to seek information for homework is a proper use of the encyclopedia, and for them to say that they came here for that purpose and did not find what they were reasonably looking for is a criticism we should remedy,not remove. The situation is not solved by DF giving admins permission to revert his deletions if they object. The deletions by themselves serve to discourage prospective newcomers. The need to attract, not repel potential newcomers, is essential to the survival of WP , for there is no other way to replace those who inevitably leave. Of all the issue facing us, the need for more contributors is the most important, because without them, we cannot solve the other problems. These edits did not really need to be removed. The attitude that one should look for any faults one can find in newcomers is inappropriate and remove their edits if they look doubtful is wrong --one should not be too hasty to conclude their edits are errors, and if they are, one should correct their errors, but along with encouraging them. Almost equally wrong is an approach that if an edit needs to be removed, the entire page should be deleted. Deletion is the last resort--a frequently needed last resort, and not to be used unnecessarily when there is so much that really does need it. DF above blames DES of bothering with unimportant matters, such as complaining about his deletions--but the unimportant and unnecessary work was his own, deleting these pages in the first place. And that admins follow the rules is not unimportant. There are many unjustified complaints here about arbitrary admin action -- we have enough to deal without without admins overusing the buttons and giving rise to actually justified complaints. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride the following were among the ArbCom's expressed "Principles":

• "...Additionally, when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why."
• "The policy pages for Deletion policy, Undeletion policy, and Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages, including pages in userspace. Administrators are expected to use their deletion and undeletion abilities consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, such as Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion, or apply a Proposed deletion tag. This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons."
• "Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. Deletion can easily discourage editors, especially new editors, so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. When the deletion is of a page in userspace, the affected editor may be particularly dismayed. Even though users do not "own" such pages, reasonable leeway is accorded to userspace content. Therefore, a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided."

These seem to me relevant here. DES ^(talk) 05:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This does sound like the drama surrounding MZMcbride's bot rampage of a year or so ago, deleting IP address user and talk pages without prior consensus, one of the issues leading to the first of his two desysoppings if I remember properly. Our usual approach to removing talkpage clutter has generally been to archive it or (in some situations) blank it, not delete the page and make it inaccessible to users through the page history. The exceptions are issues like libel that must be deleted to protect the project, and pages that meet narrow conditions described at WP:CSD. "Homework" and "Forum" aren't sufficient conditions for deletion, and anyway such a categorization isn't up to any one person's whims. And as for "unhelpful to the project", we have a longstanding view that making user contribs (including unhelpful ones) accessible to everyone is desirable for accountabilty purposes; deleting those pages out-of-process removes accountability from the people who created them. Take the pages to MfD if you must, but it's easier and more traditional to just archive them. Or, open an appropriate policy discussion if you think the existing procedure should change. Simply going on a unilateral deletion spree is not the way to do it.

Stepping back a level, if an ongoing sequence of actions is getting resistance from other users (as this is), those actions should stop until a discussion has taken place. So I hope the deletions have stopped. They don't sound urgent, so pre-empting discussion by continuing them in the face of so much opposition is very bad admin conduct, deserving of an RFCU and desysopping if necessary. See the "fait accompli" principles in several arb cases, e.g. from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Fait_accompli, "Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the above was from the response to the drama around MZMcbride's bot-assisted deletion of large numbers of "secret" pages, which i think led to his resigning as an admin about a year ago -- technically he was not desysoped as i understand it. But the principles are IMO relevant here. DES ^(talk) 14:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem?

He's been doing deletions like these for a few years. Is there an actual objection to the specific deletions? If so, can someone clearly lay out what those objections are?

Looking at DS' deletion log, is anyone disputing that spam, copyright violations, and test pages fall outside speedy deletion criteria?

Seriously, what's the point of this thread. Someone's volunteering to clean the place up and you're upset because.... --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

first, cleaning up in such a way as to discourage potential new contributors is a threat to the project-- a serious long term documented threat. second, admins acting outside their mandate is a serious short-term threat, because once they think it proper to act in a way not accepted by the community, there is no telling how much harm they might do. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone can show me that one of my deletions has been in error, I will restore it. This is not braggadocio; I acknowledge that I make mistakes, and I correct them. I also apologize to individuals whose pages I have deleted by mistake. How often do you apologize to people? DS (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have, i think, shown that at least four of your deletions were in error. One related set has already been reversed at DRV, as has one single earlier deletion. Two more look to be on the road to being overturned at DRV. That, IMO pretty clearly establishes that the community did not agree with them, which makes them "wrong" in this context, without anything more. I have also elaborated on the specific reasons why i think the specific deletions were wrong. Moreover the entire concept of "I'll delete what i please, limited only by my own judgment, but will restore if someone can convince me I'm wrong." is IMO wrongheaded. Note that I asked DF67 to restore in each of the cases now pending at DRV, and DF67 decliend. But even if DF67 would automatically restore on any good-faith request, it would still be wrong headed. No one but an admin can check to see if a logged reason matches the actuality of the deleted page. In one pending case the logged reason was "test page" but DF67 admitted on his own talk page that that was not a correct description of the page in question. A number of pages were deleted with the logged reasons "wrong language", "Forum" and "Silliness": is anyone claiming those are, in general, valid reasons to delete pages? Many are deleted with the logged reason "Inappropriate use of user page" and many of those turn out to be spam, but others do not, and there is no way for a non-admin to tell, and no quick and easy way for even an admin to tell. Deletion should not be, except in very unusual cases, conducted except by consensus, either found via a discussion or pre-agreed via the speedy deletion criteria. Anything else is IMO abusing the trust of the community that comes with the admin bit. Admins are empowered to carry out the will of the community, not to impose their own wills. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, it is somewhat ironic that you make the statements you do, as roughly a year ago you "cleaned up" by mass-deleting many user pages, resulting in an ArbCom case (which is quoted and linked to above) in which, as i understand it, the ArbCom disapproved of such deletions. And in thes cases in point, there is not general agreement that the deletions complained of constitut4ed "cleaning up". I for one don't think they did, and I gather that several others at DRV don't think so either. "Cleaning up" by deleting pages without or against consensus is not, IMO, helpful to the project. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, are you claiming that the pages described more fully on DRV are "spam, copyright violations, and test pages"? If so, i disagree strongly. If all the pages involved were that this thread would not have happened. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes users tend to be too bureaucratic and end up spending time on useless debates. Does an admin have to go through the whole process of deletion, when cases are obvious? If he spotted pages that are unconstructive/disruptive and according to the policy they should be deleted then why shouldn't he make use of the admin tools? Of course we can't check them, but admins can check them and none of them have restored any of those pages and as he said he wouldn't oppose any page restoration.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In these specific cases, since several people have disagreed with the deletions, the cases weren't obvious. In general, I think few cases outside the agreed Speedy criteria are all that obvious. And putting a prod tag on or even starting an AfD or MfD discussion takes perhaps a minute. There is no requirement for the nom to follow the debate and keep commenting, although many do. These pages are, IMO, neither nonconstructive nor against policy, and i think that had an MfD been started the result would have been keep, though i can't be sure of that. That is why such a debate might well not have been useless. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Prenigmamann

Prenigmamann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know what this user's game is. They were reverted once, it seems, by Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs), and has since been following them around reverting them in what appears to be spite. In my mind, this appears to be a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

More eyes would be appreciated. The user has been notified of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Judging from his last revert it looks like you might have become a target too?--SKATER ^Speak. 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. They appear to be doing this to multiple users as well. That is how I found out about them, I thought they were a sock of a past editor who made the same edit, but now I don't think so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what much I can do...I'll keep an eye on him though.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If he becomes active again and starts following around users, then re-report him and notify an admin asap.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)