Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563

Warning from Moderator

For the first time today I noticed this old edit. I was under the impression that no one was suppose to be in charge of a topic which to me this section implies. SunCreator (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not anything "official", just a strange comment by a new user. Evil saltine (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The recommendation to archive is technically accurate. It's couched in very strange terms. No, this person is not an official moderator (we don't have 'em) and this isn't the sort of thing that merits any warning. Suggest you tell the poster to WP:SOFIXIT or archive the page. No administrative action is needed. Durova³¹⁴ 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That diff is nearly two months old, no need to deal with it now. — neuro^(talk) 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Request Block of JeffBillman

Resolved

 – no admin action needed. JeffBillman is aware of the proper use of Rollback, and has agreed to pull it back a bit. --Jayron32 01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like administrator help with ongoing vandalism at Kevin Coughlin. I have recently added a section about Coughlin's lawsuit, which has been well-documented in reliable daily newspapers in NE Ohio. I have provided the sources to back up the info but Coughlin's friend JeffBillman continues to undo them and claim it is vandalism. JeffBillman continues to misrepresent the situation in the discussion. As you can see from reading the sourced material, Coughlin was dismissed from the lawsuit after admitting an article was not defamatory and that he does not have any intention to sue over the alleged extra-marital affair that was reported. I understand the material may not be especially flattering to Coughlin, but as it is factual and can be supported.

Please block JeffBillman from any further revisions to this page. Thank you. "JamesRenner (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)"

• Assuming you are the same James Renner that is suing Kevin Coughlin, and you are trying to add information about this lawsuit to the article, this is a huge conflict of interest. You should not be edit warring with someone over a legal issue that you are directly involved with. Peacock (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have no present association with any of the parties to the lawsuit. It matters not to me the nature of the edit in question, only that it is poorly sourced and apparently offered by a person with a clear conflict of interest. Thank you, JeffBillman (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• JeffBillman certainly hasn't helped things. Xe isn't doing xyrself any favours by rejecting good advice not to use vandalism rollback tools (as xe did three times 1, 2, 3) to revert edits that are not vandalism, however disputed they are. As other administrators here know, the tools are not to be used in that way. They only serve to cause exactly what has happened in this case: bad feeling and escalation of the dispute. JeffBillman isn't an administrator, and clearly hasn't learned this aspect of rollback tools. I've pointed xem in the direction of Wikipedia:Vandalism but xe is now, alas, wikilawyering that and constructing straw men. A pointer to Wikipedia:Rollback is probably next.

  Xe isn't doing xyrself any favours by goading xyr disputant with uncivil statements such as "More silliness from Akron-area residents with too much time on their hands", either.

  Xe further isn't doing xyrself any favours by misrepresenting the dispute, here. This isn't a dispute about poorly sourced content. The content is as well sourced, from independent reporters in newspapers that are used for other sources in the article, as any other in the article. The problem isn't that the sourcing is poor. The problem is that the content doesn't reflect what the sources say. This has been mentioned on the talk page, albeit that it took a third opinion from Shell Kinney to actually point this out exlpicitly and focus upon it as the issue. I've raised the protection level on the article from semi-protection to full protection, and PCock has removed the disputed content. Further attempts to settle this, with good wording that does not misrepresent the sources, should be made on the talk page.

  I repeat my advice to JeffBillman a third time: Do not not use vandalism rollback tools to revert edits that are not vandalism and do not go around calling other editors vandals simply because they have a conflict of interest, as I see you've now done on some other editors' user talk pages too. Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It has been my position from the start that this is about WP:BLP concerns regarding poorly sourced content, made by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. I have noted this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. It is my position that we cannot allow the edit to stand as is, per policy. Now, as for the matter at hand, this is a spurious allegation made by the editor who caused the initial controversy in an attempt at retaliation. I will let my record as an active editor on a number of articles speak for itself. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Except that most of what you just said is incorrect. The material is not poorly sourced, it simply doesn't accurately represent the sources. Perhaps instead of engaging in edit warring and calling another editor a vandal (which was not the case here), you could try editing the article yourself to make sure the statement accurately reflects what is said in the sources. Since the subject of the article asked you to remove the material, your reverts are just as conflicted and ill thought out as the other editors additions. This has been handled poorly by both parties. Shell ^babelfish 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Shell, if a user with the same name as a person who is suing the subject of an article edits about that lawsuit, and then persists in making that edit after it has been reported to the BLP Noticeboard, I call that vandalism. If that's wrong, I do honestly apologize, but what I'm trying to say here is that I was earnestly trying to follow policy, not circumvent it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • It is wrong. Vandalism, as defined at WP:VAN must be willfully disruptive. That means that it must be blatantly obvious that the editor meant to harm the article. Your use of the term is against policy.

          I will point out that the COI claims are warranted and JamesRenner has had problems with this before (see his talk page) but that still doesn't equate to vandalism. -- Atama頭 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

          • As you are the third person to tell me this, I will recant. I really don't think this warrants a block against me, though. Again, I was sincerely attempting to adhere to policy. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Vandalism is not defined as "stuff I decide it is, so I can use my rollback tool to revert it". Insofar as the edits are not made with the intent to vandalize Wikipedia, as described at WP:VANDALISM, then the rollback tool should not be used to revert them. This is clear, and was part of the stipulations that you agreed to when you asked for the tool. Since these edits are not vandalism, you are required to make a good-faith attempt to explain (in edit summaries, and also probably at the article talk page) WHY you are reverting them. Since the rollback tool does not use edit summaries, it should NOT be used to revert these types of edits. If you continue to use the rollback tool inappropriately, it can be taken away at any time by any administrator. --Jayron32 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Jayron, you're not going to believe this... but I didn't realize I had this special tool. To be more specific, I had thought this was a tool available to all editors. I don't recall asking for it. If we can resolve this simply by my agreeing to give up the tool, I will gladly do so. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Don't sweat it. No blocks will be handed out today. We appreciate your desire to hold BLPs to a high standard of referencing. But in doing so, please take care to assume good faith and to carefully explain exactly what the problem is; which in this case appears to be that the sources are not accurately being represented. I am certain everyone is now aware of the problem. Your intent was good here, its just that your execution was stirring up some unneccessary drama. Please continue to enforce our WP:BLP policies, but also please try to do so in as clear, and non-antigonistic manner as possible. I'm marking this as resolved. --Jayron32 01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
              • In Jeff's defence, the rollback tool is not exclusively for vandalism, but for edits that are clearly inappropriate, including vandalism. This was a serious BLP violation, where the sources did not support what was being added. We are meant to react immediately to those, so in that sense Jeff did the right thing. What I would say is that he shouldn't have rolled back so often, but should have approached others for help sooner, rather than trying to handle it alone. But JamesRenner's edit was clearly inappropriate as sourced — not to mention that, as one of the parties (assuming it's really him), he should not be editing that article at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                • You haven't read what the edit summaries on the diffs actually said. Go and read them. There's no but-it-might-have-been-reversion-for-something-else wriggle room here. After you've read the edit summaries, consider the point made in the advice originally given, that calling someone a vandal in edit summaries for 2 hours escalates a situation. I've pointed out already, in other discussion that you've also missed, that JeffBillman had previously been reverting without using vandalism rollback tools, a week ago. And — Lo! — there wasn't a single "JeffBillman continues to undo them and claim it is vandalism" complaint on this page at the time. No repeatedly calling someone a vandal in edit summaries and goading disputants on xyr user talk pages ⇒ no escalation of the dispute and no tempers flared. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that using whatever tool called it vandalism wasn't the best idea; though the rollback tool doesn't do that, and I thought it was his use of rollback that was the issue. Anyway, as Jayron had closed the thread, I probably shouldn't have commented. I just wanted to make a point in Jeff's favour that, BLP-wise, he did the right thing, but I'll say no more about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent sock drawer at TFA

Could some helpful checkuser have a look at Jdfngkjfnd (talk · contribs) please? There appears to be a fairly substantial sock drawer vandalizing today's featured article plus some talk pages of people reverting. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPI. There is a special section there for "quick requests" although this sounds like a full investigation type situation to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I didn't realize they did quick requests there. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sedna10387

I'm getting tired of dealing with Sedna10387 (talk · contribs), who seems intent, despite all the good advice he's got from other editors, on introducing into WP inappropriate articles about various aspects and institutions of his hometown. His most recent creation is Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings, which I've nominated at AfD; but previous articles of his have been speedied, AfD'd, speedied after recreation, and deleted as copyvio. There's also the problem that he uploads numerous nonfree logos to place in his articles, which then have to be tagged for deletion after the articles themselves are deleted. I think the kid is editing in good faith; but he seems unwilling to comply with WP policies and procedures, and I think the time has come for a block until he agrees to so comply and shows an understanding of what he's agreeing to. (If anyone thinks he hasn't been sufficiently warned or that other editors have not made an effort to educate him, trawl through the history of his talk page, most of the messages on which he's blanked at various times.) Deor (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, he's moved Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings back into his user space in an attempt to short-circuit the deletion discussion. (He did this before with Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge.) He seems to think that if he can only store everything in his user space until no one's looking, he can slip it back into article space without addressing any of the material's deficiencies. I've undone the move (not sure whether that was the right thing to do, but I'm rapidly losing what little patience I had left). Deor (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD notice says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Moving the article into userspace is de facto blanking the article. It needs to be evaluated on its merits, not userfied and restored to article space when the danger is past. I think moving it back was right.

My message to him is among those which has been blanked in the past; I informed him of some copyright concerns, including with images here. His only response was to remove the {{npd}} tag from the images, File:2nd building.jpg & File:Frank and mary's.JPG, with his IP. (No guesswork or outing there; see [1]. That & contribs make this a gimme.) This does seem to reflect a history of hoping problems will go away without addressing them directly. Not sure if a block is necessary (it may be, but I haven't looked extensively at recent edits), but if this kind of tag removal to preserve content out of process continues, it certainly will be. I believe he's working in good faith, but communication is essential. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that there is more than one city in America called "Pittsboro", so even if the article were notable (as opposed to being an advertising tool of the chamber of commerce), its title would need to specify which Pittsboro it's referring to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

←I've left him a fairly detailed note about how to interact with the community. Hopefully, he will be responsive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not looking good, no response as of yet tho the editor has had some fun updating their userpage. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's left me a note at my talk page. There may be hope. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IP personal attacks & WP:BLP violations

Resolved

 – Soapboxing reverted, attempted outing oversighted, IP blocked, suspicion of additional sock proven unnecessary (for now). Nothing left to do here. Tim Song (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to personally address this because this IP has turned his attention to attacking editors that have reverted his talk page posts and hope someone else will please revert/remove his personal attack upon me from the IP talk page and also address the overriding issue of his attack posts on actor article talk pages. IP 75.128.20.15 has posted a barely changed rant about actor salaries to Talk:Brad Pitt [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], then moved to Talk:Angelina Jolie [10] [11], then on to Talk:Reese Witherspoon [12] [13]. When the IP was warned about such postings, he responded by posting on talk pages, basically accusing myself and another editor of working for these actors to keep their salaries secret. See User talk:ThinkBlue postings [14] [15] [16] and my talk page posting [17] and postings on his own talk page [18]. This died down for a few days, then the IP returned to again post the rant, this time on Talk:Nicolas Cage [19], at which time I posted a final warning about the posts [20]. Today, he posted this rant on his talk page, which included a link to image shack with a screenshot of my contributions page and his added allegations that I work for various persons as a publicity agent [21]. I am contacting image shack about removing the screenshot, but I would appreciate administrator intervention at this point based on the personal attacks made againt myself and User:ThinkBlue, the many WP:BLP violations which were all addressed by removing the rants and the attempt at outing with the content about me personally on the IP talk page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted the remaining unreverted soapboxing and revoked the editor's editing privileges for a period that is double the length of time that this has been continuing up until now. Checking the contributions history shows nothing but soapboxing and harrassment of other editors, with no actual contributions towards this project's goals, since 2009-08-11. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Forwarded the attempted outing to oversight. Evil saltine (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• See this edit. Quack quack? Tim Song (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw. It didn't seem worth any action. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like an isolated occurence. Though how that IP manages to find this one IP talk page of all pages is beyond me. Tim Song (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eb500

Resolved

 – No need for admin intervention here, users directed to WP:RFC. --Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eb500 (talk · contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eb500&action=edit&redlink=1 User keeps vandalising religious data from a trusted source in the Albania article, and refuses do discuss the issue despite being reverted by numerous editors and told to discuss in talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this thread. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think he needs a strong warning from an admin.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

4 edits since Sept 1 ... an attempt to explain his side/reference on the article talkpage. I fail to see this as vandalism, let alone repeated vandalism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Eb500 failing to add upon his edits with a reference, I don't see any wrongdoing here neither. Also, from looking at the article talk page it seems that there are other users who disagree with I Pakapshem. I think in this case a Request for Comment is in order - there's no need for admin intervention here. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look carefully, he is vandalising the data from a sourced survey and is not merely adding new data alongside the survey. Changing the data from a source is vandalising.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear users, please check this page on wikipedia about muslims in Albania:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_by_country , muslims are from 65% to 70%, and check the U.S department of state website:http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90160.htm , the same percentage, the information which is usually written by some users don't have reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb500 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear user, see talk page for explanation of this 65% -70% obselete numbers the US department, SOMETIMES uses mistakingly. See CIA factbook as well. Also see that the numbers posted there are clearly referenced to a survey conducted by three universities and they should not be vandalised. --I Pakapshem (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

persistent vandal of population figures

It's obvious that C filev (talk · contribs) is the same guy as the population vandal that was discussed in Croats article, and the same as 114.76.205.60, 91.150.103.172, 78.3.240.245 and many many other IPs, probably also 74.216.33.161. He was told unambiguosly to use only population figures from reliable sources, and he he has been reverted literally dozens of times, but he keeps making smaller any population figures that he doesn't believe to be correct, even if it contradicts the cited source [22][23][24][25][26] and he changes the numbers that are obtained from adding up the figures found in RS if he doesn't agree with them [27][28]. Putting together the edits of the account and his IPs he has gone 3RR on some articles, and he has been slow edit-warring for months over many articles.(for example in Croats he reverted 9 times in 7 days [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]) He keeps coming back to articles and creating messes that multiple editors keep having to clean up. I already warned him a couple of times in IP talk pages[38]

Please indef-block him as it's obvious by now that he is not interested in respecting WP:V, and he had plenty of time to improve his behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog)

I'm asking for input from uninvolved administrators on some of my actions. Months ago, there was a bitter edit war at Maltese (dog) between User:Imbris and User:Pietru. Mainly the edit war was a nationalistic pride one. The Maltese dog breed sounds like it's named for Malta but actually there's a lot in the sources that show it may be named for Mljet, an island currently in Croatia. Imbris was largely pushing too hard for the Croatian viewpoint, and Pietru was pushing too hard against it. The article is relatively balanced now, thanks in part to Pietru leaving shortly after a final warning from User:Tanthalas39 and block over reverts at the article [39] [40]. See Pietru's contribs: [41] - apart from a handful of edits, he stopped editing in April.

Recently, User:Notpietru has made a few edits to Maltese (dog). Notpietru is Pietru, though I had to go digging to confirm this -- Notpietru added a note on User:Pietru about his new identity. I redirected Pietru's user and user talk pages and added a note on User:Notpietru about his old identity but he reverted it. Not a big deal, but Pietru had a substantial block record and given that his username denies the link that is true, I thought a note would be prudent.

Much more concerning to me is that Pietru has been leveling accusations against Imbris on Maltese (dog), undeservedly, out of the blue. He added an unnecessary Wikilink for one of the uses of "Malta" in the article, with a very inappropriate, baiting edit summary: [42]. I told him I thought this was unfair and inflammatory (since Imbris hadn't made any substantially new edits for a long time): [43]. Imbris ended up reverting the link, which is appropriate considering that Malta is mentioned many times in the article and there is no need to link it every time; the MOS backs him up, and we all know this because it's one of the old issues from before. Notpietru reverted the revert, calling it "vandalism" [44]. I warned him not to make unfounded accusations of vandalism. [45]. Notpietru has now deleted my warnings, including my note about his old user name, and has insinuated that he thinks I'm bullying him User talk:Mangojuice#Maltese dog.

Notpietru is clearly trying to bait Imbris into responding, and I don't want to see the article degenerate into another war. I am not asking for a block, but I think Notpietru needs to hear this from someone other than me. Mangojuice^talk 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not edited the article since: Imbris' nationalistic slant on editing is evident, just go through their talkpage. I have no interest in "baiting" Imbris, or causing upset over the dog article. Nice to see that there's nothing more important you've got to be dealing with than this, Mango. The project's in safe hands! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why bring up this claim that Imbris has a nationalistic slant on editing? All you are doing is trying to resurrect an old personal conflict. Please just stop it. Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to continue. Please read my comment above (again, comprehension). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think there's little doubt User:Imbris has a "nationalistic slant" on editing, and this is from another Croat. :) In fact, I'd go as far as to say that's something of an understatement in my opinion. Virtually all his edits are tied to conflicts involving Croatian nationalism. I myself am getting worn down just trying to keep-up with his disputes, particularly the five-month edit-war on Hey, Slavs instigated by his edits. To be honest when I noticed edits on Maltese (dog) in his contribs I actually thought he does some real editing. Turns-out that's just another one of his many disputes.

As Imbris shall surely soon point out, I am among the group of users plagued by his attentions (among others User:Ivan Štambuk, User:No such user and myself). However, reducing this to "they're all the same, these are personal grudges" does not appear to be the proper and objective way to view all sides of this dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) I got involved to the issue about Maltese (dog) because the unreferenced claims that Malta Island was the acknowledged Country of origin. The Patronage over the breed "belongs" to Italy. (2) Personaly I have not any POV against Malta, and can say that Pietru made fantastic editing on all Malta issues. (3) Mangojuice helped the article greatly, anyone working with him can say he is among the best editors. (4) Even if Mangojuice portrays the issues differently, Pietru and I had not edit-warred on Malta/Mljet, because Pietru agreed that both should be mentioned. At that point in time Pietru WP:OWNED the article, and I had to list numerous sources to prove to him that the Fédération Cynologique Internationale source was reliable by going deep as searching for the sources from Ancient Greek and Roman times. Namely the FCI lists all three locations it the specific order (that is sadly not the order of listing those three places on Wiki), the FCI also gives only the Patronage to Italy. (5) I do not know how my editing on the issue of the Maltese Dog could be characterized as nationalist because of the simple reason that I wanted to include Italy as the country responsible for the breed, and portray the sources honestly and authentically. (6) The only thing I tryed out of the ordinary was to indulge Pietru and list all three names of the dog in the Croatian, Maltese and Italian language (the order of listing was a problem at first). Then it was established that there is no specific name for the breed in the Maltese language, so the issue was put to rest by not including any local names, which is in reality sad because the other two variants are not listed. (7) Also in the article where Malta is linked to its Republic of Malta article, Italy is linked to its Republic of Italy article, I wanted to put the word Croatia (wikilinked) in context of the island Mljet, but that attempt was characterized as POV by some users. (8) I belive that in such sittuations when we all know that Melita on Sicily has least evidence (reliable sources), Malta has some, and Mljet has a majority of sources, that it should be acceptable to list in brackets the country in which that island is placed. Pietru at first was reluctant to list Melita on Sicily and Mljet in the Adriatic near Dalmatia, then he allowed the entry but demanded we do not include as much of the historical section in the article, in order to cover-up. (9) I was "pushing" for inclusion of all reliable sources that shed light on how the breed was developed and perceived at different times in history, but the inclusion of some viable data like the fact that the dog was called botoli in Italy, and Fisting hound, which were descriptions of the dog like the Bichon, the Shock Dog, the Ladies Dog. (10) The article before I came along spoke of cuddling creatures, and glorified the breed by "specific verses", it spoke only of Malta as the centre of attention. Etc...

As for the accusations made by DIREKTOR, he should be warned not to slander and to realize that my editing in the field of former Yugoslavia is purely benevolent. I belive that DIREKTOR is concerned because that field is no longer his own, and only his. I have edited in a number of fields and never met a user who is so poisoned with hatred like Mr. DIREKTOR. Mr. DIREKTOR once wrote that Serbs and Croats are one nation speaking one language, this view is not supported anymore both by Serbs and Croats as well. On his user page Mr. DIREKTOR speaks of his Italian ancestry and Slavic ancestry. The fact that he was born in Split, Yugoslavia (now Croatia) has nothing to do with his POV. I hope that the admins of this great Wiki realize that one can be a nationalist of a defunct state, like in this case Yugoslavia. One can still push Yugoslav POV, by this I do not mean that someone is automatically a communist (even a socialist) because Yugoslavia was more than its socio-political system.

The remark made by Mr. DIREKTOR is completely unfounded, it is null and void and he should really reconsider his own record in attaining NPOV and cordial contributory techniques. For instance I edited on Auja al-Hafir, where is the POV he so blatantly argues.

Everything Mr. DIREKTOR said is out of pure spite, I have asked for ANI only once, when Pietru offended me, but Mr. DIREKTOR push for ANI interventions all the time, even without just cause.

However this thread is not about Mr. DIREKTOR and myself, it is about Pietru.

As for the advice on Pietru, this is simply wrong, the tone and disrespect towards Mangojuice, if Pietru would stop making insinuations about other users that would be great.

Imbris (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blabla. Imbris, I shan't hide my disdain for you (justified as I may feel it to be); hence, I shall not involve myself in anything you do here, in hopes of keeping some sort of civil peace. If our paths cross again, we'll have to work something out in a clear and controlled manner. Until then, I feel it is fairly obvious that your editing "style" on this project flies in the face of any civilized approach (ahem...not that mine's always been above reproach) and I shudder to think what this may mean for your attitudes in life generally. Luckily, I don't much care.

DIREKTOR... it seems that Imbris makes a habit of fighting with various editors here, because his edits are by their very nature contentious. Good luck; if I may offer one piece of advice, I'd suggest distancing yourself from that individual and getting along with other things. There is plenty of time for others to correct errors made... vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur.

That's all folks. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:KJTRGKL repeatedly recreating an article deleted by AfD

List of Khatri Gotras and clans and List of Khatri Surnames were deleted by AfD recently (here and here). Since then KJTRGKL (talk · contribs) has been recreating those under different titles. I'd brought this to the attention of User:JForget who salted titles as they were created, but every day one or two new titles come up. KJTRGKL doesn't respond to messages or templated warnings on their talk page. JForget suggested I bring this up either here or AIV. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked until the user begins to communicate about the issue. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, hopefully it helps. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre, related articles and socks

Resolved

 – IPs blocked, socks laundered. Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By coincidence I just noticed this request] at the NPOV board for a close look at this particular article. I had just spent the last few minutes looking at related articles where pov editing is taking place. Wichita massacre is being edited by Birdbath 10 (talk · contribs) and Smithicrnm (talk · contribs). Related articles are being edited by Ptho (talk · contribs) and WVBN8 (talk · contribs) -- all four of these accounts are making similar edits to similar articles, none of them have made more than 5 edits -- they look like throwaway sock accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm off to bed by the way. I know I should notify them, but I've been up since well before the birds and given their edits... Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, have the birds been editing again? I thought I had closed the window. My bad :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Birdbath 10 is blocked as a sock of Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs); these editors all seem to have similar agendas, the edits made by both Birdbath 10 and Smithicrnm to media blackout were pretty much identical; and the two newer editors are reverting to each others' versions. This looks like some sockpuppetry - anyone hear quacking? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, quack quack -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked them all, but as they are clearly throwaway accounts I expect the editor back. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another quack.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I got that one. Anyone have the time to get a SPI going here? I don't right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And Reedpk (talk · contribs). Is there any point to an SPI? I've protected some of the articles. Why let the vandal have fun? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser could deal with the flurry at the source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks blocked, IPs blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal continues after final warning

IP User:72.94.80.43 has repeatedly posted false info on List of DirecTV channels after several warnings to stop. I looked at their history at it also posts often on List of Dish Network channels and List of Verizon FiOS channels as well as some children's channel articles. They always change PBS, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel listings on the lineups so I'm guessing the user is a minor. All of the correct channel lineups can be found at each service's website and they have no source for the lineups changing. Please block them. AIV refused to act thinking they were "good faith edits". Clearly they are NOT, just immature edits by a child. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted the IP to this discussion. Please remember, as a courtesy, to notify users when you report them here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to put user so you sent it the wrong person. I'll notify them. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually sent it to the talk page for the "article" 72.94.80.43. Haha!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that can be speedy deleted if it hasn't already. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait---there's a known vandal who does this. What was dude's name again??? It's not MascotGuy, is it? or Bambifan? There was one user who used to get reported a lot by a younger user, til somebody told him to stop..Yeah, I know, this is real helpful--but I do recall there being a vandal who was focused largely on TV stations. If anyone remembers, please jump in.... GJC 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, MascotGuy likes Disney, I believe. But he edits with registered usernames, not IP adresses.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't someone just block the IP? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting opportunity for junior admin squad member to use their amazing powers of rollback!

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.

---

A user has been adding spurious "references" to articles which appears to be nothing more than typical spamming. Please see Special:Contributions/Traciodea. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Junior admin squad...? I take it you didn't actually mean your apology the other day. → ROUX ₪ 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to apologise again? Is there a preferred mode of address? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given how obviously meaningless the previous apology was, there's little point in wasting everyone's time with another. In the future, refrain from this sort of snide behaviour. Instead just say "Here's a problem, can someone address it?" But of course you knew that, didn't you? Which rather makes one wonder what point you were attempting to make here. → ROUX ₪ 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly a lot less WP:POINTy than this. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I wonder what point you are attempting to make here? I saw a problem and I brought it here for attention. Rather than addressing the problem, you immediately posted a message critical of how I phrased the title. I think "wannabe admins" is insulting and inaccurate since many of those will never be admins. When I asked you to suggest another name, you called into question first my apology of yesterday and now my intentions for posting here. Did you even look at the issue I was trying to get addressed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you posted this here for the attention of "wannabe admins"? You are actually accepting that accusation with your comment :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought one of the non-admin ANI regulars would appreciate the chance to flex their rollback muscles. They are usually the first ones to comment on any new postings here, so I know they are watching. It wasn't meant to be insulting (that's why I didn't say "wanna-be admins"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits look ok and seem to contain the material cited to. There may be a COI issue but that's it. Can we mark this as resolved? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle. You need edit diffs delicious and no silly titles. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Change the title of this section, add edit diffs, before this is closed. Ikip (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Ah. Have I been too hasty? I reverted them all. Those I looked at did have some relevance, but such a huge number of links (well over 30) to his two books, articles about both of which have been speedy-tagged, looked like unacceptable spamming. I also gave him uw-spam3, though he seemed to have stopped before Delicious carbuncle's post here. Would somebody please have a look and see if I have been too quick off the mark? JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

well the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taco&diff=prev&oldid=312983390 certainly seemed to violate WP:EL at the very least. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. I spot-checked the links before I brought this here. While they are tangentially relevant, they definitely aren't appropriate as references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This one seems a really desperate attempt to get a link plugged in anywhere regardless of relevance. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like they are a mix of relevant and not relevant. For example this one seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No one bothered to contact the editor that this conversation is going on, I am doing that now. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please correct me if I am wrong. Being a complete outsider to this argument. This appears to be the background which Delicious carbuncle, didn't do, and refuses to do.[46]

Traciodea begins to add references from a nonnotable website www.bviguides.com on several pages. He also creates Smartish Pace and BVI Yacht Guide. Which User:JohnCD and Delicious_carbuncle put up for deletion, adding deletion templates on Traciodea's talk page.

There is no real discusion beyond the warning templates before it is, in my opinion, inappropriately escalated here. I will attept to talk to the editor, if the editor continues to add these nonnotable sites, he probalby should be blocked. Could this have been handled better? Yes. There is some major WP:BITE in how this was handled. I strongly agree with JoshuaZ, please close this discussion or move to WP:COI. Ikip (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor ignored the level one warning I left for them when I came across their first bit of spam. I looked at their contributions and noticed an article created by them. I tagged it for CSD and left them a templated message. I also took the time to leave them a handwritten message about COI (which was obvious from the content of the deleted article and the username). They ignored these and subsequently created another article, also speedied. I spot-checked the other links they had added as "references", saw that it was simply spam and brought the matter here so that someone with rollback could correct it. I saw no point in telling an overt spammer that they were being discussed here, after they had ignored earlier messages. I do think that Ikip leaving them a message saying "Delicious carbuncle is discussing you..." and giving barnstars to spammers is, at the very least, odd. JohnCD, rather than spending time picking apart words here, took action and fixed the problem. The matter is resolved as far as I am concerned and it would be nice not to have to defend myself against these petty attacks here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First, disinegnuousness--your 'explanation' for the ridiculous title--is insulting to our intelligence. Second, advising users you have brought them up on ANI is not optional. See the header of this page. While the initial issue has been dealt with, it seems like an excellent time to discuss your behaviour, which is problematic in the extreme, particularly in light of your attacks yesterday and the subsequent empty apology. → ROUX ₪ 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong the title. Of course I don't know what happened yesterday but I don't see a problem with calling rollbackers junior admins when so many of them have that ambition. I have rollback rights myself. He's just trying to be funny.--Patton123 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• For f!c!s sake would you lot give it a rest. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin powers are truly awesome. They are roughly on the same level of awesomeness as parking in the visitors' spaces. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like parking in vistor's spaces...except people run up to you, tell you that you are corrupt and abusing your parking privileges, get mad when you move their bicycle out of the handicapped space, "UR GAY LOLOLOLOLOL", and threaten to write the company you are visiting to remove your visitor privileges because you happened to pick up a dog turd and throw it away. --Smashville^talk 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke any sleeping dogs -- or flog any dead horses, either -- but I find Roux's comments about my sincerity hurtful and personally insulting. I don't even know the meaning of the word "disinegnuousness" and I reject the idea that my apology of yesterday was "empty", particularly as it included the word "sincere" right in it. I hope we can all just try to get along, since we're all working on the same project here. Thanks, and please let this thread die it's natural death now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it ingenous for you then: stop being disruptive. Your comments make it abundantly clear that that is what you intend. — neuro^(talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks - archive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User 68.4.46.105

This anonymous user has been active since Oct 2008 and blanks their user talk page countless times shortly after anybody including administrators post comments or warnings on their behavior which has included vandalism on many occasions. They simply do not seem to understand how good faith works works on Wikipedia and I believe they deserve at least a temporary ban. Kiwisoup (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with blanking one's own talkpage, see WP:BLANKING. The editor's recent article contributions look to be productive or at least in good-faith.  Skomorokh  20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Trubarbie

Resolved

 – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly introduced unsourced claims into the (BLP) article regarding musician Angelo Moore, in particular identifying/naming his wife/ex-wife, minor child, and supposed current girlfriend. After I removed these claims as unsourced -- as WP:BLP not only allows but pretty much requires, since the individuals named are not public figures, and both the names and claimed relationships are unsourced in the article and unverifiable by Google searching, User:Trubarbie reinserted the text. She then posted to my talk page claiming to be Moore's ex-wife and demanding that her unsourced contributions be left in place. I gave what I hope is an appropriate boilerplate response; she's ignored it, and I've put a warning on her talk page.

Trubarbie has since reinserted the unsourced content twice more, and I've removed it twice more. On balance, I see no particular benefit from including the information about these three private people -- about whom virtually nothing else relevant is online, aside from a minimal imdb reference and the expected mirrorsites. If the claims turn out to be true, the delay in waiting for verification is harmless, If the claims are false, allowing them to stand in Wikipedia for any length of time might mean that the claims will linger on in mirrorsites and such indefinitely, to the potential embarassment/discomfiture of private people, if not worse.

Usually the opposite situation arises: an article subject wants material removed. Here, the article subject/a claimed representative wants unsourced material inserted. I'm more than a little dubious when someone claiming to be an ex-spouse wants her ex's new girlfriend named in the article . . . So have I handled this approprately, and can somebody else with more clout than me keep an eye on this to keep it fro getting out. Trubarbie's ignored my responses so far, and though I've tried to keep my comments low-key, there's no way to give her the carte blanche she seems to want regarding the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I handed her a 12-hour block for 3RR, and let her know not to insert that again unless she's got sources for it. Hopefully that'll be the end of it. Blueboy96 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Luisadiel

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

What does this come under and how do we get rid of it? RaseaC (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically it hasn't done anything yet, except to create a user page that looks like it was written by someone who just started studying English yesterday. But until it actually edits something, there's no apparent grounds for a block, if that's what you're getting at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily a block but can we remove the content/talk page? It's not really a biggie, he's not hurting anyone, was just curious really. RaseaC (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it violate policy in some way, other than being in broken English? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they've made it clear that they're only here for social networking and have no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia. (There should be a policy for this. And there will be one, buried under thousands of Wikipedia essays, that I never will have noticed. Sad.) A little insignificant (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem quite that way to me, but we'll see what the admins have to say, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose any disciplinary action, we don't bite the newbies. Perhaps someone who speaks Spanish could simply explain the purpose of Wikipedia, and express out hope that he participates, in very nice terms. Also that he may feel more comfortable at the Spanish Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:UNBANNABLE143125134

Resolved

 – indef DMacks (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

UNBANNABLE143125134 (talk · contribs)'s User name gives me pause to begin with, and their personal attack as their third edit just seals it. Blockable, or do they have to be given more warnings? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And now their fourth edit - [47]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, they've been blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

Hello I am being stalked by Users IJA and Kedadi both of whom are reverting any changes I made with regards to Kosovo related articles. I'm trying to promote neutrality here but both of these fellows (whom I assume to be Albanian) are trying to undermine that. I would appreciate help from an Admin on how to deal with this matter. If there is a way to hide my contributions page from their view or if there is some other way to deal with stalkers which you know of in the past, please contact me. Thank you! Jenga3 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's more correct to say that you are in a content dispute with those editors, which is the subject of discussion at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo#All Tables Need Numbering. This does not make them stalkers. That is not an appellation that one should throw around lightly. Indeed, you haven't any edits outside of that subject area in the past week to actually be stalked. And at Talk:Kosovo, your edit actually followed that of Kedadi.

  The way to deal with this matter is this: Stop leaping to the conclusion that everyone you deal with who disagrees with you is a stalker, against whom you must use technical measures to get your own way in content disputes, and start regarding your fellow editors as ordinary human beings, that you talk to. They have extended you that courtesy, on your talk page at User talk:Jenga3#numbered table. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not stalking this user. I reverted one of his/her edits and made an explanation on his talk page after he/ she contacted me first. Also Jenga3 is the only user which supports his/her edits, around 8 users including myself disagree with his/ her edits. He/she has failed to make a consensus. I also find it rather weird that I have been accused of stalking. Regards IJA (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If these people are not stalking me, then how did IJN just find this post? Again, just tell me how to hide my contributions page so these people can't "follow" me (for lack of a better term), if you can't deal with this matter then give me the tools to do so myself Jenga3 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you've got mine and IJA's kedadial 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't stalk people. Jenga3 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, don't know what else to say, welcome to WP and happy editing. kedadial 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could say that you won't stalk me or revert any changes I make simply because you disagree with me.... Jenga3 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will never ever revert you (as I have never reverted you in the past) IF you reach a WP:Consensus. kedadial 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But you will still stalk me and revert every change I make without reaching a consensus first, even if I have valid sources and reasoning? Nice Jenga3 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be the "D" portion of the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold, it was reverted, you're then not allowed to re-add it unless you have discussed it and it has consensus. Simply keeping an eye on someone's contributions, and fixing things that are not done following policy is not "stalking" or even Wikihounding or Wikipoodling, so stop calling it that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is perfectly legal to "follow" these two individuals and revert each of their edits until a thourough consensus was reached in the discussion page? Again, this is not about just one article, IJA has reverted other edits I made for no reason. I can't be expected to discuss every spelling/grammar edit, every edit with a source or every neutrality edit because that would take weeks or months for a single edit. Jenga3 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am discussing the article the two of them feel strongly about, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people following me and reverting decisions I make without contacting me or engaging in any sort of discourse. Jenga3 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenga3, you're actually supposed to have told IJA and Kedadi that you had reported them here. So you shouldn't have been surprised when they turned up. There is no way of keeping your contribution list hidden - this is a public encyclopaedia with an open history trail. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenga3...I have reviewed your contributions. Of all of your edits since Aug 2009, only 3 have edit summaries. If you expect your contributions to be readily identifiable (and less likely to be auto-reverted) then please use an edit summary. Simple things like "fix spelling" or "fix grammar" obviously do not need discussion, and will make great edit summaries. Warning: saying "fix spelling" in an edit summary, and actually changing the content instead will raise great ire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is my duty as a wikipedian to view Jengar3's edits encase he/she maskes any more disruptive edits. Besides, if Jengar3 has nothing to hide, Jengar3 should have nothing to fear. There is a reason why everyone can view our contributions... I'll let you figure that out? IJA (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is my duty as a human being to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is right now the only reason I'm not going through IJA history and reverting all his changes until he has discussed them thoroughly. It should be noted that today my friends, you have lost another neutral person. Sure, it probably does not matter if one guy leaves wikipedia over the unchecked and biased individuals who have been allowed to roam here, but I suspect I am not the first to leave over this, or the last. Jenga3 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale non-consensual and unreferenced changes to musical genre

Resolved

 – blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sublimefan97 is busily changing genres in a lot of articles--more than I can list here, but see his contributions. He has been asked and warned a number of times; a couple of editors, myself included, see these changes as vandalism. Sublimefan does not provide edit summaries, let alone references, for any of these changes, and on occasion makes a mockery out of the idea of referencing: in this edit, he cites a 1991 remark by Les Claypool as justification to change the band's genre to [[Polka|Psychedelic polka]] and remove all the other genres. Claypool might appreciate the joke, but those editors who spent a lot of time reversing all these changes don't think it's so funny. I consider this vandalism, but an IP at AIV disagreed, and suggested I go here--so here I am. Your advice is kindly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such edits are vandalism.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. Of course it isn't vandalism. Please read the vandalism policy. Vandalism isn't to be confused with editing against consensus or policy or guidelines (all of which may be disruptive), it's a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. --TS 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, call us dumb, but also call these practices "disruptive editing"; ANI is still the right place. Note the warnings on the user's talk page and the complete lack of communication. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sublimefan97 (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by Badger Drink

Resolved

 – Sent to the bullpen for a suitable interval

Badger Drink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is making pointy and absurd category additions to existing baseball teams, such as the San Francisco Giants, labeling them "defunct". He's already been warned and won't stop. I'm hopeful that one of the admin umpires here can either issue him a warning he'll pay attention to, or failing that, send him to the showers for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it's more fun to scream in their faces, throw tantrums, and kick dirt at them :) MuZemike 03:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for three hours. I'll inform Badger Drink that the disruptive behavior is the only problem, and that ceasing that behavior will open up opportunities for more effective and more collegial discourse. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that this is the editor's second block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure of requested move

Resolved

 – Withdrawn --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin rule on the requested move at Talk:Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard#Move_Back? The discussion has run for 5 days, and now seems to have descended into snippyness rather than productive debate. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move discussions usually last seven days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod is an improperly formatted AFD (started by an IP) which appears to be attracting a lot of newbies and SPA accounts. I would say "sockpuppets" but I don't want to upset anyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've speedily closed the discussion; see my closing rationale for details. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone might want to protect the AfD page... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this on Julian's page - the article should be at AFD - closing after one day because of off-site activity is only a short-term solution. Once I've had a response off Julian I plan to AFD it again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ripper404

Resolved

 – indef'd by User:Dreadstar. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly added WP:BLP violations to Mark Wahlberg and I've reverted them a couple times, taking time to explain in the edit summary why the changes were inappropriate. Besides the BLP issues, the edits leave fragmented sentences and poor grammar. When I looked at his talk page to leave a warning about this, I saw that he had just been blocked in February 2009 and again last month for the same issues on the same page and for gross incivility, so I left a final warning regarding the defamatory edits, here. This was the response. I don't believe this person has any intention of editing cooperatively or productively. This is unacceptable behavior and editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeat offender. After this edit, I am shocked that he was given another chance. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After examining Ripper404's block log and latest edits, I've indef blocked the account. Dreadstar ☥ 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I issued a snappy comeback to Ripper404's violations of WP:CIVIL. I think his violations are silly anyhow. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto

Resolved

 –  Done--Jayron32 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Think we could get a semi protect of Hernando de Soto? It's that part of history class at the beginning of the year, and the IP users have a field day vandalizing it, if it could be semi-ed for a week or 2, it would sure cut down on the vandal reverts. I've made 4 in the last 12 hrs or so. Thanks. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In the future, the correct place to report this for quick action is WP:RFPP. Happy editing! --Jayron32 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Didn't really need quick action, lol, so this was fine. I just had to revert it so many times over the last week, and remembered how it seemed non stop on this article at this same time last year. This shoul,d slow'em down, and in a month they should be moved on to something else.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edit-warring IP

Resolved

 – 1 x blocked proxy -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please have a good hard look at 61.175.232.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's an IP in China, which was blocked in February for having been abused for sockpuppetry by one user, appeared again in May self-identifying as another, banned user ("General Tojo"), and is now edit-warring on Macedonia, breaking the Arbcom-installed 1RR restriction. Probably some open proxy with again some banned user on it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who's been using it today, but it's now a blocked proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it when blocked proxies post their block notices themselves ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:DHawker

DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver. S/he recently racked up a third block for edit-warring on the article. A few days into the block, DHawker is using 219.90.234.177 (talk) to evade the block and continue arguing the same tendentious point that s/he was blocked for ([48]). This is not the first time; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker, where DHawker was let off with a warning for using IPs to circumvent 3RR. I'd like to request administrative review; I am obviously involved, but I feel action is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the possibility that someone else could mimic this editor's arguments to get them blocked for a relatively long time, I've just blocked the IP address used for a week. Feel free to drop me a note if anything else develops. If this editor really is having issues abiding by a block, I expect other issues will crop up soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is trying to keep DHawker silenced, and in reality they are both back and forth with their reverting of each other. DHawker is not an aggressive editor and isn't vandalizing anything. He makes a lot of valid arguments and its for that reason he is being silenced. Feels like friggen kindergarten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the block evasion was the posting of a single comment that mastcell simply deleted (Which is also against our policies, blocked or not). Please review the discussion for which he has been blocked for and see for yourself how threatening DHawker is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome additional input at Talk:Colloidal silver. The above "dialog" is actually par for the course there. I seem to be in the minority with my view that blocks are blocks, and not optional suggestions to be circumvented at will, so more eyes might be useful. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be confused about what Floydian is saying, but it was my understanding that the removal of edits made by someone evading a block is generally approved by policy, not against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That edit is certainly consistent with DHawker's style. The IP GeoLocates to Adelaide, as does this one, where the user acknowleges a (presumably accidentally - I think that was before my tenure at that page) logged out edit. Should I file a SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, and find out that this user is just someone who feels that this article is treated unfairly (As are many of the fringe theory articles, which are often stonewalled by a group of experienced editors that attack anyone with a different point of view, and then ban them as soon as the possibility arises). What a warm welcoming message we send out at wikipedia now. "You don't agree with our view, then shut up or get out!"

Despite the accusations against him of being an account dedicated to edit warring, he has fairly discussed his edits on the talk page of the article. He has provided completely valid research and several references to backup his revisions, and the reverts by other users have all fallen back on a single reference which they use to undo all revisions that shine some light on the reality. The revisions have often ignored the point and picked out an insignificant error in order to justify the revision (For example, see this rediculous revision and the following revision which I made because Aunt Entropy's revision was completely uncalled for). This is not a vandalous user, and should not be treated as such. Period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker is a single purpose editor and has a record of editwarring to promote a fringe view. Now he/she appears to be guilty of block evasion. I'd say the user needs either a long term block or preferably a ban from editing alternative medicine topics and should be encouraged to edit/improve other non-fringe articles. Vsmith (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring to try to force the citation of the non-PubMed journal Scientific Research and Essay (journal website) and now block evasion, all in order to push a fringe point of view, are not suggestive of a constructive editor. I'd certainly support a topic ban. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the ban also. This sort of editing is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is not the first time, I'm moving towards an indef block, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker - same behavior and the same article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pubmed isn't what makes a journal reliable or not, the way the research is conducted determines reliability, so just pushing that on it makes it clear where your bias lay. This is of course, as opposed to the study that bought a product off the internet, tested it, and then concluded that the results from that apply to every instance of colloidal silver (ooooh. Reliable, pubmed says so). I'm sorry, but when it comes to fringe theories, editors are dicks. Especially since, being concluded as a fringe theory, all the admins jump straight to the "if you see it as anything but fringe, you are just promoting it" argument. At best, a ban from the article is warranted. DHawker is not causing issues on the talk page, and his input is valid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@2/0: No need to file an SPI report. Note that DHawker signed the edit. I suppose it is possible that someone went to Adelaide, Australia and posted in exactly DHawker's style, pushing one of DHawker's talking points, solely to get DHawker in trouble on Wikipedia... but William of Ockham would roll over in his grave at that explanation.

@Floydian: This isn't the place to argue sources, but virtually every meaningful and remotely valid medical journal is indexed on MEDLINE. People generally don't want to publish good stuff in non-indexed journals, because other researchers won't find it and won't cite their work or build on it. MEDLINE indexing is not a guarantee of quality - a lot of crappy journals are indexed - but the absence of MEDLINE indexing suggests strongly that we shouldn't assign too much weight to the source.

@Everyone: I would be fine with a ban for DHawker from the article; I can put up with the repetitious agenda-driven talk page abuse as par for the course on these sorts of articles, so if the edit-warring were taken off the table, that would be sufficient from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by block-evading editor removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask for some closure on this? MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

In light of the fact that he engaged in sockpuppetry post-block, and other disruptive conduct including edit-warring prior to the block, I make the following proposals (please make clear which you support/oppose - note that #1 #2 #3 and #4 are alternatives; should there be equal preference, the more restrictive restriction will be enacted):

1. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Colloidal silver, broadly construed.
2. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver-related articles. This topic ban does not include talk pages and related discussions.
3. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver and its talk page.
4. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the Colloidal silver article. This page ban does not include the talk page.
5. [This remedy has been enacted] DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s current block is increased to two weeks for attempting to evade his original block.
6. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to editing with a single account. Should DHawker edit with any other account, he will be considered banned from Wikipedia for 6 months for the first incident, 1 year for the second incident, and indefinitely thereafter.

I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)changed a bit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver, but not its talk page

In all reality, he has not edited anything but colloidal silver (With one or two edits to Argyria). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added your proposal above to avoid confusion - please fix your comment accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the fact that he has been very civil and his reverts are often not the same material being reverted, but different aspects in the article. Yes, occasionally it can escalate into a 3 revert match... Rarely 4... Certainly not 20 like many see before making it here. The point is, these sort of things should be worked out between editors to keep things civil. DHawker has been civil, if not cooperative often with mastcell. I see no reason why any sort of intervention is required, and so I vote the status quo first:

• Support 6, 5 (This he did do). Running down from there it would be 4, 2, 3, 1. I oppose those four choices though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your assertion that DHawker has been "very civil", and with your excuses for his constant edit-warring. I'm also not clear on why I, or anyone, should be expected to go out of our way to work with someone who shows such consistent disregard for this site's most basic behavioral policies. But I will leave this for uninvolved input, since I think both of our positions are fairly clear. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading just the current talk page was journey enough for me. Whew! What strikes me most there is that if you took out all of DHawker's comments, the outcome wouldn't be substantially different. They also unnecessarily personalize the discussion (not the only one, I'm looking at you MastCell, just not as hawkishly) and indulge in conspiracy theories. OTOH, they raise legitimate concerns - but these have largely been dealt with by other editors who have more of a spirit of discussion and compromise (MastCell being one of those too). The article edits are more of a concern, especially the recent ones. Edit warring happens long before 3RR gets breached, it starts with a determination that your own personal version must be the one reflected. On balance, I'd say that DHawker's contributions have not been helpful. If they were the only one advocating for "balance", I'd be concerned about shutting them down, but there are other reasonable voices on both "sides". And of course, editing past a block is a no-go zone and indicates an intention to cause further disruption. So:

• Support 3, 5 and 6 right off the bat. 4 as 2nd choice, but this won't end the combat on the talk page. 1 and 2 I would wait to see how they deal with the page ban. I'd also suggest that they be given a timeframe to edit other non-related articles and come back here for a possible appeal if they show that they can be a productive editor. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Before the axe finally drops please consider this. Mastcell is continually claiming I'm a 'dedicated promoter'. That assertion is probably coloring the decision making here. I challenge Mastcell to actually provide an example of this so-called promotion in the last 12 months. If he has no evidence his entire submission should be questioned.DHawker (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concern over the "dedicated promoter" terminology is warranted. When I reviewed the disussion and edits, I kept in mind that labels don't always describe the contents. What I found though would best be described by the hackneyed phrase "subtle POV-pushing". Possibly not your intent, but you insist on rewording things to be just that tiny bit more favourable to the fringe viewpoint. I was very attentive to checking if alternate views were being adequately discussed and represented in the article. That is already being done by less confrontational editors than yourself. One big error I saw was your conflation of ionic silver with colloidal silver, also the conflation of topical versus internal dosage. It's very important to properly separate topics which can be easily confused by our readership. My impression is that you do seek proper balance in the article, but you aren't aware of what proper balance is, i.e. you want more in the article than is warranted, to "support the case". That might be OK, but your aggressiveness on the talk page and edit-warring on the article tip the balance for me. Other editors than you are getting the job done. Franamax (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment also keep in mind that the reporting user, Mastcell, has himself said he has no problem with the talk page "abuse", so I do not see why being banned from talk pages are even an option to chose from? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  I think this question becomes one I need to answer as the proposer. My interpretation of MastCell's comment was quite different - something to the effect of personally being ready to tolerate the "talk page abuse" if at least the main article disruption is dealt with. I do not wish to needlessly dissuade other editors from editing the concerned pages though, given that few other users would be ready to tolerate it in the same way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm intentionally staying out of this in order to hear some uninvolved opinion, but I will clarify this. I initially felt that I personally could put up with the talk-page abuse - it's not unusual for these sorts of subjects - but I agree with Ncm that it probably dissuades other editors and creates an environment which is not conducive to compromise or consensus. Furthermore, what I've seen since starting this thread has convinced me that a complete topic ban is warranted.

  Seriously: what characteristic of a disruptive editor is missing here? Single-purpose dedication to pushing an agenda at the expense of content policies? Check. Lack of any demonstrable interest in the encyclopedia beyond promoting that narrow agenda? Check. Abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to argue personal opinions while consistently failing to produce any usable sources? Check. Multiple blocks for edit-warring? Check. Multiple blocks for block evasion? Check. This is a hundred times more damaging to the project than simple vandalism, but we're a hundred times less effective in dealing with it. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up to my previous suggestion perhaps you can also provide an example of this 'talk page abuse' apart from the recent occasion when, out of frustration, I suggested he grow up. I've complained on numerous occasions that he's a biased editor. Is that abuse?DHawker (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to deal with your frustration more effectively - telling an editor to grow up is not at all helpful. Where was the need to begin one of your sentences with "what are you raving about MastCell?" Light is what is required - no extra heat please. And certainly, unjustifiably calling an editor biased is another issue in itself. But MastCell specified what was being alluded to in terms of talk page abuse, and examples of it sadly tend to require going through entire discussions - it's not as easy to see as what you consider as one-off comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll second this. I did read the entire current talk page, and no DHawker, you're out of line. You question the motives of the editor rather than the substance of the edit. You question the motives of entire institutions rather than find your own reliable sources, That's just not on here, not because we need to hew to the status quo, rather because if we discard our pillars we're left in a swamp. I could likely dig up more examples than what Ncm has shown, maybe I'll try that tomorrow. It's a long slog through that talk page. Just for now, I'd suggest you aim for a compromise here. Franamax (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per support for remedy 5, blocked for an additional week for block evasion; if he wants to edit and converse, he can go through the channels rather than using IPs. --Golbez (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. If he makes a reasonable request, and does not evade his block any further, we'll transclude a separate section to/from his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added after archival

Can I have some clarity on this issue. When my block ended today I found I was able to make a comment on the Colloidal Silver Talk page regarding a proposed correction. (A pretty straight forward correction I think). I signed it and made no attempt to evade a block. Mastcell removed my comment from the talk page and said I was a 'topic banned user.' I thought if I really was was 'topic banned' I would not have even been able to make the comment.DHawker (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Secret Harbour, Western Australia

A newbie POV pusher (the latest of many) who has arrived on this article and its talk page, removing talk page edits and coming within a whisker of violating 3RR. His general standard of behaviour and communication in his less-than-one-hour-here has been unsatisfactory at best. Can someone please attend to this, as I'm sick (I have gastric flu :() and am going to bed. Orderinchaos 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I thought the editor in question was a medical doctor. Ask him for help, perhaps? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the info he is adding is good but he's not very good at writing neutrally.--Patton123 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a final warning of sorts on his talk page regarding his removal (several times now) of talk page comments by Orderinchaos. Completely out of line behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• He now has two unblock requests on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially what happened (and why I couldn't involve myself in anything beyond simply warning him) was that the page was a gushy POV mess which was no doubt written by an employee of the development company responsible for the suburb. I removed the bulk of the article on 4 September 2009. An IP with substantially similar word use to the current editor reverted me and added in more cruft. I then rewrote the article on the 5th, broadly based on the formatting of other C-class or higher articles about Perth suburbs (some bits were direct pastes from those with the details changed). This is a "bare bones" format with the ability to be expanded by other editors, hence why I settled on it. (Balga, Western Australia is an example of where I settled a POV situation similarly, and where good faith editors have built on my efforts.)

All was fine until this new account was created and started loudly reverting and blasting me on both the talk page and edit summaries on the main page. The funny thing is unless he is using a nom de plume, there is no GP called Moodie in Western Australia, and "Hon.Sc.D" is an honorary doctorate (i.e. not in medicine). My guess is therefore he is the same person as the 203. address and probably, if not works for the development company, has a strong commonality of interest with them. Orderinchaos 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concern

Received this comment from an editor requesting {{adminhelp}}, moving it here as I don't edit in the copyright area. Appreciate any input.  Skomorokh  22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the speedy response. I'm concerned about User:Sayedalam76. I think the guy means well, but I don't think he understands the copyright proceedure. I could be wrong, but it seems that he copies much, if not all, of his source info straight from other websites. I suppose he could be author of those pages, but he makes no effort to claim so or cite any of his sources. I can usually find most of the copied text (regarding a freshly created wiki page, one not yet mirrored to a different site) off a quick google search. See page Hazarth Sayed Hashimpeer Dastegir for an example. I'm not trying to do anything punitive against the guy, I think his subjects do have notability, but he needs to actually write the articles. Please tell me if I'm out of line on this. Thanks!Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not punitive, but he's been indefinitely blocked. Several admins left him notes yesterday. His response was to come in today and do it again, at the now-deleted JAMIA HASHIMPEER ,BIJAPUR. He needs to address this issue if he is to continue, I think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, Moonriddengirl.  Skomorokh  16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikireader41

Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) is engaging in subtle POV pushing and plagiarizing material from news sources like The Vancouver Sun and adding it into Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. He recently copied this material into the speech section[49]. It virtually duplicates the first paragraph of a news article in the Vancouver Sun, almost verbatim.[50] I used the talk page and explained to him that the material needed to be written in his own words and must adhere to our NPOV policy. I removed the material[51] and explained my reason on the talk page.[52] Wikireader41 then added the same plagiarized material back into the article with a revert.[53] And this continues. The user does not appear to understand NPOV or how to write content for Wikipedia. Could I get some help here? Looking at his edit history and block log, this is not the first time the user has had POV issues raised here. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this editor is falsely accussing me. it is clear we have a content dispute. he is not willing to debate or reason and achieve consensus and some very fascinating original ideas about what WP should or should not be. we need some help with this article I agree. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a false accusation to me; it looks like direct copying. Even if it's only a paragraph, adding such material is not allowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41 wrote the following sourced to the Vancouver Sun:

Obama accused special interests of using "scare tactics" to block his plans for reform of the American health care system, and warned Congress to prepare for a political fight with the White House if partisan gridlock threatened the legislation

In the Vancouver Sun, Sheldon Alberts wrote:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday night accused special interests of using "scare tactics" to block his plans for sweeping reform of the U.S. health-care system, and warned Congress to prepare for a political fight with the White House if partisan gridlock threatens legislation to provide near-universal medical coverage to Americans.

The highlighted words are the ones added to the article by Wikireader41, and they belong to Sheldon Alberts of the Vancouver Sun. I've asked the user to write the material in his own words, and not steal the words of other authors. I've also asked the user to take a moment and write the material in concordance with our policies and guidelines. To date, he does not show any understanding of my repeated requests. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what was said and the way it is written is substantially different from way it is written in The Sun. no reason to remove it. if somebody disagrees and wants to reword it I don't have a problem. Viriditas is repeatedly removing valid cited info from RS instead of improving it and finding flimsy excuses to do so. lets see what the admins think. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your version isn't "substantially different" at all. Those highlighted words were said by Sheldon Alberts of the Vancouver Sun, not you. We do not steal words from news sources and portray them as fact, which is what you did. Your continued edits to the article are highly problematic and violate our most important policies and guidelines. You do not seem to understand this problem, so I hope someone can explain it to you before I have to remove all of your edits from the article again. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

nothing is portrayed as fact. it is substantially different. if you feel otherwise reword it. no reason to delete it. I hope somebody can explain this to you. do not threaten to remove 'all my edits'. you will not get very far. I suggest we wait for an admins opinion on this and both of us listen to that. have a good day. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an admin's opinion: it is wrong to insert material copied verbatim from copyerighted sources. It is wrong to reinsert it repeatedly when an editor removes the plagiarized material - and it is wrong to call copyvio concerns for flimsy reasons. It is wrong to insert material from opinionated sources discussion of the sources possible bias and without consensus. It is also wrong to assume that because something is cited you don't have to discuss whether it should be in the article or not. Wikireader41: you have to realize that you have not been editing in accordance with wp policies. Read up on editing policies - be more responsive to suggestions and criticism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You plagiarized an opinion from Sheldon Alberts of the Vancouver Sun calling Obama's speech "an attack on special interests", and you stated it as a fact without attributing Alberts, and you said this is a section devoted to discussing the speech, not opinions about the speech. Here's what Obama really said: "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out."[54] Then later in the speech, he said, "But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics."[55] So we see that Alberts took multiple quotes out of context and came to a conclusion that isn't directly supported by the speech. You are free to find sources that describe this in a neutral manner in the context of the speech and write it in your own words, but stealing the words of other authors and stating them as facts is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like a pretty clear-cut case of plagiarism. Either enclose the copied passage in quotation marks and provide a proper citation for the source, or – better – write the article in your own words, from scratch. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in -- seems like a straight copyvio to me. Needs a rewording. — neuro^(talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So as it looks like we've agreed it is a straight copyvio, what happens now? Alan16 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, what wouldn't be "a copyvio" in the opinions of those of you asserting that it is? I'm not defending anyone in particular here, but this all seems somewhat peculiar. There's nothing in the statement quoted from the Vancouver Sun that is particularly unique (I don't see any new ideas expressed in the paragraph for example, it's simply reporting on what occurred). Therefore, I'm left wondering what the actual problem is, because by the standard being expressed here it seems that 99+% of Wikipedia would be considered to be a copyright violation in some manner or another.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we block User:Rcool35's IP's?

He's mocking us by evading blocks and using dynamic IP's to show that we can't block him because they're too numerous. I know this because I constantly rollback edits by any IP that starts with 76 or 99 on the articles he edits. Roc-A-Fella Records, Roc Nation, Nas, Wisin & Yandel are examples of the articles he always edits. He also bumps the rating by .5 on Street's Deciple and Hip Hop is Dead and Stillmatic, falsifing information and making the album ratings better to his liking. He also has a habbit of changing the founders of vanity labels from their stage name to their real names, GOOD Music being his most recent example, he has also did this in the past to Young Money Entertainment and Desert Storm Records in the past. He is also doing some things that while minor, pisses mostly everybody off. He changes the genre on certain record labels to "Various" even though the record label in question serves only one or three genres, he changes the website name from it's sophisicated form to the same name as the article.

He also changes the years active to when they first released an album rather then when they officialy started their careers. Winsen & Yandel and Jay-Z being examples. He also blanks out the associated acts section and replaces it with an image from a concert that's unusually small and does not capture the subject. On a minor note, he adds a section called History and a subsection called "Beginnings", I know this works for bigger articles but he's placing it on articles where the label is just starting or doesn't have very much history. Now I don't mean to offend or anything but I want to say a few things about the guy, he thinks that MySpace and Wordpress.com are valid sources of notability, even after I explained to him that an album was not released by Roc-A-Fella, he replied in an very arrogent way that suggested that he was right and I was wrong, even though I had common knowledge for the fact. This guy also acts like he own's articles as he edits them to be right for him, not for no one else, what's worse is that he does not communitate with anyone and does not give any reason for doing these edits nor explain why these edits would make an article better. First of all, I've been reverting his edits ever since he edited the Roc-A-Fella article and I have mostly reverted a lot of his "vandalism". I know he's making it look like good faith, but it's vandalism.

I know that I brought the issue up a couple of times before but I have not gotten any response or closure and I am tired of having to revert his edits when all he does is come back over and over again, I am also angry over the fact that we can't block him. I and Explicit know his editing patern right on the back on my hand. Perhaps we can keep an eye out on IP's starting with 76 and 99 and give him a temporary block of 24 hours, this is because the next day, he'll have a new IP address (he has a dynamic IP you know) and for the innocent users who'll use the IP unknowningly that a vandal was using it. Please respond okay, I need help, I don't want this to go unreplied and unresolved. Taylor Karras (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? IPs cannot edit semiprotected pages, and in this case a semi would be preferable to a rangeblock. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried that, he'll either simply wait it out or create an account to bypass the protection. Taylor Karras (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Prolonged disruption guarantees an indefinite protection (so long as the banned editor remains active), and created accounts are way too easy to expose and Checkuser. In any case, as I said protection is better than a rangeblock. However, could you post the IPs he has used so that an admin more versed in rangeblocks can determine if a rangeblock will work? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of the IP's he has used. The reason why I am stating a 24 hour block for an IP he uses is because he is using a dynamic IP where the IP changes after 24 hours or one day, therefore averting a problem about innocent users complaining that they can't create an account. I don't know about the protection thing, it might work if he gets bored or it might not work if he is very persistent. Anyways, hope you do something about this. --Taylor Karras (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's dynamic, blocks on single IP addresses are ineffective; only rangeblocks (which have a high chance of hitting innocent users) or semiprotection (which forces him to register) work. Go to WP:RPP and start requesting protections; I'm asking about ranges as we speak. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Better start hitting WP:RPP, Taylor. The ranges are, with one exception, too busy to block, and even the one we can block can't be blocked for long. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I hit em up and they're able to protect some articles but not all of the articles he's been vandalising due to lack of recent disruptive activity. Guess all I can do is keep reverting his edits for the time being. Taylor Karras (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If he makes repeated returns, ask for protection again. There's nothing that prevents an article from showing up at WP:RPP more than once. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar

Resolved

 – Xandar blocked by User:YellowMonkey for edit-warring. Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar's dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict (previously reported here and now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' _noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Xandar) has spilled over onto the main naming convention page, where he is repeatedly reverting a consensual change that he feels weakens his position in the other dispute.

Xandar has now performed nine reverts in just over three days. The last four would be an open and shut case of 3RR violation, except that the first of these series, to his credit, was an attempt at a compromise, at my urging. That compromise having been rejected by others, he is back to edit warring again.

23:21, 7 September 2009, (→General principles: Restored important change made to this Policy to wrongly influence another argument elsewhere) [56]

10:29, 7 September 2009, (→General principles: restored important wording on exceptions removed without consensus) [57]

23:08, 7 September 2009, (→Overview: Removed non-consensus sentence that implies a practice rejected by consensus on this page) [58]

11:06, 9 September 2009, (→Use the most easily recognized name: again restored key wording removed by Kotniski without consensus) [59]

20:09, 9 September 2009, (→Use common names: Restored non consensus policy change) [60]

01:16, 10 September 2009, (→Overview: Okay. Let's try it in this context.) [61]

16:27, 10 September 2009, (Restored impotant principle, again removed withoput consensus for change.) [62]

20:34, 10 September 2009, (Restpring important part of the policy again removed without consensus) [63]

00:34, 11 September 2009, (There is no consensus to remove this principle, PMA.) [64]

The editors over at WT:NC have been overhauling the wording in the introduction recently, and have actually managed to make some good progress, and mostly maintain a collegial congenial atmosphere. This is being repeatedly disrupted by Xandar's fly-in fly-out reverts. Can I get some help with this issue please?

Hesperian 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is edit warring and blockable, whether the number of reverts exceeds three in a 24 hour period or not. However, I've given my opinion in the underlying dispute and thus would not consider myself unbiased enough to offer a warning or other sanction. Karanacs (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensual change to the longstanding policy concerned, which was re-affirmed only weeks ago in a poll on the Naming Conventions policy talk page. As with the connected edit dispute concerning the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidance page, a certain clique of editors has decided to unilaterally change the long-standing guidance, against consensus, reversing the convention on self-identifying entities. These editors included PMAnderson, Kotniski, Philip B Shearer and others. Many of them involved in an affected naming dispute. There was substantial opposition to the changes they made at Naming conflict, and those changes were reverted. However the group refused to follow the established process of negotiation and consensus-building, but proceeded to keep on restoring their non-consensus substantive changes to that guidance in an edit-war. They also forum-shopped, held votes without informing all participants, and used incivil and bullying language to those who opposed them. The edit war they began has resulted in that page getting locked twice so far.

Those wanting to change WPNaming conflict, cited alleged contradiction with WP:Naming Conventions as their primary reason for making the substantial changes they wanted. However it was pointed out to them that WP:Naming conventions specifically denies that argument.

Strikingly, it is the very passage in WP:Naming Conventions, which thwarts their argument for changing Naming conflict, that PMAnderson and his allies have now decided they want to remove from the policy page. This they have done by the same methods used on the guideline page, deleting the controversial and important passage "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions indicate otherwise.." This they have done repeatedly and uneccessarily, even though it has been explained to them that this policy should not be changed without community consensus. Most of the offenders have refused to attempt to find consensus, and have adopted the same hectoring, bullying tone, and policy of intimidatory edit-warring that they seem to think will get their way. This has culminated in this issue again being raised here in another attempt to suppress dissent.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have stability, and not be changed according to what certain cliques desire. Changes to these policies need an enhanced level of consensus and community-wide support. The policy WP:GUIDE states clearly, under Content changes:

Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.

If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.

I believe PMAnderson, Kotniski and other members of this group have broken the spirit and letter of these standards with respect to changes to policies. They have not used WP:1RR, they have edit-warred and bullied their way forward instead of gaining consensus for change and involving the wider community, and they seem to be gaming the system by changing one policy to effect another, which affects various naming disputes. I think the stable form of the policies concerned needs to be preserved, and a proper mediation of the issues involved with all interested parties should take place before significant policy changes are made. Xandar 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The abridged version of the above is "The extensive consensual changes to WP:NC are actually part of a conspiracy to eliminate a crucial sentence so that I lose an unrelated argument that I was already losing anyhow. Therefore it is good that I am repeatedly reverting the conspirators, and I intend to continue doing so." Hesperian 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The substantive issue is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Exceptions; comments welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Xandar's edit warring is okay because he is "merely reverting vandalism to the policy page."[65] I think it is safe to assume that Xandar fully endorses his behaviour and intends to continue it. Hesperian 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the ones breaking Wikipedia policy by edit-warring substantive non-consensus changes to policy. Xandar 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There you have it, folks: the old "I disagree; therefore there is no consensus; therefore it is vandalism; therefore I can revert as much as I want" trick. How many times have you heard that one now?

Is anyone going to do anything about this, or should we just bite the bullet and move Wikipedia:Naming conventions into Xandar's user subspace?

Hesperian

This is typical of the sort of "debate" this group undertakes. Jibes and misrepresentation. Hesperian himself suggested the change I made. Now he is reporting me for making it. What we need is the sudden reason for the urgent removal of this significant policy statement by a small clique. Xandar 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I urge people not to get sucked into arguing with the merits of Xandar's position. The issue is one of behaviour: nine reverts in three days, in sole opposition to consensus amongst all other editors currently active on the discussion page. Hesperian 02:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is definitely one of behaviour - it is of a tag-team of editors making substantial changes to policy using a tactic of making-non-consensus changes, and then trying to force them through by continuously reverting to their new policy. This is against clear Wikipedia principles that such changes need broad argument and consensus. they then try to intimidate anyone trying to stop them with abuse and appeals for bannings. The people breaking "revert once and discuss" are the people pushing these changes. Xandar 02:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The sequence goes like this: Discuss; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists.

The result: Xandar has made nine reverts in three days, in sole opposition to consensus amongst all other editors currently active on the discussion page.

Hesperian 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be on the page helping Xandar in his efforts to protect the naming policy if I had more time to spend on the issue. I think the efforts to change a long standing policy are ill advised. I hope Xandar does not get blocked because he is the only one with a decent logic in the argument. Maybe we should change the 3RR rule to exempt editors with sound logic who are left to fend off the occasional wolf pack with an agenda other than improving Wikipedia. NancyHeise ^talk 03:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is, in fact, no change to policy; Xandar is attempting to introduce novel language which permits guidelines to defy policy. See the link above.

Hello, Nancy. I see you have received a message from Xandar which reads:

I am again being targetted by the clique for daring to oppose a vital change being made to the Naming Conventions policy to back up their assault on the Naming conflict page.

I have been reported for "edit-warring" (pot and kettle) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xandar. This is part of the bullying policy to prevent me stopping thenm changing the policy without consensus. Could use some support again.

Someone should remind of him of our policies against WP:CANVASSing; they have been mentioned to him before; although, this time, he has only contacted two editors in this style - so far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an amusing situation for those of us looking in; at worst it is pot calling kettle black and at best Xandar is supporting the text of a long-standing policy that out of the blue has garnered the attention of a very few editors that are determined to ignore all positions but their own. It should be noted that I have participated in the subject article, but I don't have the time to pay attention to it on a daily basis. Given the number of times and the different manner of highjinks that has been used against Xandar by these editors, I think it is quite feasible to label it harassment by the subset of editors. They ignore all policies that would hinder their actions, but then propose to implement the highest standard for Xander. I view this action as more of the same quality of harassment that has been going on for several weeks now. --^StormRider 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't even know what the "subject article" is; presumably I haven't edited it. And as far as I know I also haven't edited Wikipedia:Naming conflict or Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict, from whence this dispute is spilling over. Xandar has 9 reverts in this dispute; I have one. I challenge you to substantiate the above mud. That or withdraw it. Hesperian 03:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider is far from a neutral uninvolved party. See the section below for more details. Knepflerle (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider is the other recipient of the same message. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Xandar here; it has always been the case that there are exceptions to WP:CN, and with the exception of Born2cycle, there is agreement that there should be. Some wording to that effect seems required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the whole point of the rewrite: to more accurately reflect the fact that the general conventions are not a set of binding rules that the specific conventions must follow or be damned. See my futile attempt to talk sense into Xandar here. But this is all irrelevant, unless you think Xandar's opinion legitimizes his edit warring. Hesperian 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First, disclosure: I am involved in the discussions at WP:Naming conflict, but I am not involved in the discussions or the edit war at [[WP:Name].

There are two seperate issues here... 1) Is the change at issue good or bad policy. That should be worked out at the Policy talk page, through RFC, through postings at VPP etc.... not here. 2) May one editor repeatedly revert a change to a policy page in the name of "long standing consensus"? If the answer to this is yes, then Xander has done nothing wrong. If the answer to this is no, then he has done something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Further behavioural issues

Xandar's edit-warring at WP:NC is not the only problem behaviour. So far relating to the discussion WP:NCON we have had:

• canvassing ([66] see 4th August, 16th/17th August, 20th August - the last to encourage meatpuppetry "I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me")
• false claims of vandalism ([67] [68])
• repeating outright lies (Xandar:"you yourself were canvassed here by Knepferle, with the express intention of altering the guidance in order to influence the Catholic Church debate". I pointed out the obvious falsehood - I did not mention the Catholic Church article whatsoever, as anybody reading my post can see - but Xandar continues to repeat this falsehood: ""It is undeniable that you drew PMAnderson into this argument, citing the Catholic Church article")
• claims that others have "have refused to attempt to find consensus", whilst calling their position "irresponsible and unworkable nonsense"

Storm Rider casts himself above as one of "those of us looking in": however, he has taken a large part in the debate, having been canvassed by Xandar. So far he has:

• joined in on tag-team reverting (Xandar: "I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me" - Storm Rider reverts 12 minutes later)
• repeatedly referred to User:Pmanderson as "Septic" in that debate ([69] [70] [71])
• referred to a contribution of Pmanderson with "Your last statement is just pure gibberish and is representative of the silliness that exists when we allow those without a decent eduction or expertise to enter a conversation that is clearly above their pay grade [72]" and labelled another as "the work of a troll [73]"

The environment on the pages involved is toxic, and needs cleaning up. The constant reference to cliques and allies by Storm Rider and Xandar are unsupportable and disruptive. This so called "clique" now ranges over nearly a dozen editors over two discussion pages, most of whom have never communicated directly with each other. The only thing they have in common is that they have either disagreed with Xandar's position on edits or his behaviour. There is a strong sense that any group of people displaying consensus against his edits will be labelled as "in the clique" - as it now seems to include myself, Pmanderson, GTBacchus, Philip Baird Shearer, Kotniski, M, Blueboar, Ohm's Law...

I have been careful to provide diffs for everything above - one of the recurring themes of the "discussions" a these pages has been the numerous, unsupported (and often insupportable) allegations and ascription of words and beliefs to editors which are incorrect, and I encourage editors to check these allegations for themselves rather than take them at face value.

Overall, this is some of the worst behaviour I have encountered in my time at en.wp. Some administrator help to actively watch over Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions is needed urgently. Knepflerle (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Knepferle. you yourself have canvassed people, including PMAnderson to enter the dispute, and have supported them in endless edit-warring against the long-term consensus on that page. I have no doubt that when the block is lifted on the Naming:conflict page tomorrow, the attempts by Knepferle and the rest of his friends will continue - to subvert that and other policy pages in furtherance of their own agenda. The laughable "decison" above by Love Monkey is a clear farrago and disgrace - since there is no clear consensus IN ANY TERMS to radically alter the Naming Conventions page. It seems that only friends of Love Monkey are allowed to TOTALLY ignore WIkipedia policies on Consensus and revert and revert and lie and lie until they get what they want. No they are going on with their campaign, strengthened by the biased action of LoveMonkey.

Concerning Wikipedia Naming conflict. The matter has been raised here before. A small group of closely-connected editors, including Knepferle, have decided to radically chage that naminng convention in defiance of long term consensus and a large number of other concerned editors. The policies they use are

1. Make radical changes to the guidance.

2. If these are reverted, do not discuss sensibly or try to gain consensus - even within the small grou p on the page. Revert back - in clear contradiction of policy on changes tro guidance and abuse and threaten those who disagree.

3 If one person on a barely visited page opposes, they ignore him and call him a minority of 1. if he reverts the page, they then bring him here and hope a naive or friendly admin will ignore what they're doing - and bar their opponent.

4 If their opponent contacts other editors with A VALID INTEREST in the change, they accuse him of "canvassing"!, and continue the edit-warring!

THIS BEHAVIOUR IS SUBVERTING POLICY AND MUST BE STOPPED! 212.140.128.142 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What is happening here is

Block evasion ain't cool. (Note that Xandar is currently blocked, and that this IP has been previously suspected of being used by him here)

"canvassed people" - people? One neutral notice to one person. Another unsupportable untruth.

"supported them in endless edit-warring" - another complete fabrication, that's been pointed out to you before. I've edited the page twice as anyone can go check ([74] [75]). That is not edit warring. Please, anyone reading this, go check for yourselves.

"small group of closely-connected editors" - closely-connected? You can't prove any of this, can you? It's just not true.

Nothing you're saying stands up to any scrutiny. Don't you realise that the more things you say which are shown to be lies, the more like you are to become the boy who cried "Wolf!" once too often? Knepflerle (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address and restarted the block on Xandar's account. Now that this issue is resolved, everyone move on; discussion should be centered on the issues and should take place on the appropriate policy talk pages. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What Knepferle actually asked me to do was:

You are aware of the bigger picture of the naming conventions and their development - if you could correct any inaccuracies in the talk-page statements or guideline text it would be appreciated.

This seems to me perfectly in accord with WP:Third opinion; it leaves me free to say, when I looked over the situation, that there were inaccuracies, and that Knepferle had made them - there are occasions when I have done that. The difference between this and Xandar's message, above, is telling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:LAKSJD1

LAKSJD1 (talk · contribs) - he is a sock puppet of many different accounts used in the past (too many to mention), and he is now using three different accounts (the other two are Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs) and Pakkid101 (talk · contribs)) at the same time to vandalise articles by removing all the mentions of Pakistan from food related articles, and edit warring on different articles. His IP as of yesterday (it always changes) is 123.237.179.101 (talk · contribs) through which he does the same edits. He keeps removing warnings from his talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

have you checkusered the account? If not, I'd suggest doing that to get some kind of strong evidence. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A CU is not needed to get strong evidence. The strong evidence comes from the fact that all the edits are the same. All the accounts were created in the last few days, all of them edit the same pages, do the same edits, revert the same edits. In addition to that his edits are clearly sneaky vandalism. He also violated 3RR etc. (see Indian century. I'm very familiar with this guy. He has had many blocked accounts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please file a WP:SSP request; this one might take some deep examination. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the kind of edits that he does? Is that better ignored??? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You worry about the edits, let the admins worry about the SSP after you file it. You always treat the cause, then the symptoms. You have the same power over edits as everyone else. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. File a quick SSP, get a checkuser to take a look at it and we can wrap this up. Edits are always reversible. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User Loosmark

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.

Refiled at WP:AE#Loosmark.  Sandstein  20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The editor is engaging in uncivil remarks and an appropriate response from admins per digwuren sanctions would be welcome. Loosmark (talk), started a thread with an abusive claim: [76]. He was warned by another editor here [77] but rather than become civil he continued his personal attacks: [78] "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors." Please note that there is a message on the top of that article's talk page [79] requesting "be polite" and "avoid perosnal attacks." Loosmark has already been given notice here: [80] and continues to engage in such behavior.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, reports of violations of Arbitration remedies should be reported at WP:AE; however, there is no problem with admins taking action here if they want to. I decline to get involved at this time as I as too busy for proper follow-through. Thatcher 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There seems to be a prima facie case for enforcement action in these diffs, but to allow a properly formatted discussion in the right place, I would prefer it if this were submitted as an WP:AE request, using {{Arbitration enforcement request}}.  Sandstein  16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After some fumbling I've done so! Thanks.Faustian (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My God, this must be one of the most ridiculous reports ever. Ok
1) He's basically reporting me because i said he's POV pushing and then explained why. The edit which i said is POV is this one [81] in which he claims at the same time, other Poles attempted to enter German service and in those roles tried to sew distrust towards Ukrainians by the Germans in order to provoke the German repression of ethnic Ukrainians. If that's not POV i don't know what is. Note that i repeatedly asked him to provide another source for that highly controversial claim but he was unable to. Seem that he's just trying to get rid of me because i oppose his POV.
2) The so called "warning" i got, was of course written by user Bobanni, friend of Faustian, who is one of the users with anti-Polish views. Not to mention he has a history of incivility, for example he replies like this to Polish users [82]. If necessary i can provide other diffs like that. It's comical that a user who writes highly incivil things like "load of crap" is giving me warning about civility. Loosmark (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It's a sourced statement by a respected scholar. There was even a link with the page number for verification. There is no wikipedia policy demanding multiple sources if particular editors don't like a fact backed up by a single reliable source. 2. Just because someone warning you about incivility may have been uncivil in the past does not justify the fact that after you wrere warned you wrote about me: [83] "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors." Moreover as shown above you were also warned by an admin to cool it. You obviously had not done so.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1) If the claim is so completely extraordinary as that one (Poles first started to join the German police to work against Ukrainians) one needs more than just one source to support it. In probability had that really happened there would have been many sources.
2) I didn't attack you personally i wrote against this logic about reversing the roles, the victims, in this case the Poles, somehow becoming responsible by first joining the German police.
3) About the warning from that user who was uncivil. You didn't make any comment that you perceive my saying that you are POV-pushing as incivility, if you have done so i'd changed the title to something else, the title was not important to me, the only reason i wrote used that title is because i was tired and i didn't have idea how to title the section. But anyway if you were really so disturbed by that, you have my sincere apology.
4) I wasn't warned by any admin to cool down as you claim above, that was a general guideline for all editors editing EE topics. It also applies to you and everybody else. We have a content dispute and that needs to be worked out on the talk pages rather than filling complains here.
5) Finally please consider another thing the article is titled Massacres of Poles in Volhynia for a reason, and that is.. it is about well the massacres of Poles. Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Drawn Some and his wikistalking to punish me for opposing him in AFD nominations

User:Drawn Some continues to nominate almost every entry I create. I opposed his AFDs in several cases months ago, and he is using the AFD process to attempt to punish me. Almost two dozen articles that I have started have been nominated for deletion, and have been voted to keep, many as speedy keeps. Several editors warned him to desist, but he continues. He had nominated another six articles today. Almost every entry today is against me. Please see here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See below: #Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton III.  Skomorokh  20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed at British Isles

Resolved

There is currently a 1RR in force at British Isles , it is currently being broken by an IP and possibly others. We need an admin to take a look please, but becareful to check the different edits before taking any action because not all are breaking the rules. I have reverted one thing which has now been reverted again by the IP in question in violation of the 1RR, there is a separate edit war taking place over another matter.. see the talk page there for more details. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin has semiprotected page now, although some of the content added in violation of the rule remains but that can be cleaned up later. No longer needs attention thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., DJ Pusspuss,and an editor who shall remain nameless

Comments removed. Craftyminion blocked for 48 hours for outing and edit warring by Tanthalas39. A stern warning to all those involved to remember to focus on editing the content and not on who some editor may or may not be. NW (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure WP:OUTING should be applied in cases that are completely obvious to all involved, perhaps someone would like to step in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. to end the blanking of comments, etc. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Absolutely. Comments have been rendered in good faith. Downright unsporting to have numerous Sysops reverting them. Crafty (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty unreverted the comments again.[84] Ikip (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Nobody's arguing with your good faith, Crafty, but the tone is coming across as quite vindictive and the identity of the editor who created the articles should, in theory, be irrelevant to the debate. The comments add nothing and have been remove by three different editors (myself included) from both sides of the debate. Try to focus on the content, please. -- Vary (Talk) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see any real reason these comments should be removed. Tan | 39 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC) There is a discussion about this on Crafty's talk page, in which several editors are warning Crafty, and he is ignoring those warnings. Crafty's absolute statements sound a hell of a lot like User:The Land Surveyor, who was just blocked a couple of days agao because he was a sock of User:Peter Damian I will let a couple of editors who revealed User:The Land Surveyor look at this, if Crafty is in fact not a sock, he has nothing to worry about.Ikip (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Looking through the contribs, the personality and topic area is quite different from Peter Damian. I've never known Peter Damian to be so invested in reverting vandalism, and he is more sarcastic than angry, which the above comments seem to suggest anger at a user potentially violating CoI than biting comments against an encyclopedia that may or may not have failed at appropriately dealing with a user who produced quite a bit of content. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Otta, I consider that issue closed then. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with Vary, such wording as "we shit or get off the pot" only enflames things, let alone the last thing we need is the imagery of people going to bathroom. It is about as bad as the trend I have noticed in films lately that for some off the wall reason has to show people vomiting. Who needs/wants to see that? How does it actually advance the story other than just gross people out? Well, similarly here we do not need to use toilet talk. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) "Shit or get off the pot" is common slang, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the mental imagery they produce. Tan | 39 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) None of this is vindictive. The editor created the articles about himself and he (not to mention his choir of supporters) needs substantiate to the community why they should remain given that sound reasons for their deletion have been offered. The editor surrenders his right to privacy not because he publishes this stuff, rather because he cannot cover his own tracks. For the record I welcome a sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Not censored seems to apply more to articles than conversation. In civil, academic discourse (and I have attended multiple actual academic conferences), people do not evoke such imagery. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Strawman argument? This is not an academic conference. This is Wikipedia, and we don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the imagery. Tan | 39 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't we aspire to be academic? And what disturbs me most is the taunting "I'll out the bugger once more". Since when is it okay to out other editors? I have editors, whose real names I was able to figure out, swear at me and send me blustering emails and yet I have never saw fit to provide their real names on wiki to anyone else and certainly not in a mocking manner. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Deindent. Crafty is now in violation of the three revert rule, with five reverts in just under two hours: 1 2 3 4 and 5 He was notified of his near-violation shortly after his third revert and again after his fourth. Since the issue is already here, do I need to bother with the edit warring noticeboard? Crafty, will you self revert? -- Vary (Talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Reported to 3rr.[85] Wikipedia should have no patience for such editors. It is obvious that he is here on a personal vendetta "These comments will stand".[86] and there is no comprimise in this vendetta. I fear as soon as he gets off block his behavior will continue. Can an admin block him longer than the typical 24hr for edit warring, for his attempted outing too? I need to look into his edit history, maybe a community ban can be considered. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Given this is a matter of principle, I regret to say I'd rather chew through my own leg. My edits stand. Crafty (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I just protected the page for 1 day. You other editors were basically just baiting Crafty to violate 3RR. If some other admin wants to block Crafty for this, fine - but I won't. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty will take his strapping like a man. Crafty (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) WP:PP applies to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles. It is perfectly acceptable to protect an AfD for a short period in the event of significant edit warring. Your issues here were clearly not so much about the alleged OUTING as a witchhunt to get Crafty blocked - bringing up unsubstantiated sock accusations, baiting for 3RR, etc - even censoring for "tone". Tan | 39 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Tan, when you have one editor who has reverted five times and four others who have each reverted no more than twice, the least disruptive action is to block the editor who has violated 3RR, not to protect the page with his/her preferred version in place. This is particularly true when the page involved in the dispute is an ongoing AFD which you have now put on hold for 24 hours. I'm also not appreciating what looks like an assumption of bad faith on the parts of the four editors (again, myself included) who've found the comments disruptive and in violation of WP:Outing. Your comment here puzzles me: WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't seem to apply here: while one commenter in this thread did point out that the metaphor was unnecessarily icky, that's not the reason the comments were removed. -- Vary (Talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bring it on Ikip. Ban my tuchus. Marshal the numbers right now. All my behaviours are available for the community to see. Crafty (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) He now posted a message on my talk page, outing the same editor again.[87] Tan, by letting Crafty get away with this, you are only encouraging it. Crafty's edit history shows that like many editors here, he will continue to push the line, and abuse editors as much as he can get away with. By protecting the page Tan, you are not stopping the drama, you are only reinforcing it, and emboldening Crafty. Ikip (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC) AfD unprotected per Risker and discussion on my talk page. This action is not an endorsement of any editor here - I still feel most of you are acting disingenuously here. Tan | 39 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Tan, that is why you are an admin, and I will never be, you seem to have much better judgment :) Ikip (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Tan. Just thank you. :D Crafty (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Per Tan, I think we can all act better and more sensitively to the issues involved. I've removed my own comment, which I think was unhelpful, and I hope everybody will allow that. Crafty hasn't said anything new, but I do dislike the tone. My apologies if I offended anybody. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to prevent anyone from being blocked, not to hasten a blocking and provoke spurious accusations of sockpuppets under every bed, but it's par for the course. NuclearWarfare seems to have removed Craftyminion's comments now, as well as this one, which seems over the top. I would restore it myself, but I don't want to wade into this mess any further. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an accident there; didn't actually mean to remove that comment, only the three below it. I have restored the comment by Simon Speed; anyone is free to reverse my re-addition of that comment. NW (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Note that I have re-blocked Crafty indefinitely. While I stand by many of the points I made here in this thread, I am forced to admit that this editor had an agenda, and was poised to follow it relentlessly. Tan | 39 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to read up more on the blocking but I'm concerned about the larger picture here, we have a potential CoI and our pseudonymity policy seems to be preventing coming to grips with it. That seems not good. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think policy SHOULD make some better allowance (than it does now) for the idea that there are things you could do, that if you do them, you waive your anonymity. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting proposal, and there are obvious deficiencies with our current norms that have been highlighted in this case. Offering lenience in certain instances of outing could very readily be open to abuse by the ill-intended, but existing norms seem also to offer too much protection to miscreants. I encourage you to further this discussion after putting some more thought towards it, MBisanz.  Skomorokh  23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland flap of a couple of years ago is a case in point of what can happen when COI issues get shoved under the rug out of insistence on maintaining an absolute policy against "outing". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if here is the right place to ask, but why is it an issue if someone edits an article on his or herself? Don't the subjects of articles usually know more about themselves and sources about themselves than we do about them? I suppose the subject of an article is less likely to be neutral, but I would find it odd if an article existed on me (I can say with all confidence and honesty that I am not significant enough of a person at this time to have an article on myself, maybe down the road if things go as planned...) and I would not even be allowed to add neutral and objective information or more importantly to challenge potentially libelous information. Anyway, again, if this question should be moved somewhere else, okay, but it was just one thing I am not getting here. Thanks and Happy Labor Day! --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we rely on third party sourcing for reliability, it would seem silly to not rely on third party editors to ensure neutrality and reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people writing about themselves may have a tendency to inflate their own importance or distort aspects of their lives in ways that are not readily apparent to outside eyes. Note, for example, that if Xxx Xxxxxx is allowed to write two autobiographies about different persona, then we can hardly object when Yyy Yyyyyy edits his entry to remove reliably sourced information that he was once convicted of lewd offenses with young boys. It also happens that editors with strong conflicts of interest get into behavioral problems over "their" articles, and there are allegations of that here (improper archiving, misrepresenting discussions, and so on). Best practice is to declare the conflict and rely on the views of outside editors. Thatcher 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:COI violation will also be a violation of some other policy, such as WP:NPOV. I view WP:COI as a guideline that helps conflicted editors stay out of trouble. When they get into trouble, it's a good idea to reference the other policies that they are violating. We can enforce our policies without outing people. Outing is a bad idea because it can be used maliciously or abusively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation but it is still not dealing with the right now, right here issue - how are we managing *this* COI - even a quick look suggests at least one other article that needs care examination for NPOV and COI issues. Are we going to carry on with this completely pointless "this editor" nonsense or are we going to get on with business and deal with the problems? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to go through articles affected by the COI one article at a time. There is no solution that I know of that would remove all of an editor's edits all at once, and I don't think anybody would want such a solution. There is a wish among some editors, it appears to me, to declare some other editors totally beyond the pale, banned, blocked, and blown up, in order to avoid a repeat. I don't think such a declaration will happen here, but I don't think here there's any chance of a repeat, for some editors. BTW, do we have any precedent of what to do if an editor writes three autobiographies? Smallbones (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is completely pointless at this stage to pretend that we are not discussing Benjiboi and I have started a conflict of interest discussion over at COI to co-ordinate article checking. Their first edits were promotional/COI so there is potention that we have three years worth of edits that have COI/promotional material hidden within and overlooked because they were a respected and trusted member of this community. Pretending this identity is not out there is a complete denial of reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the hysteria seems to have died down a bit, can Craftyminion's indef block might be reduced now, back to the 48 hours it was originally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Crafty hasn't requested an unblock, I don't see the need to go down that road. If/when he requests an unblock, then it would be up for discussion. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that no has blocked Cameron Scott for saying the same thing -- and I'm not suggesting that they do -- it looks like one editor has been singled out for special treatment. The block for disruption may have been warranted, but the indef block was overly harsh then and even more so now. Why expect an editor to plead for an unblock to correct a mistake may in the heat of the moment, which has now cooled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of indef block made by AWOL admin

Resolved

 – block endorsed absent a further unblock request from the user. Tim Song (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Craftyminion (talk · contribs) was initially blocked for 48 hours for "persistent violation of WP:OUTING and POINTy editing". Before the initial block has lapsed, the block was extended to indef, presumably based on Craftyminion's lack of contrition since the message posted to their talk page was "Sorry, but if you repeatedly state your intent to continue the disruption, the only solution is an indefinite block". The "outing" relates to an editor whose identity is now being openly discussed both on- and off-wiki, so the blocking rationale seems to no longer apply. The blocking admin, Tantalus39, has declared that they are on a wiki-break until 2010. Can someone please look at reducing this block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Has the user in question requested an unblock since the extension? Just for the full picture Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't, and indeed this was already asked by DC on ANI, and denied for the same reason. Forumshopping, anyone? → ROUX ₪ 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping indeed. — neuro^(talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't this ANI? I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2Cand_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless. You know what is being talked about. — neuro^(talk) 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it might be helpful to separate this issue from the other one, which appears to be somewhat of a hot potato. I would simply approach the blocking admin but he is on a wiki-break of several months. I believe the indef block to be understandable based on the circumstances at that time, but overly harsh now that the circumstances have changed. Therefore, I'm asking for a block review. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that the editor was disruptive, and the block should still stand. Just my two pence. — neuro^(talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're not going to unblock them, then? Oh wait, you're not an admin, are you? Perhaps Roux will do it? Oh... Well, I'll take your comments for what they are worth then. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's edits and with comments like "You silly boy. They are actually right over at WR, aren't they? You really are just a shaved ape.", I see no reason to reduce the length of the block. If the user would like to post a well-written unblock request, we can go from there, but I see no reason to act before then. TNXMan 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am unaware of a rule that requires editors to be admins before posting on ANI. Regarding Craftyminion, I'm not sure how edits such as this would result in anything other than an indefinite block; if an editor is blocked for something, and then pledges to continue that something once unblocked, then the extended block is preventative. As a reviewing editor noted here, an agreement to stop the disruptive editing would probably go a long way to a successful unblock request. We don't have an unblock request at all, at the moment, so any action is premature.(ec) UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes comments by non-admins are helpful, but in cases where an action is requested that can only be carried out by an admin, I find that more often than not they merely add to the noise level. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you 100% on that. Admins and non-admins have equal weight in these discussions; while any actions carried out require an admin to "flip the switch", admins opinions are NOT more valuable than non-admins here. These discussions are open to anyone who has a constructive comment to make. Admins are not granted special status except in the actual execution of their tools. This is a discussion, and all discussions are open to all users at all times. --Jayron32 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree 1000% - non admin input is crucial to determine what the consensus is in a given situation, and admins should act on consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Delicious carbuncle, it's unfortunate that your comments here seem to fuel drama rather than reduce it. I don't think your comments are justified, but rather, are in response to the fact that others don't agree with your views in other more specific matters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments are based on long time observation of ANI, not on any one specific incident or viewpoint. I fail to see how my opinion that fewer and more well-thought out comments can possibly be considered to be fuelling drama. Petty little squabbles like these seem to be all about winning something or making some kind of brownie points. They aren't necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was alone in my interpretation of your comments. What I am trying to say is this: if you were more tactful in your postings, the issue that arose here (and on your talk page) would not exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, you are right. Perhaps I was annoyed by the ridiculous accusation of "forum-shopping" and my words were poorly chosen. I will offer an apology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really disagree. I wasn't suggesting closing the discussion to non-admins. I stand by my observation that the comments made by non-admins in regard to issues which they are necessarily less familiar than admins are often unhelpful. I know that I'm not the only person who would prefer to see requests to admins handled by admins without the obligatory comments and bad jokes by those non-admins who seem to frequent ANI. I believe if certain editors were less quick to weigh in with their opinions, the drama here would be reduced markedly, and I think the occasional reminder of that is helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Tnxman307 and Ultraexactzz. A reasonable unblock request by the user would be openly considered; but as his last statements basically commit to continuing his disruption I think that an indefinite block is entirely appropriate at this time, and see no reason to lift it. ~ mazca ^talk 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, consider this resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the outing concerns have been addressed since the block, the user was behaving poorly at the time of the block; and after their initial 48 hour block, expressed clear intent to continue disrupting. Given that clear intent, and the lack of a clear believable statement from the blocked user that would give admins a reason to believe that his prior committment to be a disruption no longer apply, I don't think unblocking at this time would be wise. --Jayron32 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

An apology to the non-admins who frequent ANI

Resolved

Arrrgh! Durova³¹⁴ 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Official flag of the ex-admin corps.
• 
  Official flag of the current-admin corps.
• 
  Official flag of the wannabe-admin corps.

My earlier comments were tactless and perhaps bordered on incivility. I hope no one's feeling were too badly hurt. Although I think that ANI would be much less drama-filled if non-admins thought twice about how helpful their actions might be before deciding to post a bad pun, or prematurely archiving or closing a discussion, or biting a newcomer, I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools. I offer this sincere apology to all who commented here, but especially to Roux, Neurolysis, and Ncmvocalist. I'd also like to apologise specifically to Baseball Bugs, NeutralHomer, and any other members of the ANI regulars who may have thought my comments were directed at them. I'm sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything directed at me, but I don't always read everything here. You'll need to point it out, so that I can feel properly infuriated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools." Jeez, you really need to get out more. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find that the less time I spend sober, the less heavy seems the burden. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy. Durova³¹⁴ 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Avast! Or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• avast!? </me grins and leaves> — Ched *  ?  21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Avast. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ummmm...Arg?Abce2|TalkSign 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They do say, my hearties, that dead men tell no tales. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid, witch-hunts, Wikipedia review and general moral panic

I have been baited and harassed here before so have learned that taking a break was often smarter than other options. Despite assertions that would suggest otherwise people are not supposed to be harassed here. Call it what you will, I feel that is exactly what is going on here. For all who have sent me emails, I very much appreciate the kind words and support.
Starting on the heels of the first ever community-wide RfC on "Paid editing", WP:Paid was started up 20 June 2009 and you'll note from day one stated clearly Note: This page is not normative policy, but is intended to be a summary of existing policy related to paid editing. A small group of editors who felt that some form of policy should be enacted, or had been enacted from the WP:Jimbo statement on the matter, kept working to instill the concept that paid editing in various forms was a blockable offense, forbidden, against policy, guidelines, immoral, etc etc. but were essentially halted n their tracks from enacting these changes because ... there was a lack of policies, guidelines and community consensus to make the changes they sought. Naturally they accused me of being a paid editor and continuously hinted and harassed over the point and like a true thorn I refused to confirm nor deny that I was a paid editor. Well, that just seemed to work the nerves but lost in those very discussions was my point that any proposed anything had to take into account that unless paid editors reveal they are paid editors, we likely wouldn't know ergo our page should reflect the real issues is the content and user conduct. From everything I've read on the matter, we don't block or ban someone for being paid, we do so for other reasons because their cases are brought to attention for violating other policies.

On 14 August 2009 a rather pointy proposal to force disclosure of paid editors was put forward but didn't succeed nor did several veiled threats of dispute resolution which other editors besides myself agreed likely would not resolve any differences of opinion. Offline I was sent am email that hinted how uncomfortable material about me (ostensibly proving I was a paid editor) could appear and cases like mine - assuming I was a paid editor - received the wrath of the community. I responded here; no proof - likely because there is none - was ever presented. A week or so later, a ANI report was filed on 24 August and when that didn't seem to get me stopped, a RfC on me on 26 August. Certainly I may lack objectivity on this but it seems to have been done solely to harass or subdue me (see Point 5). It was pretty clear that given wider community input the response was a generalized focus on the content not the contributor.

About one week later (5 September) a Wikipedia Review posting asserting my identity and COI was posted. No, I haven't read a word of any of it so I'll leave it to those who wish to do so to see what actually is there. Hours later banned user User:Peter Damian, who I've rarely dealt with, nommed one of the two articles DJ Pusspuss for AfD. The next day Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. was also nommed. So first I offer mea culpa - several years ago I wrote two newby malformed articles utilizing a completely promotional tone. As far as I know every statement was factual and I had no reason to believe otherwise, I still don't. The DJ article likely should be removed for now because the independent radio interviews are simply not available. They would just inch it over the notability threshold, frankly there may be enough other sources to do it but I'm not in the mood to try to re-research it and re-write it with all the hostility. The Sister article is another matter, it seems vindictive to me to nom it as there is a multitude of sources. Hopefully the AfD will work out on that one. Injected onto each AfD, and likely parroted from Wikipedia Review, was piles of bad faith and original research. I agree this wasn't helped by my refusal to confirm or deny my identity; sorry but given the adversarial conduct, online and offline harassment I'm at odds to know who exactly I can trust and to what degree. I keep my private information ... private as a general rule and have never gone out of my way to correct people when they assume my name, gender or sexuality - I just don't feel it helps to get into it no matter what someone believes, friend or foe. I've been accused of being quite a few of the subjects or employed by some companies I've written about. Frankly even when it's meant to be quite personal I've tried to not take it as such. Instead I see those charges as a call to improve the articles as they are likely glowing where they should be showing instead.

As for WP:Paid? You'll notice that it's been now switched to their preferred version. A doomed policy proposal unfortunately no matter how well-intended the efforts. I think I can recover the damage there but think that other perspectives on this whole affair is warranted. Be mad at me for poor judgment but please don't compromise consensus building and what was a good guideline page in process by assuming that Wikipedia:The Truth as told to us by Wikipedia Review should enable some very poor behaviours. Do I have proof that these events are more than coincidence? Not as of yet, but I'll let others decide what seems to add up to what; hopefully those eager to extend me bad faith will reconsider. Through this all I've been a bit surprised at some editors and really quite proud of others. Hopefully the project will be a bit better for all of this - I can't say I'm delighted with how things have happened but I do welcome more eyes on the whole situation. I think a good outcome would be that we have a paid proposed guideline and a paid proposed policy, not sure if those whose efforts I've detailed above would be open to that but at least both pages could be in common sense places. Sorry for the long ramble, I hope it makes a bit of sense of things or at least where I'm coming from. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, it's everyone else - you didn't create promotional articles about yourself, you didn't vote keep in AFDs about yourself, you didn't add photos of yourself to articles - it wikipedia review, other editors. This is just an attempt to poison the well and make yourself hard done-by, I've looked into the history of those articles and you have systematically tried to shut down debate or any suggestion there is a conflict of interest. You should be ashamed to come here and try and suggest that anyone that has happened is not the direct result of your attempts to promote yourself, warp articles that you are connected to and then being caught out. At best, you are disingenuous, at worst you are a liar - it's a bit early to be saying "trust me".

So if you want truth, let's get some straight answers

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors

2) are you working as a paid editor (a question that has been asked by a number of editors and avoided over at WP:PAID - a debate I have had no part in)?

You want some trust, you need to show some reasons why you should be trusted because as far as I can see, in-between a lot of very good contributions (and some very very poor one where you puff out pisspoor articles with terrible sources to keep them on-wiki), you have been working for your own interests for a long time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring further baiting and character assassinations ... I will point out your "smoking gun" diff there doesn't show I "systematically shut down" anything. I archived a thread that was stale several months. I didn't see it helping anything but if you want to beat a dead horse in several forums I won't stop you. -- Banjeboi 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have participated in the drafting of WP:PAID and I don't recall a lot of consensus building by Benjiboi. Rather, I kept seeing him revert edits by other editors and acting as if he owned the policy. He was so adament about not not allowing any limits on paid editing that it led to inevitable questions about his own involvement in it. Rather than deny or explain, he became offended and refused to discuss it. That seems to be the way he's responded to the COI issues as well.   Will Beback  talk  16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For those missing the reading between the lines, this is one of the three editors who has systematically tried to ban/block me off WP:PAID and the one who sent me the veiled threat to my email. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The note I sent to Benjiboi on August 12 was not a threat, veiled or otherwise. I wrote that some things are better handled off-Wiki and asked him if he had in fact engaged in paid editing. I wrote "If you do not wish to disclose [paid editing] then I can't force you. ... When it comes to disclosures, I think we've both been around Wikipedia long enough to know that many undisclosed conflicts have been revealed, and it hasn't gone well for those who've acted deceptively." Benjiboi never responded, even after being prompted on his talk page.[88] Finally, I asked him the same question on his talk page.[89] The complete thread is here: User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_54#Paid_editing. Before this week I had no knowledge of the allegation of COI biography writing, nor of any other specific problem with Benjiboi's editing other than his ownership of WP:PAID. I've had no involvement in investigating the COI bio issue and haven't communicated with anyone about it, on or off Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept your explanation. I felt is was more than a coincidence and I actually did respond to your question but did not give you the answer you wanted. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then. I didn't really finish reading the diatribe posted above, but I think I got the general point. You're asserting that there's some sort of cabal of people who are deleting (or trying to delete) your contributions because of your opposition to their view of WP:PAID. I don't know jack about what's been going on over there, so I defer judgement to someone who particularly cares. But from my view from the outside, there is no conspiracy. Damian or whoever instigated this business might have beef against you for all I know. But I think perfectly well-intentioned editors have simply followed the trail to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes. The result is that you have evaded WP:COI issues, likely used socks to protect your articles and canvass for support, and followed up with a persecution complex. Complaining of unfounded attacks from Wikipedia Review seems rather suspect considering you allege you haven't actually read what's posted there (how would you know what spurious attacks were funneled from there, then?) I'm not sure how in the wrong other parties are in this, but you, Benji, sure as hell aren't coming out smelling like a rose, and with good reason. So next time just apologize and take steps to rectify the situation, don't try and shift blame. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m very surprised that User:Benjiboi has decided to return to Wikipedia after being warned of the consequences of multiple COI edits. User:Cool Hand Luke quietly suggested that Benjiboi drop the use of his account if he didn’t want to address what appeared to be flagrant conflicts of interest in editing ([90] following CHL’s question on conflicts of interest [91] ).

The flagrant conflicts of interest are writing 2+ apparent autobiographies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) (a persona)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. (a persona) and

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (a small group bio)

and other closely related articles ( see, e.g. bottom of page)

It’s of course fairly difficult to discuss an editor who writes 2+ autobiographies without getting close to outing. Benjiboi says that he was outed by Wikireview on Sept. 5. It looks to me that he was apparently outed by his supporters and fellow community members on Sept. 5. [92] (and following at the same AfD)

The same material also appeared much earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss

I don’t think that it’s necessary to discuss this as “outing” – it’s clear that the “3 people” involved are quite close, know each other very well, and work together. All we need to talk about is the obvious COI.

It‘s clear that Benjiboi has been engaging in COI edits right from the beginning, when he was essentially an SPA. [93]

Everything he has been doing recently has become controversial and disruptive. For example, see this discussion of his plagiarism [94]

Also see the edit war he was involved in today starting at [95] He spent considerable time above arguing about WP:PAID, where I have edited a bit, and I take his remarks as being aimed at me. Please notice that nobody else has mentioned this topic in this thread until he did. My complaint about Benjiboi has only been that he constantly reverted every edit I made at WP:PAID. It is summarized here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Benjiboi#Sorry_if_this_wasn.27t_clear

When he put forth the bizarre position that Paid editors did not have a conflict of interest editing a proposed policy on paid editing. User:Will Beback and User:TeaDrinker asked point blank whether he had a COI by being a paid editor. Benjiboi refused to even accept the relevance of the question. Just today, he finally admitted that he is a paid editor. [96]

So what to do about an editor who blatantly disregards WP:COI and other Wikipedia rules like WP:POV and WP:RS and is disruptive with every edit? I think he has offered ANI a choice by returning to edit Wikipedia – either you accept his editing as OK, or you block or ban him.

I don’t think the larger community will accept his editing as being OK. This topic will come up again with every controversial edit that he makes.

Can he be blocked? Well, you folks know the rules better than I do, but certainly other editors must have been blocked for offenses less serious than writing 2+ apparent autobiographies and !voting at the AfDs of those apparent autobiographies. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is an ongoing RFCU. So I would strongly prefer that we take issues of editor conduct there and hash them out rather than blocking/banning/etc. That RfC deserves wider attention from editors who are not on either pole of the issue. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. That said, whether answered here or there, Cameron Scott's questions Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors? strike me as astoundingly germane, and I don't think the community should take a brushoff about them, but rather, insist on answers. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lar - while asking an editor to disclose Conflicts of Interest may at times be a sign of lacking good faith by the inquisitive editor, at other times it is a sensible request in a situation where there is reasonable doubt about an editors possible conflicts of interest. It seems that in this case user:benjiboi/banjeboi themself has contributed to creating reasonable doubt and hence the questions are relevant and require clarification.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What I find most astonishing about this is that while we are unable to get any answers about the COI or indeed if they will agree to refrain from editing articles that they have a possible COI with, that they still editing and edit-warring over an article they may have a COI with. Now people are going to go "oh but it's an IP and it's going to be a troll and..." but that does not matter, the IP is entirely right that those who have a COI should a) declare it and b) present sources on the talk page for neutral editors to examine. there is at least the question of COI, it has been raised by multiple long term editors and deserves an answer. Above there is a mention of a RFCU but that's a slow process - how can we claim to try and enforce our COI policies with IPs and new editors when we are unwilling or able to do it with long-term editors? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support imposing a temporary topic ban of Benjiboi regarding the articles on which they may have a COI untill such a time that they clarify whether and how they will approach any possible COI's.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, yes. I'd support same until the matter was clearly sorted out. I've warned Benjiboi and the IP about the spate of edit warring at Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P. and hope that will be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a anon edit-warring to remove sourcing based solely on me and not the content. David Fuchs, please don't accuse of me of socking, if you have any evidence, which I can guarantee you don't, please present it. Smallbones, you're apparently misreading statements and mischaracterizing me, again. Your hostility and rehashing of previously posted bits to antagonize me is disappointing but demonstrates your continued harassment as the main edit-warrior at WP:Paid. This is also the core issue, do we want to support harassing editors and assuming bad faith or do we push for better content. I admit I wrote some very promotionally-toned content three years ago. The baiting, harassment and personal attacks violate civility policies, it would be nice to actually address these policy violation as seen here rather than give it all a pass because, you know, an editor may be COI and deserves abuse. It's your community, how do you wish to treat each other. I contend that pushing editors underground isn't helping, past discussions going back at least two years on paid editing have also stated this. Piling on to accuse, harass and then kick someone when they're down seems like a really bad civility proposal. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointers to relevant pages

Please note the existence of, and participate in:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi — a user conduct RFC
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward — discussion of any potentional conflict of interest issues

Please also note:

• The "Are you a paid editor, Benjiboi?" question was answered two years ago. People aren't doing their research.
• There are actually productive, content-related, things to do, here.
• Talk:Hot House Entertainment#Sources press release is a content issue that requires attention.

Uncle G (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could help us all by giving a link to the 2 year old answer? Also... Thing is, while the question may have been answered 2 years ago, the answer may have changed since then... ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The link is already there in the COI discussion. Once again, please note the existence of, and participate in, that discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Second request for you to post the link here (with a note of thanks for Will Beback's guess at what you meant, it doesn't suffice to back up your assertion unless it's said by you that it's what was meant). And once again please note that things can change in two years. People change employers, enter into new business relationships, terminate old ones, and the like. The question about CoI is relevant to now based on activities now, regardless of whatever answer may have been given two years ago. Please let me know if I need to make that point clearer. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • What you needed to do is what you've finally done, after repeated clear requests: go to the COI noticeboard and read and partipate in the discussion there, where the link, and indeed Benjiboi's subsequent comments, already are. There's a COI discussion, on the correct noticeboard for such COI discussions, that's been pointed to and where Benjiboi is actively participating. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not finding your approach very helpful here. Rather than berating people, just provide the link, THEN suggest that discussion be moved. Asking people to trawl a big discussion from 2 years ago to find something that you already know the location of may not be the most effective way to get your point across. AND, sometimes discussion does need to happen in more than one place. It happens. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Then you're the only one. The rest of us, from NuclearWarfare to Durova, have been defusing an incident that was achieving very little except one editor being blocked and acrimony, with archiving, with humour, and by picking up the ball and running with it when one of the participants goes to the COI noticeboard and starts a proper COI discussion with a view to finding whatever specific content issues may exist and doing something about them. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've answered the Hot House press release content at the COI board. In short I didn't add it but did try to fix it. IMHO it may be wisest to simply get a OTRS permission for use of the material. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Another approach, in my view far better, since it removes the puffery, is to stub the article back down to a bare mention of the existance of the firm, and let interested parties carefully and thoroughly rebuild it from reliable mainstream sources (rather than the company site and various blogs). That's a content issue though, so I guess I should suggest it at the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Uncle G is referring to this thread: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#R Family Vacations. Benjiboi wrote "For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part." I'm not sure what "pretty much" means in that context, but it otherwise appears to be a general denial.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, I had forgotten that but oh well. I'd rather default to that I will neither confirm nor deny as that, IMHO, is the core issue with any policy-building on paid editing issues. Unless someone reveals they are a paid editor we generally can only assume and it's likely better to focus on editing behaviours and content rather than inject assumptions on motivations. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are looking at behavior.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • • • Actually that's not a denial, is it? It's what they call a non-denial denial. I hope Benjiboi will give a simple direct answer to this question: Have you ever accepted money, or a similar inducement, to write or edit articles on Wikipedia? You might as well specifically address the porno website mentioned above where Sister Roma works. Smallbones (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Cameron Scott, Will Beback, et al. certainly feel they're doing the right thing, but this is becoming hounding of Benjiboi, including by a banned user, Peter Damian, and some suspect IP editors such as 24.22.141.252, who is probably a sockpuppet. Will, if you have evidence that he is a paid editor, kindly put up or shut up. As for the COI issue, under WP:COI it doesn't say "harass the editor until they leave Wikipedia", it actually says this. Benjiboi has acknowledged that creating articles on DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst was probably a mistake. It was done years ago when he was a n00b, it is being resolved at AfD, and it does not require the levels of drama involved here. Fences&Windows 09:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I simply clarified what my note to him said, since he said that I'd threatened him. I didn't raise the issue - he did.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I accepted Will Beback's explanation. The rest of the editors' conduct has been abysmal but if the community supports the harassment they will have to live with it. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • But he *still* edits them, that is *not* a matter for AFD, and he and refuses to acknowledge or even discuss a COI, that *is* an AN/I matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And it's a mistake to think this is about three articles - this is completely unsourced and guess who is credited with giving the organisation leadership (unsourced of course). How do we know what else is out there without checking? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not actually true. He has participated in the COIN discussion and addressed the issue directly. The ball is in your court but you have failed to follow through in the discussion that you yourself began. And as noted by others there, if you want COI issues checked the onus is partly on you to pull your finger out and check for yourself, or at the very least participate in a collaborative checking process. For the latter case, I've even quickly skimmed Benjiboi's contributions and the disputed articles' edit histories and started you off with pointers to two specific things, which can be supplemented by other editors who care to join in, to review for conflict of interest. Why are you back here not doing so? You had the right idea of going to the right noticeboard. Please, continue with it! Continued discussion here is mis-placed and unproductive, especially if that continued discussion is about a false issue of Benjiboi not participating in a COI discussion that xe clearly has participated in — on the correct noticeboard even. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leandro da Silva (footballer born 1989)

Resolved

 – GiantSnowman has struck his "delete" !vote and the AFD has been reclosed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I'm pretty sure nominations can't be withdrawn if there are unstruck 'Delete' !votes, right? Because this AfD has had a non-admin closure after the nominator said "I'm withdrawing", even though I had previously !voted Delete...GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both the nominator and the closer of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

correct. this question should be moved to WP:AFD Ikip (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Where abouts on that page? GiantSnowman 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss really, just undo the closure and inform the non-admin as to why. I have taken care of both steps now. I am sure it was merely a simple misunderstanding on Joe Chill's part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Thaddeus! GiantSnowman 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the delete which is why I closed it as withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notice the only vote in the discussion?!?! GiantSnowman 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You had to bring this to ANI?!?! You think that people are always perfect!?!?Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All the standard four warnings to a repeat vandal not enough any more?

Resolved

 – New nothing blocked, miffed nerd cautioned. — neuro^(talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion posted from AIV

• New Nothing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism after final warning, actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Constant disruptive editing, even after final warning. Mostly screwing about with section headers, but it also constantly adding and removing a CSD tag from Paul Haygood.. — neuro^(talk) 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Admins, look at edits leading up to this report -- user appears to making some attempt to divert attention from their disruptive editing. — neuro^(talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, did you try explaining it to the less that a day old user? Or did you bite?Abce2|TalkSign 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you did not. You did not explain it to the user, insted you placed warnings on his/her talk page. How is that helpful? All I see is a user who is so new that they don't know everything yet.Abce2|TalkSign 04:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • (Replying to first message) You've got to be kidding me. I used to be accused of being one of the members of civility clique, now I find myself being in the strange position of having to ask you to stop asking me a silly question. I left standard, community approved messages for the user. The user continued to make disruptive edits. So in response to your obviously rhetorical question, no, I didn't, and your ridiculous implication is nothing short of grossly offensive. This is bloody ridiculous. — neuro^(talk) 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • WHAT?! They got four warnings, including a final warning, what more do they need? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Quite. If that makes me a biter, you might want to bring it up at WP:UW, because it looks like most of us here are. — neuro^(talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm just saying, the user tried to contact you, but you deleted them. Abce2|TalkSign 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
            • They left a message on my talk after performing two disruptive edits. They could have done it before the final warning, or after I gave them the first warning. They continued to make disruptive edits. The edits on my talk are nothing but a distraction, and if you can't see that and suggest that me removing them is biting, of all the bloody things to accuse me of, then that is your problem, not mine. — neuro^(talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
              • My judgement is shit, okay? Abce2|TalkSign 04:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Forgive me for being blunt, but if you yourself are aware that "[your] judgement is shit", it would be my suggestion that you don't go around accusing editors of biting the newbies when nothing has occurred to even suggest such an event. — neuro^(talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Discussion moved from AIV. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Please see this discussion. Now even the standard four warnings leading up to a final warning are no longer enough? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say to look at the reason for those warnings. Abce2|TalkSign 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are assuming too much good faith of the one-day-old account you are wanting to coddle, and prefer to bite the editor who has been here a while and has a good track record. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And this edit is curious. Just where is this editor attempting to communicate, other than to try to rearrange headers on neuro's Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how he knew to come to this page after just a few edits, and mess around with a heading a little bit? Rather unlikely to be a "new" user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break, my judgement has become shit. Abce2|TalkSign 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A good nap should help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone that has been accused of being in the "civility cabal" a good few times before, I find myself in the strange position of wondering what the bloody hell is going on. Stop handing accusations of biting out when there is absolutely no biting going on. Sheesh. — neuro^(talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two week long nap for my shitty judgement. Abce2|TalkSign 04:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a good night's rest. No need to go Rip van Winkle on us. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's just that I've seen an escalting pattern of this shitty judgement from myself. Abce2|TalkSign 04:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Going to try to stay off the whole break. Probaly won't though, (3 days tops :) ) feel free to trout me if I come back early Bugs. Abce2|TalkSign 04:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User New Nothing blocked for disruptive editing. Dreadstar ☥ 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that Paul Haygood might actually be a hoax? Try a Google search on this influential theorist and see what you get. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, we have some recursion. — neuro^(talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's usually how hoaxes work. See the contribs of the person who added that. Look at the contribs of the article's creator. Look at the Google book serach results more closely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for talking down to me. For the record, I am aware of how hoaxes tend to work. — neuro^(talk) 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being so thin-skinned and taking everything as some kind of personal insult. It takes up a lot of unnecessary bandwidth. There's nothing to win here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be some sort of lesson in getting a 'thick skin', I assure you. — neuro^(talk) 05:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, I get called a nerd enough already.Abce2|This isnot a test 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[97] = probably not a hoax, but also maybe fails WP:NOTE... Cirt (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

@Abce - I was actually talking about me. :) — neuro^(talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just so used to being called that. Abce2|This isnot a test 05:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They call you a hoax? That would be unnerving. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, all the time. I really don't even exist. :) Oh, wait, aren't I on a Wikibreak? Crud. Abce2|This isnot a test 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the Urban Spaceman. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Wait, what do Urban Spacemen eat? What do hoaxes eat? Abce2|This isnot a test 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At least for the former, they don't. They already have everything they need. — neuro^(talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Haygood. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And for the latter, 'oaxmeal for breakfast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How many newbies use templates within 4 minutes of their first edit? Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think this user is a sock, I agree with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket at UMiami article

• Previously at archived thread

Racepacket (talk · contribs) continues to edit war over the wording of the lead paragraph of University of Miami. This is either due to the use of the word "commonly", or the use of the alias "The U", which he contested and had removed from the article in one of his earliest edits to the page that sparked this edit war between him, myself, and MiamiDolphins3. I understand that he is trying to improve the article, but he continually changes the lead which is clearly contested on the talk page, WT:UNI, and in the old thread (even though I have been the most vocal member of the discussions).

The last thread devolved into another forum to discuss the dispute. There was some outside input regarding the fact that edit warring happened and is bad. Every day there has been an edit to either completely change the wording or the meaning of the lead paragraph. When I removed what he considered a weasel word, that didn't change anything. All I know is that I am tired of having to go through WP:BRD on a daily basis because he just seems to make another bold change without discussing anything useful. I don't want this thread to become another argument with Racepacket. I just want something useful done about the disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week in an attempt to slow the edit warring. At this time, I have no opinion on the dispute/behaviour itself. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot seem to satisfy Racepacket in a compromise. And now because I have moved the thread on the talk page so it is not in the middle of the article tacked onto a barely related section, he has been edit warring with me over its placement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By way of explanation, User:Ryulong is exceedingly difficult to deal with and has a record for repeatedly running to ANI, and has brought editorial differences here before. I started to revise the University of Miami article on Sept 2. He would revert my changes without comment, and I would then explain the changes on the talk page, with him further reverting the changes. Finally on Sept 5, he responded. We have talked through the issue and I tried to involve other experienced editors from Wikiproject: Universities. I have also provided examples of a number of lead sentences from other university articles. What is evident is emotional ownership of this article and a related article Iron Arrow Honor Society. On the Iron Arrow article, I repeatedly placed a {{notability}} tag because the lack of independent sources, to have them repeatedly removed without adding sources. That article is now in AfD.

On the University of Miami article, I have offered various formulations based on the comments of other editors and the lead paragraphs of the University of Virginia and Universityof Wyoming. He engaged in indiscriminate reverting of my edits and incivility and are pushing Boosterism and emotional ownership of the article beyond what many would consider acceptable. After things settled down, we had made extensive progress, and Ryulong agreed to drop a number of footnotes which really didn't support the article text. He also agreed to drop the word "commonly" which I objected to on the grounds of being a vauge and misleading weasel word. However, after we came very close to closure, an hour later he unilaterally added "commonly" back in without talk page comment. A day later (and after many days of my objecting to "commonly") he writes, "I can tell your problem is not with "commonly" but rather with "The U", which is what you originally had removed from the article. It does not freaking matter that the name is not universally related to this one institution."

He then starts to break up the thread on the talk page and [98] and [99] distorting the context of the discussion and creating update conflicts when I am trying to post a response to his remarks. These actions make working on the article difficult. I had thought we had reached the point of it being a Good Article and had submitted a nomination, but I will put the matter aside until the protection is lifted. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to turn this into another forum to argue with you, Racepacket, but my movement of threads on the talk page is in no way disruptive and in fact makes the talk page easier to read. The thread that Racepacket had added to was resolved two years ago, with a single comment in that time added by an uninvolved user. His concerns about the subject are new and need not have been part of the initial discussion from 2007. The only thing my refactoring of the talk page would do is change some internal links to the talk page, should any of them actually exist.

I have tried to look at the various suggestions to changing the lead, but every time it changes the entire meaning of the lead, including false assumptions about the content of the references put forward to support the claims that Racepacket has disputed. I brought this issue here before because Racepacket has had a habit of suggesting a possible change, then going forward with the change without any input from myself or any other users on the talk page. He is constantly skirting around the fact that the changes he is making are opposed in some way, but he continues to make them. Other users have pointed out the minority position and its constant pressing as bothersome but he appears to have ignored Do go be man's statement throughout the entire argument on the talk page. This whole dispute is getting wildly out of hand, especially due to Racepacket's verbosity, and my verbosity in reply.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that I ignored this talk page comment because it was inserted in the middle of the discussion and not at the end, so I never saw it. Ironically, Ryulong complains, "The last thread devolved into another forum to discuss the dispute." and then proceeds to do it again. We can discuss the merits on the Talk:University of Miami page (assuming that the discussion there isn't shifted around and split up so that you can't find it. However, that leaves this issue of Ryulong's mistaken belief that the article is his personal property and he is the sole aribiter of what may or may not be posted on it. For example, we reached agreement on the deletion of the word "commonly" and then, without seeking consensus he added it back without seeking comment. I don't understand why he needs to bully people. The basic dynamic is "If you don't agree with me, I will file a complaint against you on ANI." I tried to slow down the cycle of revision to give other people a chance to comment and revise, and I have offered many different possible formulations and suggested repeatedly that we have a mediator. I think that if everyone lists what are the boundaries of what would be an acceptable solution, something that satisfies everyone could be found. It is time to check egos at the door and get to work. Racepacket (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't normally butt in on an AN/I thread—the two of you look like you're having so much fun!—but I've received a talk page note asking me to give you another opinion, so, here goes:

  1) I understand why one might feel it's unnecessary or even unhelpful to say a University is commonly called "The U" (it's a bit like saying buses in London are commonly red, or that people posting on AN/I are commonly involved in drama), but we do have a specific policy of stating the obvious (which is WP:OBVIOUS).

  2) The winner, in these things, isn't the person who gets the wording they want. It's the first one to be the bigger guy. Or girl, as the case may be.

  Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the issue here. There are references to support the said fact about "The U". Racepacket has just constantly changed the lead paragraph to completely change the meaning of the statement regarding "The U" and the other two aliases, stating that they are only used by the geographic locality and its alumni, which is not the fact, or saying that the name solely refers to the school's (American) football team because of the nature of the references used. This is my issue with the suggested changes, which I thought I had made clear elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• And indeed, I'm agreeing with you, Ryulong, although in a slightly roundabout way. That's why there's a "but" in limb 1 of my reply.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal of Templates

Resolved

 – No one cares, neither do I now. Marking resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Back on August 17, 2009, 94.192.38.247 removed (several times) the {{whois}} template from the talkpage. The user claimed to have forgotten to sign in (user claimed to be Izzedine) and removed the template. On the August day an edit war ensued and eventually the user was blocked (later unblocked by a sympathetic admin). The user was told the whois template should remain, was explained what it was for and so forth. From August 17, 2009 to today the template remained. At 17:22 the user returned and again removed the template. I reverted and posted a stern warning on the talk page of the IP user. Now signed in as Izzedine, the user blanked my warning, another warning for vandalism and the whois template. It is clear the user is only doing to this to be disruptive or in a weird sense of WP:OWN after having had the WhoIs templates explained to them back in August. Please let me know what should be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Note: User has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Reverts continued with a snarky edit summary, I did issue a Warn1 warning as a result. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Hello, please read the entire page to understand what happened last month. This editor has decided to begin harrassing me again the moment he noticed me back. All the evidence is in our edits. Izzedine (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Neutralhomer just made his 'fifth revert there. Does someone care to step in? This seems to have been pretty clearly settled on the talk page from last time, but Neutralhomer isn't listening. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC) When it is clear vandalism, 3RR is moot. This is clear vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with NH. DC, you were vandalizing the page, so he had every right to put the template back on. –túrianpatois 03:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) From that very same talk page where this is all taking place: "Per WP:BLANKING you were simply wrong when you told him he can't remove the whois template." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Sighing doesn't make you right. And blanking mentions nothing about Whois templates. –túrianpatois 03:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (EC)Nice cherry picking of posts there DC. I am not going to track down the link but from that very talk page, from me, "A WhoIs template is not a comment or a warning. It is a template." It isn't covered under WP:BLANKING. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I think I'll take the opinions of multiple admins on that talk page over yours. Nothing personal, you understand. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC) DC, why are you were other than to stir up trouble? You are wrong, the user in question is wrong, I have policy to back me up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Admin's opinion: "You were advised that removing the {{whois}} template at the top of the page was disruptive, and then proceeded to remove it five more times." Yeah... –túrianpatois 03:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I think that was said by a couple admins, more than once. Removing the {{whois}} template was disruptive and not covered under WP:BLANKING. Seems pretty clear cut to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Suggestion: Cut the legs out from under the drama queens. Just protect the talk page for a week. Then, when everybody has calmed down slightly, those interested in actually solving the problem could have a normal, non-adrenaline-charged discussion about it. Better than blocking everyone for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC) It would appear I have been taken to WP:WQA for my statements on Izzedine, which he has somehow thought are racially motivated. Buckwheat is now a racial slur...LOL. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC) It would also appear that Delicious carbuncle has taken me to AN3. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC) From the edit-warred-over talk page: "Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings- sinneed (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC) shared IP header template - this is a static IP and th etemplate is a WHOIS template, not a shared IP template. Just to clarify. This is all on the talk page already, so I'm not sure why it's still causing any confusion. I'm stepping out of this one... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC) There is no evidence that it is a static IP. We are to take the user's word for it? That would be nice and all, but should we also take the vandal's word when he says what he is posted isn't vandalism or when the POV pushers' view isn't really slanted? No...we do like we always do, we go with evidence or references. If he can somehow prove he is the only one on that IP address, then the template could be removed, but there is no way for him to tell. No proof, template stays, end of story. Good to see you "stepping out of this one" as you shouldn't have stepped in it to begin with. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [100]. Izzedine (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC) OK, what is your point. The IP can edit any page like you can. Doesn't tell us anything. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC) A bit further down in Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings document, though: "Users should note that restoring talk page warnings is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule."- sinneed (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Izzedine has added a statement to the anon user page in question attempted to "claim" the userpage/talkpage as his own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Template removal continues per usual. Requesting an admin and a block for both Izzedine and the anon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! --Jayron32 04:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

McJakeqcool - back again

See here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool for previous report at the end of July. Since then, McJakeqcool has, despite advice from numerous people, continued to make inappropriate edits to list articles [101] [102][103](1 of 2 edits)[104][105](1 of 5 edits)[106](1 of over 30 edits)[107](1 of 12 edits)...and so it goes. Now, having got tired of that, he has gone back to creating stub articles about non notable computer games [108][109], something he has previously been asked many times not to do. It is impossible to find sources for these games, and he has been continuously advised not to create stubs but to gather them up into one article which might have some chance of notability. He has announced on his userpage [110] that this is his new project - could someone stop him before he once again generates 20 or so stub articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made mistakes. So has everyone with an advanced career on Wikipedia. However, making mistakes is one thing. Ignoring first advice and then practically orders to change one's ways is very much another thing entirely. The best word I can use to describe this user, who I tried to help under my previous name of Otumba, is oblivious. I have seen no satisfactory acknowledgement of the community's concerns. I do not believe the editor is engaging in disruptive activities out of negative feelings. I do truly believe his heart is in the right place, and I do believe he thinks what he is doing is for the good of Wikipedia. But, as Elen described, what he is doing is disruptive. A block is probably the best thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional: user was blocked for 31 hours a relatively short while ago for disruption. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked as a result of the previous ANI. Someone has whizzed the two stubs, not sure who. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of many of his comments give me pause. This user has been here a along time but seems to have a truly poor grasp of editing articles, among other things. I think an admin or two needs to take a serious look at what is going on with this user.--Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the previous ANI discussion (see Elen of the Road's comments above for the link). To put it shortly, Mcjakeqcool has been given kind advice and suggestions, offers of being adopted, and many warnings on constructive ways to improve Wikipedia. He has ignored all of this and continues to do his own thing. I'm sure it grows tiring for the people who keep an eye on him. Something more permanent needs to be done about this editor. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted! The 2 articles from my new project, console launch titles are anything but unnotable, they have vastly more infomation then articles from my previous wikiproject and in my opinion and for the long term wikipedia's opinion my last wikiproject was also a sucsess, however I would have thought that even the people who were against my last project would see a white flag with my new articles, THEY ARE COMPLETELY NOTABLE! I sweare oath that my new articles are notable, and I also sweare oath my new wikiproject is and will be a sucsess. Please explain what is not notable, C'MON, MY ARTICLES ARE 5 LINES LONG FOR PETE'S SAKE! Please see reason, I can think of many worse articles then my 2 most resent articles, Atlantis (Intellivision game) perhaps? WHY OH WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO SEPRATE ARTICLES FOR THE SAME GAME? C'mon, there's notbality then there's logic. Need I make any more statements? mcjakeqcool 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They have no references. They make no assertion of notability. You still don't know what a {{stub}} template is or does. You still can't format your signature post to meet the guidelines and actually link to your user page. And, in case you haven't noticed, nearly every one of your last 100 or so edits in article space have been reverted Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (just in case anyone with the tools wants to look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And again [111]. There isn't a speedy category this fits in - shall I PROD it? Lest the user feel unloved, I have posted what I hope and intend to be a helpful entry on Mcjakeqcool's talk page, explaining what the problems with this last article were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked the article and put a {{prod-2}} tag on it. But Elen, your deletion rationale strikes me as quite weak. In PRODding and AfD, we assess the potential of the article, because there is no deadline. We do not delete every unsourced or badly written article; if there is a problem, be bold and fix it. Except in CSD G5 and (arguably) G11 cases, we normally do not consider the author's identity to be a substantial factor in the deletion analysis. I agree that the topic is nonnotable; but it would be more useful, both to PROD patrollers and admins, to explain why exactly the subject is nonnotable when the reason is not blindingly obvious (by which I mean CSD-ably obvious). Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the deletion reason, it doesn't change what is going on here. There is a user who is disruptive in that he is creating more work for others than he himself is doing (last 100 edits virtually all undone) Many attempts have been made to help him, but he has rejected all of it. Even after a short block he's come back to continue the previous problem behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Song, I would normally have said more, but the fact that someone (still haven't figured who) simply doused the last two a short time after Ironholds PRODded them (you can see his tag notifications on Mcj's talk page) probably made me sloppy. I didn't fix up his bad markup as - in this one case - I think it would be of value to Mcj to come back and do it himself. If you read thru Mcjakeqcool news on his talkpage, he has a wonderful entry on "how to wikify", which shows that he actually doesn't understand at all, and I'm a firm believer that practice makes perfect. I didn't realise there was an article on the designer, else I probably would have contemplating redirecting to that article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see them. And I agree with your assessment of this particular situation. In general, however, a rationale that is keyed to the deletion policy is useful to the PROD patrollers, reviewing admins, as well as other people who are contemplating AfD'ing the article. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Tim Song (talk)06:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I will collaborate with user Elen of the Roads. I am also attempting to collaborate with user Guyinblack25. mcjakeqcool 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could start by explaining this [112] strange comment on my talkpage. What do you mean by the line "I still maintain the aspect that my last wikiproject was a commercial sucsess"? Anyone would think you were being paid to disrupt wikipedia. Oh and please correct your sig so it links to your userpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any sign of Mcjakeqcool offering to work with other editors should be welcomed. Thank you, Mcjakeqcool, for offering. However, the offer should be viewed in context. Mcjakeqcool's previous collaborations were viewed by Mcjakeqcool as a collaboration of equals. I say this having collaborated with him on Assault (1983 video game). Before, during, after my collaboration I saw no indication that he really fully realized he does not know how to operate on Wikipedia, and my collaboration was reduced to me, to put it bluntly, cleaning up the mess. Therefore, the community should not automatically view his offer as an acceptance that he realizes he does not know how to be a proper Wikipedian. As I said, I do not believe he is being deliberately disruptive, so a block in my mind is a last resort. I want Mcjakeqcool to learn how to be a successful Wikipedian. My solution to this problem is this:
(a) He must state that he realizes he does not know how to be operate Wikipedia properly.
(b) He must accept to be under the tutelage of an experienced Wikipedian. Mcjakeqcool must follow all instructions by said Wikipedian, which will include creating proposed articles in sandbox for approval before posting to mainspace, and following lessons by the experienced Wikipedian aimed at teaching him how to operate successfully.
(c) If and when the experienced Wikipedian is satisfied Mcjakeqcool has learnt what to do, said Wikipedian should ask the community in an appropriate venue (here?) to also assess whether Mcjakeqcool has learnt what to do. If consensus agrees Mcjakeqcool has developed successfully, Mcjakeqcool should be released from the stipulations just stated, and be allowed to edit Wikipedia with no stain on his record.

If Mcjakeqcool does not accept these stipulations, and he carries on with the same behaviour he has been reported for, I cannot think what else we can do save for a block. Any thoughts? HonouraryMix (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to instruct him in how to use markup and sources, and am pleased he has suggested collaboration, but I'd like to know what he means by collaboration. He previously turned down an offer from Guyinblack25 to mentor him, and so far he's resisted all advice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

while I agree, I think we're going out of our way here to ignore the elephant in the room...--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. A bit more of WP:AGF would not hurt. I'll also be happy to help out here, as well. Tim Song (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would be more then happy, no wait overjoyed to collbarate with any wikipedian who is willing to collbarate with myself. And I will more then happly take any advice from fellow wikipeidans. mcjakeqcool 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for offering to help. Crossmr, whilst I agree the problem surrounding Mcjakeqcool is rather large, I still think it can be solved. Tim, thank you also for offering to help. As for "A bit more of WP:AGF would not hurt", I am the first person to argue for WP:AGF, but prior dealings with Mcjakeqcool have lead me not to view any offer by him for collaboration at face value.

Mcjakeqcool, thank you for agreeing to a collaboration. However, I am concerned you do not appreciate what the rest of us here view as an appropriate collaboration. Your record suggests you view collaborations as you carrying on with your projects, and expecting others to clean up the problems. You must view such an collaboration as an experienced Wikipedian tacking you under his or her wing, teaching you, and you must follow what that Wikipedian tells you, including following orders to stop creating articles. Do you accept this? Plus, you must not view what said Wikipedian says as advice. You have been offered lots of advice, and time and time again you failed to follow. You must view what an experienced Wikipedian tells you as gospel. If we here say stop creating the articles people have complained about, you must stop. It is the only way I can see that a block can be prevented from being implemented upon you. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians. mcjakeqcool 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You can start by fixing your signature so it is a proper link like everyone else's.--Crossmr (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I agree that he needs some close monitoring. And I view the proposal to be consistent with my understanding of AGF. I'm not saying that we should soften it more. Tim Song (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Noise at Talk:Holocaust denial

Could we get some disinterested assistance? It seems to me that one editor is being rather tendentious at Talk:Holocaust denial; I'm staying out of the fray, but perhaps some new eyes would help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty clearly to be a heavily stacked dispute with some participants becoming frustrated. One option would be to hand it off to outsiders at one of the content noticeboards (WP:NPOVN/WP:RSN/WP:CNB), and if there is little value seen in minority position there, that the matter be dropped.  Skomorokh  19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to look like a debate which would require some patience. I think Skomorokh is moving it in the right direction. Have you informed the editor on the 'other' side of the debate about this thread? Protonk (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I'm ignoring him completely; seems sanest. That's why I asked for help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I left him a note. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having engaged with the editor in question and asking them straightforward questions to no avail, I agree with the original assessment that the behaviour is tendentious, and recommend the discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial be archived in place and the editor encouraged to direct their efforts elsewhere.  Skomorokh  21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Protonk. As far the engagement between Skomorokh and I, I have yet to receive a reply to my straightforward question here. Note also he's trying to make a behavioural assessment, which is always a slippery slope. Note for example that he's mentioned nothing about others' "behavior" - only mine. Jpgordon and Sokomorokh both came into the discussion with little more than a threat and some vague references to RS and NOR, all of which was dealt with. I'm also certain that by the context of soliciting some administrator muscle, Sokomorokh means something less than gentle by his recommendation to "encourage[] ["the editor"] to direct their efforts elsewhere." -Stevertigo 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Its a rare day when I read an argument and find myself agreeing with...Jayjg. Holocaust denial is specific to Jews. You have no wiggle room here Steve, drop the song and dance. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure. Tarc has been a partisan in a couple other issues where I am also a party (see WP:DRV/SV/ONS), and his comments, *invariably, are both highly critical of me, personally, and likewise highly mistaken in their very premise. In this case he mis-states the material issue as one of 'specificity.' WP:LEDE makes it clear that *context is a requirement in article lead sections, and this is particularly true for articles about concepts that themselves rest on other concepts. In fact, I can't think of one that doesn't: For any article, any other related "concepts" are the "context." Thank you Tarc, once again. -Stevertigo 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Context" here means, the context of a proposition within the source, and contextual information about a source. Once Stevertigo slips in the word "concept" what he accomplishes is to justify using his own thoughts as context as opposed to any research involving verifiable sources. Perhaps we can now expect ten numered points parsing the logic of my sentence ... just another indicator of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Hm. Noting the substantial improvement in your conceptualizations here, let's break your comments down so I can deal with them one-by-one:
2. SLR: "Context" here means, the context of a proposition within the source, and contextual information about a source." - It has nothing to do with "propositions" - only objectively and materially relevant concepts. We can't discuss pottery without discussing clay. (..We can't talk about cigars without mentioning tobacco. We can't talk about space travel without talking about space craft. We can't talk about poetry without talking about writing. We can't talk about laughter without talking about emotion and facial expression...) It's not an issue of relating "pottery" to "pot (slang)," which is how you and others have tried to misrepresent my comments.
3. SLR: "Once Stevertigo slips in the word "concept" what he accomplishes is to justify using his own thoughts as context as opposed to any research involving verifiable sources." - Is this not just a slippery way of saying that I don't ever use the word "concept" in accord with its actual meaning? That I "accomplish[]" something just by using a word? That by "concepts" I mean merely 'my own concepts are the context?' Suspect inferences all - particularly so when I take care to break down each concept and discuss them with you point-by-point. At each point you are free to interject your own concepts.
4. SLR "Perhaps we can now expect ten numered points parsing the logic of my sentence" - Logic is only one of the dimensions in language that I deal with. There is also reason, along with apparent comprehension, and conceptual facility (such that can deal with my concepts as I express them - and not color them in various disruptive ways).
5. SLR: "... just another indicator of disruptive editing." - Discussion is not "editing," and comments are not "edits." "Disruptive" is subjective and I ask you to show where I have been in any objective way "disruptive." If you can't deal with the arguments as they are presented, don't pretend that you have. It's quite unscholarly to kick over the board when your queen is pinned. -Stevertigo 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Apologies for the chess analogy. It won't happen again (maybe).

Steve, it is not necessary to take every piece of a person's comment and treat it in isolation. In doing so you strip said piece of its context, and without context most become meaningless. It does not help you prove whatever point you have, and it would probably help massively if you stopped it. lifebaka++ 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Lifebaka wrote: "Steve" - Yep, that's my given name. I have others though.
2. Lifebaka wrote: "it is not necessary" - What is "not necessary?"
3. Lifebaka wrote: "to take" - Oh I agree. Sometimes its better to give.
4. Lifebaka wrote: "every piece of a person's comment and treat it in isolation." - Wait. Oh. I see: "take every piece... isolation." Got it. I.. uh.. don't do that.
5. Lifebaka wrote: "In doing so you strip said piece of its context - and without context most become meaningless." - This doesn't even make sense. If I don't strip every "said piece of its context," how then do I make the comments "meaningless?" I don't think anyway I'm quite as talented in that department as others I've dealt with are, and in fact my experience is that I succeed quite admirably in proving such thus said meaninglessness-ness was already in the original! "Stripping" only accentuated its attributes.
6. Lifebaka wrote: "It does not help you prove whatever point you have, and it would probably help massively if you stopped it." - I take it you don't like the way I take things apart, study them, and restate them using more accurate terms and in more lucid context, such that it demonstrate, by reflection, abstraction, connection, conviction, constriction, description, prescription, and absuridit..ion.. the validity, or lack thereof of your discrete, tangible arguments? I don't know. Do you have a source for that? -Stevertigo 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that, by anyone's definition, is a dick reply. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the mantime, we have a disruptive editor who is dominating the talk page and sidetracking us from any actually constructive discussion. Can some uninolved admins consider a course of action? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat (2nd nomination)‎

Resolved

 – Page semi'd by User:PeterSymonds; PA removed. Tim Song (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This AfD was relisted by DRV due to socking concerns. Now we have an huge influx of SPAs and likely socks again making all sorts of personal attacks on the page. Just so the relist does not get derailed again, can someone take a look and semi the page? Also, please check out the latest IP comment. Tim Song (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They're making terrible arguments, so I personally wouldn't worry about it. I've warned the IP who left those comments, but likely the person behind them has moved on by now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by user Alexikoua

Above mentioned user User:Alexikoua is canvassing regarding the voting on this issue: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_6#Template:Northern_Epirus

Here are the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factuarius&diff=prev&oldid=312330642 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megistias&diff=prev&oldid=312345802

--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, is Alexikoua accusing a long standing Admin of being a sock in the first diff there? Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Notified both J Milburn and Alexikoua. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua accuses not only admins of many things, but many other users of wiki of many other things.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• This canvassing is also going on off-wiki. See this thread, but be aware that it may be deleted shortly (seems it is the second thread, the first one having been deleted). A checkuser would probably be useful. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note the post "Me and I group of friends have tried to secure the article but they we need your contribution", suggesting that there is already an element of meatpuppetry going on... J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

About this off-wiki [[113]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[114]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[115]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he -I_Pakapshem- proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. I really regret, since situation is a bit out of control, but reasonably thinking, why should I add such kind of information off wiki? Sorry for the capitals and really sorry for involving J Milburn (the sentence proves that I'm not refering to him) but I really feel sad when being involved in that kind of activity which does not represent me and what I beliefs.

My contribution history proves that I'm not involved on the kind of activity which makes me sickAlexikoua (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, another one bad-faith report by user:I_Pakapshem, ([[116]] he already has a record of fruitless report in past). It sounds erroneous that someone accuses 'canvassing' while the same time launching irc activity in order to pick up supporters. What's really wierd is that the results of his initiative were sometimes controversial for him ([[117]], Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today. +an 'Incan name' reference seems to be also a result of these attempts).

His contibution, which is, for the first time he appeared in wiki untill now, limited to specific nationalist topics, just full of reverts and empty argument:

• after breaking a block record: 6 times in 43 days (June 9-July 21), due to endless wp:3rr, wp:npa, wp:civility isues, seems that this was not enough, he continued to show a dangerous pattern of continual battleground behavior [[118]] until he received a 1 revert limit.
• characteristically, when last blocked, and being insistent that the block was totally 'unfair', his talk page was locked too, [[119]].
• Why such a user should be trusted? It's more than obvious that this pattern of activity is still in full motion. I wouldn't be surprused if it was he that made up this childish bait job, according to his knowledge of Greek as well as his endless efforts to promote a nationalistic agenda [[120]] according to his contribution history.Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have 3 contributors who said delete and may be possible socks, and 6 contributors who said keep are 90% socks/meats. Let's focus on that. And we have a possible canvassing case.
• There was later found also this [121]. I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning is obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this [122]. I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious.--Alarichus (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Until now, all 5/6 new or ip contributors who voted "keep", have been to found to be located in the same area except one. All of them are located in Greece. I cannot give any information about the last one(guidelines) but you can guess I believe. Regarding the 3 ip or new users who said "delete", one of them is located in Kosovo and one in Macedonia. --Alarichus (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Alarichus:This thread says, in an extreme propagandistic style:

'Can I not write the text in Greek letters? Some Albanians in wikipedia want to delete part of Greek Epirus, but we have to keep it. Until now some guys I know helped us. When we manage to gather in great numbers I will tell you what to do. (noone knows who's watching).'

Hope this one will be soon checked. Since the baid style mentality is more than obvious. I_Pakashem's ghost activity seems to be his only solution lately.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• That probably explains the arrival of 5-6 ip users from Greece with no previous contributions(I'll do some more checks, and hopefully I'll find more). I did some investigation regarding this [123]. It seems that no user mentioned the TfD, in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help and no user with the username I Pakapshem joined the channels between -10:00, 00:00, until 19:46 when this message was posted. That enhances the possibilities of finding the one who caused all these issues. However, again let's not blame anyone for anything yet. I'll see if I can find more on this. Unfortunately I cannot check the irc logs to get more detailed info. But what I could find is good enough. --Alarichus (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• So although Pakapshem did not join irc, in the dates mentioned, someone thought he did and caused this. The question is WHO?.

I prefer writing good articles, than playing hide and seek in ANI, so hopefully we'll get to the end of this soon. There are 4 possibilities. I will elaborate on them later. --Alarichus (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to check with a similar nick? Since he has a past record I dont believe he is too innocent in that kind of activity. All posibilites may be possible, joined with similar nick or irrelevant nick. Who knows what he discusses in private conversations right? (any i.p. check in irc possible?). Even a diferrent channel in freenode sounds likely since he was of great need for 'delete' votes. His level of activity is obvious in attepting to wp:gaming the system in every opportunity. Did he became suddenly innocent recently? I dont think so.

The off-wiki childish camvassing attempt, which is obviously a rediculous bait style is for sure for lauphing. Hope that irc-topix ghost will be checked and revealed soon.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am a telecommunications student, and know how to search for such things. I am 100% sure he did not join with any nick, or canvass in irc. Most logs are public so you can check for yourself. Alexikoua, according to the evidence so far you are the only one who may have done it(canvassing, meatpuppeting), maybe with some involvement from Factuarius. Chris G and I, told you yesterday that those 2 messages you sent may be easily regarded as canvassing. And once I told you that I Pakapshem was the one initially concerned about the template, you started thinking that he would be canvassing on irc for votes. Then lots of ips(most with no edits at all) show up, backing you up. All from Greece. And one saying that I Pakapshem was canvassing in irc, but as I told you, he didnt even join the irc. But you thought that he did, and so did the ip. Then we have this skolixx in topix saying that he had been helped by some friends earlier[124](dates match with the 5-6 ips from Greece, and especially Athens), asking for more help. And I don't buy the fact his english was "poor", some of his sentences have been deliberately distorted to seem "poor". Afterwards there was found that he wrote also in greek. To me it would seem normal for someone who was warned about canvassing on-wiki, to stop and continue canvassing off-wiki. All hours match against you. There is definitely no involvement from Cplakidas, Aigest, Athenean, Michael IX the White. There is some involvement (regarding on-wiki canvassing) from Megistias, Factuarius. When your case is over, I will check if those 2 ips from Kosovo and Macedonia are related to I Pakapshem. --Alarichus (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that 2 notices cannot be considered canvassing. Usually (if not always), canvassing exceedes two people and is mass notification. Also, there is 0 proof that that "skolixx" is Alexikoua, and we can't accuse him of being just because there is a suspected "case"! Can you please bring forward as evidence in this the way that you found out that forum? --Michael X the White (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The definite point(except on-wiki canvassing) is that the ip contributor said that I Pakapshem had been trying to convince him to vote delete yesterday. But I Pakapshem didn't login with this nickname or another, and no one even mentioned such an issue(!!). So the ip contributor was lying. Alexikoua thought from the beginning of this that I Pakapshem was trying to convince us all to back him up by using irc. So we have a new ip contributor trying to back up the belief of Alexikoua by lying. It's clear that they are definitely connected. Combine that with "skolixx", and you get canvassing and meatpuppeting. On the bright side of this issue, most of you weren't involved. --Alarichus (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suppose he is not such an idiot to join in with his real name. What kind of argument is this Alarichus? You are accusing me as a member of an extremist organization without a single evidence... should I say thank you?Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you. No one said you are member of any organisation. But I cannot oversee the facts. You canvassed , and then an ip lied to back up your belief. And 5 others came simultaneously to "save" the template, and we have the off-wiki canvassing to gather support for the template. --Alarichus (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand well what Alarichus and I Pakapshem are thinking, Alexikoua first went to a chat room asking for help in 7/9, then next day 8/9 after J Milburn already had connected Alexikoua with Skolixx, put his photo in the chat room making him the leader of the most (in)famous racist political group in Greece and then posted an IP vote backing “his lies” in the discussion. To me no person could be so idiot to do that. The vote was just another attempt to victimize Alexikoua for canvassing and meatpuppeting and the person or persons who did that must be ashamed. As for for the rest of us before hurrying to extract easy conclusions we must consider the possibility to be the next victim of such a machination. --Factuarius (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius don't connect me with anyone of you. Seriously. And seriously did you even read what I wrote? You didn't even understand what I said, did you? And what is this political organisation you are referring to all the time? None of the ones involved in this connected you to anything. --Alarichus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All the time? This was my first post in the discussion. You are not understand anything of what happened. With the start of the voting, someone created a skolixx account in a chat room asking for support. In the very same day someone informed J Milburn for Alexikoua's canvassing giving him the ref about skolixx msg in the chat room. Then, when J Milburn informed the others about Alexikoua's activity as skolixx, they put a foto of the person-signed-skolixx which was the photo of the leader of the most (in)famous racist organization in Greece (see N. Michaloliakos (N. Μιχαλολιάκος) & Chrisi Avgi (Χρυσή Αυγή)). Simple wording: they created a account, they connected it with Alexikoua, then they put the leader's photo "revealing" who "Alexikoua" really is. If Alexikoua didn't -at the last minute- realised it, how he could save himself, if today a message with a link from internet with a Michaloliakos photo and a link to the skolixx messages would posted here? That is what happened, and that is what I mean that what happened now with Alexikoua could happen to ANYONE. Is it now clear? Consider that. --Factuarius (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have really messed it all up, haven't you? And why are you telling me this? I don't really care who Michaloliakos is or anything else. All I know is that Alexikoua was canvassing, he was warned, and then six ips from Greece with no previous contributions, came and backed him and up, and then this post was found. Even if I erase that, still..., don't you think? --Alarichus (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are not. You don't even care to -ever- mention the "Albanian" IP votes, don't you? On the contrary after the last Albanian IP vote posted, you rushed to count the votes ("Upadate:10 delete, 7 keep"), after saying "I can prove nothing, and disprove anything". The next time you will mention here or elsewhere my name for canvassing or meatpuppeting I am going to report you. --Factuarius (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned them. It is not my fault if you cannot see that. And now you are threatening me? This is disappointing... --Alarichus (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot, because I never canvassing or meatpuppeting and I am going to report you for accusing me on that. --Factuarius (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius actually has made some good points. And allow me to expand further. Why would Alexikoua call IPs for backup when we had already started a discussion supporting that IPs and few-edit users would not be counted in in reaching consensus? Why would anyone do that when IPs and few-edit users are (usually) not counted in such procedures? I do not doubt that some of these IPs really were Greeks that came from that forum and I have found the link given to them by skolixx that leads directly to the Template discussion. But still, why call them in when they are not to be counted? Another question I have is why count "votes" when this is about consensus and not a democracy. I'd also like J Milburn to tell us how he found that adress. I am more than interested.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I have answered below, just read. Actually there were 2 links, one found by J_Milburn, one by me. After talking with a checkuser, there was decided to search for off-wiki patterns which could explain this sudden inlfux of ips. I found 1, and then JMilburn found an earlier post. --Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakapshem's sick attempt

I'm really pissed off since this continuous reverter made up this sick attempt against me. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix). Who could really sign with such a name? So Pakashem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic? What else have I to say? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active in off-wiki too, but not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That skolixx said: "Some Albanians in wikipedia are trying to delete a piece about greek epirus, but we can reverse this if we gather in great numbers." ( loipon sth wikipedia kati albanoi pane na diagrapsoun ena kommati gia thn ellhnikh hpeiro, alla mporoume na to antistrepsoume an mazeytoume arketoi) Well, if this is not a non-Greek who wrote this, my curiosity is too great to wait to know what kind of a Greek could use the phrase "about Greek Epirus", where Greek is used to make the ditinction, as if the rest of Epirus was not Greek. It is an extremely strange way to describe Northern Epirus and it is the first time I meet it. I really do not think Alexikoua wrote this. I mean, this hardly sounds Greek.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are on the border of incivility. Take it easy. There are even companies which have that name [125] and as I saw even greek nationalists use it for themselves. Seriously, guys I have seen a LOT on non-english wikipedias(de). This kind of behaviour is just worsening the situation. Michael I really cannot understand your argument. If you think a part of another country belongs to you, you do use your own national denonym for it, don't you? --Alarichus (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just relax. --Alarichus (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, it would be useful to make some web-search about this if you're going to involve yourself in this. But it is my mistake that this was not clear. Epirus ia a region spanning both countries. To differentiate the part that is situated in the Hellenic Republic to the one that is in the Republic of Albania, the political (coming from the Autonomous State) and geographical term Northern Epirus. It would be normal (but extremely unlikely) for the term "Greek Epirus" to be used for the part that is in Greece itself, but the part in Albania alone would surely be never referred to as "Greek Epirus". Even if the term was used to describe all of Epirus, greek would still not be used because it is taken for granted. But here we already know that it is used ofr Northern Epirus only.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Comment

The accused user(Alexikoua) canvassed on wiki, and may have canvassed off-wiki. Additionally there is battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting, possible sockpuppeting. Hopefully, there will be an appropriate solution to all this. I will probably avoid any further conversation regarding this issue. End of story.--Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize for my first reaction, but I see nothing more than just cheap, bad faith, unexplained and without evidence accusations, compined with continous exaggerated assumptions and weird support to I_Pakapshem.Alexikoua (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated with the issue, but I found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user and I believe a research is more than justified about him. --Factuarius (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely disgusting that people join Wikipedia already knowing a little about the Internet, and already knowing what an encyclopedia article looks like. I propose we ban anyone who doesn't spend at least a year getting their contributions reverted and deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Many users have edited as IPs for some time previously, others have edited on other wikis, on noticeboards, have their own livejournal/myspace/facebook/bebo account....etc. We're not talking about somebody who pops up and immediately starts wikilawyering, throwing allegations around at ANI, and showing total familiarity with the internal Wikipedia machinery that probably just indeffed them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: I never wikilawyering (this is the first time I ever wrote here being 8 months in WP) and I would had never interfered in the matter if Alarichus didn't "throw allegations around at ANI (against me), showing total familiarity with the internal Wikipedia machinery" although officially a 2-months user. To me it's a logical thought to question his thorough knowledge on the "internal Wikipedia machinery" because of the time being around. So it's not me who wikilawyering here. To me what is mattering is J Milburn's opinion about and thus I am stopping the discussion here. --Factuarius (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? I didn't say you were wikilawyering. I think you misread my post. I said the other guy wasn't wikilawyering. What he knows a lot about is tracing people on the internet - given what he says he has a qualification in, this is perhaps not so surprising, and not evidence that he is a sockpuppet, which is what I presume you were implying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: Ι am afraid you have missed some episodes of the story which has a long tail, and I am afraid that I indeed misread your post which in general, as I now understand, was in entirely good faith. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and if you are really a lady please doubled them. --Factuarius (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thank you for accepting my good faith. I think it would be better if I refrained from further comment - as you say, this does seem to have a lengthy tale to it, with which I have not been involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is, however, one thing justified by Alarichus' short presence here: he does not know enough about WP consensus or discussion. Myself I see bad faith from Alarichus, and pointless accusations. "Possible sockpuppeting"?? Why should that be Alexikoua and not me or Factuarius or anyone else around? The other part about "battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting" I think is pointless because it is just how a heated discussion of the Greek-Albanian matters would look like from someone uninvolved and uninformed about it. This case, however, is about canvassing. It is about two friendly notices in none of which is there any "call to arms" of the well-known "come and help quickly"/"come vote!"/"You're needed" kind. These were two notices to people who had been involved with the matter and Northern Epirus-related articles and are currently active on Wikipedia. Alexikoua can be accused of canvassing on and off-wiki as much as any other user of Wikipedia. I mean, can you even check people's phones or e-mails?--Michael X the White (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael IX, I'll explain thoroughly why I believe that Factuarius is possibly involved in sockpuppetry. His ip is approximately the same as the ip of one of the ip users who had no further contributions. He also has the same ISP as him. Aprroximately same ip, same isp, involvement in same topics to support same argument. As I found his isp provides a dynamic ip address in a limited range. That would perfectly justify the almost same ip of the ip user with the ip of Factuarius. Michael, were you me wouldn't you also consider possible sockpuppetry? And I did nothing "out of the ordinary" to discover this particular amount of data. Any telecommunications & networks student can do it without breaking any privacy law. This is my last comment, so I would appreciate it if you didn't ask me anything. To Factuarius:Do you understand that I am not accusing you of anything by speculating? These are the factual indications, and anyone else would think similarly. And please stop creating conspiracy theories regarding me, it would be much better to spend your time by improving the project. --Alarichus (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you violate wp:privacy policy, as per wp:Personal security practices. Peeking on registered users private information (such i.p.s) without having authority and without even initiating sockpuppet investigation. Alexikoua (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that I did not violate any part of the guidelines. Factuarius actually revealed his ip accidentally,[126]. --Alarichus (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Really Alarichus? Did you forget something? That during all the voting (both of user's and IP's), my computer and thus my IP was all the time present with active sessions in multiple pages. did I? My ISP is HOL, having a limited number of customers in Athens and the similarities in IP is because of that natural as you know. Also you "forget" something more significant, that my computer is a Linux-based one and in particular Fedora and that is evident since every single of my 2,350 edits I have made for 8 months in WP had be done with this very computer. I am never using windows-based software due to my dislike of Microsoft and this is evident in my history in WP. Thus I am almost sure that no user active ((both of user's and IP's) in the voting had such a computer due to the rarity of that operating system. Every checkuser can inform you about these, and in fact I am sure that had indeed informed you, because otherwise I would had been ended up banned days before when you had asked the checusering, so I am hearing what you say now as another try to disregard my efforts as a clean and rational voice here just because you dislike what I say. I never sockppupeted in my entire "life" in WP. NEVER. Try to imagine that. Is it so difficult for you? Why "Alarichus"? ----Factuarius (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't even understand what I'm saying. And no checkusers are allowed to inform users about other users' personal data. So no comment, and don't include me in your speculations any longer. The End. --Alarichus (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so could you be kind enough to inform all of us how you knew my IP? I mean what you really doing as "a telecommunications & networks student without breaking any privacy law" Alarichus? --Factuarius (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you do not read my comments. I already wrote before that you showed us your ip [127]. You made it public by yourself. Now please, respect the fact that I don't want to comment any longer. ok?--Alarichus (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask a checkuser to investigate your account for possible sockpuppeting and especially in connection to the Sarandioti account a known Albanian user multiple banned spa. End of story for the time being. --Factuarius (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would really like to see you justify your speculation. --Alarichus (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk play

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.

---

No administrator intervention required at this time.  Skomorokh  18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but could someone please review the comments this editor User talk:Baseball Bugs is making at the Reference Desk. it's just my opinion, but the comments tend to be less than helpful. Thank you. 173.103.148.35 (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified Bugs about this. Shinerunner (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I like helping to answer sincere and thoughtful questions. Much of the "noise" on the ref desks comes from stupid questions, homework questions, questions from users who haven't bothered trying Google or wikipedia itself, trivia quizzes posing as questions, deliberately baiting questions, and from IP addresses with lots of warnings on their pages, lecturing others on how to behave - or from IP addresses never heard from before (such as the one that filed this posting). FYI, when we used to go to the zoo, we fed marshmallows to the polar bears and it seemed to make them happy. So it could work for the eskimoes also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some questions might be better being asked elsewhere, anyway. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See [128] , [129] ,both from Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Is_the_reference_desk_now_a_joke_site_and_a_chatroom

Also Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User_Baseball_Bugs83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that attempts by Nimur here are not sinking in. He has taken your example and demonstrated on the reference desk page how help should be offered. I am at a loss as to how comments like [130] are at all helpful. Possibly the antics and side discussions could be made on a User talk page or offsite. 174.146.122.79 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a friendly discussion with Nimur on this topic. The comments of drive-bys like yourself and the original complainant, I don't care about. One of the sincere and thoughtful questions on a ref desk recently led to my creating an article, which actually drew a compliment from another editor. One compliment is worth the sniping of a hundred drive-bys. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[131] This edit is noise.

also this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=312571611]

This is typical of the type of response that the editor provides that caused me to asked them to stop previously

83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That complaint is downright insulting. The questioner, apparently lacking imagination, asked the help desk for an icon of The Truth. Superman always tells the truth. I could have said Jesus also. And I also could have said something like what TFOWR said below - in fact I almost did, but I tried to give a possibly helpful answer instead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It would have been much better if Bugs had said "Superman always did his own damn homework". Subtlety isn't always that helpful. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are there so many IP editors commenting on this? I suggest looking at the IPs for possible socks. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

83.100.250.79 (talk · contribs) appears to be a regular and prolific contributor to the Reference Desk, so my first instinct is that their comments are in good faith. 173.103.148.35 (talk · contribs) and 174.146.122.79 (talk · contribs) both have one contribution each (both here, above). I'd guess they're part of Bugs' "fan club". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for 173.103.196.18 (talk · contribs) - one contrib, here, below. I suspect we may see a fair few 173.X.Y.Y and 174.X.Y.Z IPs over the next hour or so. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been directly communicating to BaseballBugs on my talk page about this issue; moments later, I suppose it got reported here. I think we have made the point to him, and I hope he agrees that we can solve this issue without a block or any other administrator's intervention, but this really depends on how cooperative Baseball Bugs is willing to be. His contributions are sometimes helpful and are appreciated. However, he has continued to make disruptive joke commentary on the reference desk despite repeated discussions, messages, and eventually warnings. On my talk page, he brought up some valid concerns, but his repeated joke posts are breaking Wikipedia to make a point. I sincerely hope we can resolve this without needing a block. Nimur (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Bugs)Please don't take this as a personal attack, but you seem to be diverting the issue and examples. It is my opinion that Nimur is attempting to show you how to answer questions at the Ref Desk. I am at a loss as to how your responses to him there, or your responses here justify your edits at the Reference Desk. This is not an attempt to discredit you, but to try to get the reference desk answers back on track. 173.103.196.18 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting an editor who posts a complaint on the talk page for harrassment does make me happy [132] - is there any reason for this?

Also comments like this "Given that your own talk page is filled with warnings, you had best keep your complaints to yourself" , "So enough of your patronizing lectures already". [133]. I don't see why anyone who complains has to have their legitimacy called into question. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who files a complaint opens the door to scrutiny of their own behavior. You don't get to file a complaint and then pretend to be an angel yourself. Regarding the AIV posting, which you conveniently failed to mention I later withdrew, the name and behavior squares with that of recent harassing socks. But I decided to leave it be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(To TFOWR) Yes, I am on a dynamic IP. If you have concerns that I am being disruptive or trolling please address them directly. I would ask that my comments also be considered as sincere, the references reviewed and if I have a legitimate complaint, that it is given its fair due. Otherwise you are just sidetracking from the issue at hand, and creating unneeded drama. 173.103.110.221 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that there's no way to determine your editing history. DHCP is all well and good, but resetting the IP address with every edit seems extremely unusual - is that direct enough for you? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(To TFOWR)I agree with you that it is difficult at best to review my history. resetting the IP is not something that I have control of, it is dynamic and controlled by the ISP as far as I know. I stand by my original question, which I feel is fair to ask. I would appreciate your opinion on that issue as well. 173.103.0.244 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Registering an account would neatly solve your IP problem. Just a suggestion... OK. Back on topic... Without seeing your editing history - or receiving any explanation from you as to the reasons for your involvement in this - it's impossible to know whether you're legitimately involved or simply trolling. Nimur is addressing the matter, so why add to the heat and noise here? After raising the issue here, why not simply sit back and let due process take its course? As it is, by posting repeatedly you've caused (unintentionally, I'd hope) 83.100.250.79's motivations to be called into question - which is why I'm still in the conversation, since I regard 83.100.250.79 as legitimately involved, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest this [[134]] specifically this:

We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources.

would be a start. The editor isn't particularily at fault in other ways - but some of the answers they provide, are no good at all.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"No good at all" is strictly a personal opinion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And while those guidelines are indeed a good start, they are inadequate to the frequent situations of questioners posting extremely vague or broad questions, which require asking questions back, or making guesses, in the hope that the original questioner (who often is never heard from again), can come back and clarify. They also don't address certain issues, like certain users posting questions they already know the answers to, just to post a trivia quiz there. Some users have suggested banning users who ask such questions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What is this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=313382712&oldid=313382515] ?

Why do you keep doing this - that has nothing to do with the answer, it is irrelevent to the reference desk.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor did their responses. Yet you didn't go schlepping them to ANI, did you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

I count at least 5 behavioral complaints on your own talk page. Go clean up your own act before addressing me again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't report you to this page, I left a message on your talk page, and a message on the reference desk talk pages. What other editors do doesn't make what you do ok.

Also if I get a complaint I try to improve. Why don't you do the same? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this at the administrators' noticeboard? Reference desk etiquette should be discussed at WT:RD, and if there's some irresolvable issue, take it to dispute resolution or a community noticeboard.  Skomorokh  16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's here because a one-shot, drive-by IP decided to bring it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue is in discussion at WP:RD. This discussion should be closed, to allow resolution to work out in the appropriate place. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I'm also a regular contributor to the RDs and see Bugs there frequently. He makes jokes, so what? Grow a sens of humor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

MLS Cup Templates

Following this discussion, JPG-GR (talk · contribs) concluded that said templates should be deleted. However, two days after the discussion was closed, the templates remain undeleted. JPG-GR appears to have gone on a wiki-break, so I am posting here in the hope that another admin will be able to delete the templates in his/her stead. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

He was probably waiting to have all the links to them removed, which has now been done. I've deleted them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 16:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jimintheatl Incivility and other behaviors.

Resolved

At the beggining of this week I was involved in a sockpuppet investigation where I wrongly named 2 people in a string of sockpuppets as a sockpuppet. I tried to calmly and politely explained my rationale in the nominations. [[135]][[136]]. I've had nothing but personal attacks and incivility since then from this user. He has been counseled by others his behaviors are inappropriate. He continues to make abusive edit summaries and attacks on not only my page but others as well.User talk:Evans1982. It would appear that he is also exhibiting edit warring behavior so we might as well knock out two birds with one stone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a look in the mirror might find the problem here, rushing aroung again templating at random and tossing accusation around willy nilly. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. If the accusing user had acted civilly in the first place, or followed WP:SOCKDONTASSUME, he could have avoided irritating several users, not just me. Jimintheatl (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Are you a new user? that is what that article is about. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't a case where I did something wrong. May I ask why every post you've made to me or egarding me has been negative? Have I been rude to you or offended you in some way? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am cool with you, I have been following the edits regarding this issue and thought you could have handled the issue a bit smoother. I have informed user Evans 1982 of the thread here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be the first to admit that I need smoothing in places. Maybe you can help me out so I can understand how I could have handled this differently. I tried to use the guiding policies in Sockpuppets and had narrowed down a sock farm that had 3 articles in common. I made the nominations and several were proven to be confirmed socks. Jim and Evans were not. Both were a little iritated buy the nomination and I did try to explain why I did so and apolagized. Evans eventually dropped it. I tried to admonish Jim by removing his further attacking comments and finally moved from a revert, to vandal revert and finally a warning for refactoring my talk page and an attacking edit summary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Smoothing? You and me both, brother...As for refactoring your talk page? I wanted to be done with whatever it was that drew me into your field of vision and you asked me to leave your talk page (by the way, the troll accusation was not very civil), so I removed my comments from your talk page. Again, I'm done with you; but you don't seem to want to drop "it," whatever "it" is and for whatever reasons.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also left a message to inform Jimintheat of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look right above yours he was notified by me per the requirements here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it now, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess one of my main questions is where in the Don't assume a Sock article allows personal attacks or gives justification to act like the world is ending. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand why Jimintheatl was annoyed by Hell in a Bucket's accusation. I was absolutely annoyed myself; especially that my userpage was marked. But seriously Jimintheatl, let it go! Hell in a Bucket made a mistake. He/she doesn't deserve to be badgered over the issue. -- Evans1982 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on the annoyed part, but I'm more than willing to forgive and forget. And I want to be done with it So we are here for....what exactly?Jimintheatl (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue was enlarged and continued and brought here by Hellinabucket reporting jimintheat1 not the other way around. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

MAybe you should read through the comments on all pages again. That is so off the wall it's not even funny. Go back look at my page history. My last comment on this was I had nothing left to discuss and then didn't other to revert he further attacks and oedit summaries. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is fine that you want to be done with it. I do and have since I left the note that there was nothing left to discuss.

"I guess you should read more about the policy regrding civility then because nothing in my actions were uncivil. If you can't accept a simple explanation you are lost and there is no further point to this dialogue. Sorry you chose to act like a little kid. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC) " You persisted 3 times after that with attacks in either your edits or your summaries. Also the talk page is a record of our discussion. You aren't permitted to remove your own comments on others page after they are left. You can feel free to strike but removing them is not allowed per policy. If you want to end this, I 'm one hundred percent fine with that, I nominated you in error within policy. I'm sorry if that offended you but this is not a personal thing for me I used the guiding principals in declaring my suspicions, you aren't a sock puppet. Would you be willing to drop this with me now? I am one hundred percent ready and willing to on my side if you are. We can both come away from the table with a lesson learned. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm sorry I got as pissed and acted as pissy as I did. Is this the part where we sing Kumbaya .....Jimintheatl (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's cool man, I have a temper too but have to majorly control it on Wikipedia. I dunno the words to Kumbaya but we can roll a spliff and listen to a Dead song would work just as well. Thank you for resolving this with me and I'm sorry it progressed as far as it did from my part as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, from 94, a year before Jerry moved on So many roads Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Angsc09

Moved from WP:AN, Woody (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to report this user for repeated vandalism and going against consensus, repeatedly having edit wars and starting article by bypassing redirecting by adding a extra capital to article name.

Angsc09 (talk · contribs)

The article in question is Monster Buster Club the article they have bypassed is List of Monster Buster Club characters they made a article List of Monster Buster Club Characters they add in fan made stuff into the article even when presented with sources that show they are wrong. They consistently mess up the above article either as user or ip address and it getting quite hard to undo the work now and i having to revert back to older version to undo it. The above extra page i have now redirected as well but i suspect they will remove the redirection. not sure what can be done but if someone can do something i be grateful. I have leave friendly message in the past asking to stop it or to provide sources they ignored it and i think i have left a few warnings recently but they still ignore it.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post contained 21 spelling errors -- I have fixed them to make it more readable. Please use a spell-checker when you post again. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read my userpage you will fidn i am dsylexic and spell checker are useless, because how i spell is how it seems to me. i understadn what you are saying it makes it easier for people to read but i cant do much about it.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 and 75.186.104.169

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.186.104.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one slipped under the radar somehow, but there's a good chance that 75.186.104.169 is the indefinitely blocked user Axmann8. The reason I think this is (1) similar interests; (2) similar attitude (removing warnings from talk page, removing others' comments from talk pages, etc.); (3) both are from Indiana; and (4) 75.186.104.169 updating a comment Axmann8 made back in March, which was missed at the time somehow.[137] Kind of an odd thing to do, unless it's the same guy. We known Axmann8 is still lurking, as he tried to file another unblock recently,[138] his first edit under his registered name since he was indef'd in late March. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the IP was blocked just an hour ago, but only for 24. Methinks this requires more discussion. Axmann8 is stale, except for the one edit on September 6th (just a few minutes after the IP's edits on that day) which might be usable by a checkuser. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Axmann8 did self-identify as being from Indiana (why someone would admit that is beyond me) so the IP does match to the general area. nableezy - 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the IP geolocates to Indiana. And the IP looks like an Obama-hater. So there ya are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Axmann have a mosquito? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What, as a pet or something? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As in an impersonator who tries to get him in hotter water. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Either way, he should be blocked for greater length than 24, but I'm not an admin, just a lowly peon, so all I can do is make recommendations. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

With my usual tactful approach, I've asked the IP on his page if he's Axmann8. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

He is only editing sporadically, at least at that IP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone might wanna compare the IP to Disruptive user name (talk · contribs). If it pongs, the IP isn't Axmann. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor continuing to add many bad refs to physics articles after repeated warnings and RFCU

On June 28 I filed this ANI report about an editor who was using many socks to add irrelevant (or at least very questionable) refs to physics articles, and not editing in any other way. The editor had already been the subject of this RFCU. The ANI report produced no response whatsoever, and the editing pattern has continued, although not the socking -- as far as I know, all the recent edits have been made as Casimir9999 (talk · contribs). I won't give diffs because a glance at the contribs should be enough to show what is happening. I am not going to give any more warnings because I don't have any confidence that anything would be done, but I will notify Casimir9999 of this section. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There was also a later sterile ANI thread which for some reason I can't find in the archives, but here is a link to it in its final state, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block, then. He's had multiple chances to get it right and doesn't seem interested. We've got enough of a problem with unreferenced information, we don't need incorrectly referenced stuff as well. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Casimir999 makes controversial edits but never communicates. He does not leave any messages on Talk. The only reason not to act immediately is that he has not edited since being warned of this ANI. If he returns to edit more articles without responding here (or anywhere else) I propose a 24 hour block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 216.125.91.130

moved from WP:AN.  Skomorokh  19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked 216.125.91.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and reverted the last few vandal edits. If someone wants to go back and check further back, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As this doesn't require admin action, I thought it better on WP:AN as a description of what I did, rather than WP:ANI. Whatever… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Three overlapping RM and merge discussions, one malfunctioning bot

• There is an open RM at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II.
• There is an open mass RM at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion, affecting the above. The purpose is a mass rename from the descriptive title of a lot of articles to a prescriptive title that is yet uncertain (and in my view violates policy, and I have a lot of other issues with this proposal)
• There is a merge proposal at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion, affecting both of the above.
• RfCbot appears to be malfunctioning, the moveheader removal bug this time did this [139]. I have not restored because I don't want to edit war with a bot.

I ask administrators to maintain the move and merge proposals:

• I ask to close the RM at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II once the bot's edit is reverted, because the other RM superseded this RM and several editors who participated in this vote now voted en-bloc for something different on Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion.
• I also ask to put on hold the merge proposals as long as the interflicting RM is open, or the other way around.
• I further ask to monitor the RM at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion
• And I ask someone to repair the RfCbot

Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. The supervision of an outside administrator would be helpful. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: RfCbot has removed all moveheaders to the affected articles of the mass RM, that were added manually by Labattblueboy. An IP has reverted RfCbots wholesale deletion of the talkpage (diff above), RfCbot has not yet reverted again. All other problems still stand as listed above, help appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help with rollbacks

Resolved

 – Javért  |  ^Talk 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

68.116.43.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have spammed numerous articles with a "criticism" section regarding the benefits of alcohol consumption. Example. I could use help cleaning this up. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it's all done. Mass rollback only reverted two edits. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 19:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I got impatient. Thanks for helping! Katr67 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Return of abusive SPS violating ArbCom sanctions

Resolved

User:FalunGongDisciple was previously blocked indefinitely by me for vandalism to articles under ArbCom sanctions and a possibly offensive username. Today, User:FalunDafaDisciple showed up doing much the same thing, including removing the block on the previously blocked FalunGongDisciple. Unfortunately, he at least previously edited from a school's IP, which would make blockiing that IP problematic. Do we have grounds to block the new obvious sockpuppet for vandalism and sockpuppetry? John Carter (talk)

• Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm Defense Satalite

Resolved

 – PMDrive1061 blocked SaulDaedalusAI007 with an expiry time of indefinite.--Otterathome (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

The page creator has made legal threats in the article mainspace. The article has been tagged for speedy deletion, so this post may be moot. Thanks Tiderolls 12:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's SaulDaedalusAI007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who reacted to the impending speedy deletion of his nonsense article with: "Deleting this page will result in Direct Prosecution of a Maximum Penalty fee. UNDER THE COPYWRITE, DESIGNS & PATENTS ACT 1988 LAW THIS PROFILE IS PROTECTED AGAINST UNORTHARISED PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO DELETE THIS TEXT.©" One could conceivably indef-block him per WP:NLT, but the threat is probably a bit too silly to be taken remotely seriously.  Sandstein  14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987

I have recently discovered and publicized that Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been falsely claiming to have referenced an article for DYK. This is the last of many such problems with his DYKs - info that does not check out, sources that are cited with what they do not say, hooks cited with primary sources etc. I've opened a debate about this on the DYK page, and left the same message on his talk page. I also happened to note that this user is on editor review aiming for an RfA after being caught sockpuppeteering, and uses the DYKs and other edits to improve his image. This when most users are not in a position to review his superficial or misleading editing in such articles, and when he puts these up at an impressive rate. This I believe is tantamount to disrupting wikipedia for an ulterior goal.

I will also note that this is not the first time I have directly challenged Mario to explain himself after pointing out major problems with his hooks (which would have otherwise gone unnoticed) - in the past, he has accused me of being biased against him, and has for no reason whatsoever invoked my Bucharest origin against me in disparaging (but not especially insulting) terms. It would take me too much to find these diffs, since the comments were produced on the T:TDYK, which is updated but not archived (and most be one of the most edited pages around). However, what follows includes his repeated accusations on such grounds.

Now, to the core of the matter here. This is Mario's reply to my message. He again claims that I'm out to get him (without replying to the issue I brought up in his article), and states: "I say to you not to worry because everything you say against me or my contributions means absolutely nothing for me and sadly my oppinion of you just dropped to a level even lower than hell." At the bottom, there is a message in Romanian: "Si separat, fara suparare, sa sti ca pe la noi pe aici prin zona Maramuresului este o vorba cum ca voi astia de dupa arcul carpatic sunteti niste tigani. Nu am vrut sa cred asta dar vad ca cel care a spus vorba asta nu a gresit cu nimic." this translates as: "And, as a side note, no offense, you should know that people out here in Maramureş area argue that you people outside the Carpathian Arch are Gypsies. I did not want to believe that, but I see that the man who came up with that saying was not at all wrong." Please don't take my word for it, ask other Romanian speakers how they would translate the message.

I replied, letting Mario know that I consider such messages very problematic, and that, given the projected RfA: "you leave me with a choice of reporting you now or holding the message for future reference." He replied about his interpretation of the attacks: "And about the "lower than hell" comment i urge you to read again because it's nothing offensing about that. I just tried to say that my oppinion of you just dropped to a level 'lower than hell' with the sense of lowest possible. And the message in Romanian wasn't a racist attack it was just a remark present in the region from where i am from. You consider us stupid and slow we consider you gypsies and you know that is right." This shows that he has no problem repeating the insults, and feels that they somehow equate something I supposedly did. Which is not even funny. (Please note in addition that I have never ever stated any prejudice against "his people", and do not in fact hold any such prejudice - this entrenched mentality is entirely his projection.) Dahn (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all you shouldn't keep pushing the sockpuppet problem i had in front because that's all in my past. I did a bit of research on your and found out that you also have been blocked due to edit warring so were not entirely that different. The attempted RfA that i had was unsuccesfull and i received this message from editors that incouraged me even if i didn't pass. When i asked him if he hates things outside Bucharest he replied with this message. I saw that you wrote and has for no reason whatsoever invoked my Bucharest origin against me in disparaging but you have on your userpage This user is a Mitică, monşer userbox don't you? And related to the gypsi thing i know it was a bit over the line but i just pointed out a thing that involves people from the region where i live and their oppinion about other people in another region. These are considered cliches in Romania, that people from the Muntenia region including Bucharest are considered Mitici or gypsies, and people from Transilvania and Maramures are considered a bit slow minded and physically slow. Mario1987 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am mentioning your "sockpuppet problem" because it is apparent to me that you are trying to move from that to becoming an admin, and I believe that your edits primarily serve that purpose.

I am a Bucharester, that much is true, and I am also relaxed when it comes to self-defining myself as a Mitică (which, btw, is self-ironic). That I would invite you to produce any disparaging remarks against me (as you persist in doing just above), that I would in any way imply I am a "Gypsy" (which carries negative connotations even when referring to a Rom, not just when transferring its supposed negative connotations to a non-Rom), is ridiculous. The rest is an attempt at equivocation, and I trust administrators will see through the thin veneer. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, with the above comment, Mario has confirmed my translation. Dahn (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

From what i understand you think if i would become an admin the end of the world will come. If you must know that was my first and last attempt to become an admin. If you read the RfA message that i received you will see that i have to take admin coaching in order to become one. And BTW i didn't imply that YOU are a gypsi. Please show me the personal attack in this "And, as a side note, no offense, you should know that people out here in Maramureş area argue that you people outside the Carpathian Arch are Gypsies." It's very ambiguous. Mario1987 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am concerned that you are being deceptive in your editing. This, admittedly, is a concern we should all share. I am also concerned that you appear to be using that deception to improve your status in the community, regardless of the consequences this has on the quality of information provided by wikipedia. I am especially concerned since these contributions, as dubious as they are, get exposure on the first page, and I'm concerned that you have repeatedly shown this does not trouble you (judging by the feedback you received on T:TDYK, other editors too share at the very least this concern).

I obviously do not trust you to read and interpret your own comments, otherwise I would not be bringing this up for admin scrutiny. This is what you originally said: "And, as a side note, no offense, you should know that people out here in Maramureş area argue that you people outside the Carpathian Arch are Gypsies. I did not want to believe that, but I see that the man who came up with that saying was not at all wrong." The italicized part is what you did not include in your equivocation about what is "ambiguous". This is the second time on this page where you misquote me on purpose.

Anyway, I don't want to carry on forever in a debate with you. I believe the evidence I presented so far warrants at the very least serious scrutiny. I'll comment if administrators request from me to answer to/elaborate on specific issues, but I see no point in following up on your sophisms, Mario. Dahn (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The veiled racist attack (if the translation is correct) is very problematic, especially for a user who had an indefinite block for sockpuppetry lifted with the comment "last chance". Dahn, are there any diffs and/or other evidence to substantiate your charge that Mario1987 has been falsifying references? That would be a very serious problem as well. If people who can read Romanian can verify either charge, I would support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  14:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what references i've falsified. Mario1987 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sandstein. It's not a question of diffs, it's more a question of an entire article that was not sourced with the source he claimed to have used. The article in question is Max Auschnitt, and the version I'm referring to is this one (the current one, as I'm writing this). I have stated the case on his talk page (the message I linked to above) and my original message concerning the Auschnitt hook on T:TDYK. See [here and the entry on Auschnitt here. The diffs I used show that the article was largely copied from Romanian wiki, where the reference (Enciclopedia României aka Enciclopedia Cugetarea) was mentioned but not cited, and that Mario added citations randomly to the English version, for facts that could not possibly be verified by the reference. Note that he also failed to cite the publication data properly by indicating the wrong publisher for the date (exactly like the Romanian page he must have copied it from), which is impossible or at least highly unlikely for someone who claims to have verified the reference. Dahn (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: please take a look at what Mario's sockpuppets were created for. At the time, Mario was using them in an attempt to promote as many pictures at once to featured status (all of them has since been moved to commons and they appear to have since been deleted). What just happened, I suspect, is the same attempt at receiving quick recognition for questionable contributions, also through a disruptive and deceptive process, and this evidences that the only lesson he has picked up from the previous block is to try the same tactic in other fields. Dahn (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. That's not fair. Using past problems to resolve present ones. And you keep telling the misleading reference story all the time. How many DYK articles i nominated that had real issues? I'm curious of what you're going to say. Mario1987 17:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using the past problems to show that you have done the same in Auschnitt's case. "And you keep telling the misleading reference story all the time." - let's see you prove, say, how you could cite a 1940 source on 1948 events. As for your DYK's: I never counted them, nor kept a file on you; I also said that it is hard for me to review your entire DYK history, when T:TDYK does not keep an archive. But admins can verify your history there as well. For one, they have User:Materialscientist agreeing that: "[Mario1987's] nominations, including this one, are written too quickly and would clearly benefit from better research and judgment on what is worth putting on WP pages" (see the T:TDYK link above). Also, if challenged, I am willing to take time from my editing etc. and go through the DYK proposals that I've had to correct: for instance, the one where you claimed that a church held one one of the oldest books in Romania (when it was not even one of the oldest printed books); where you claimed that two singers produced a huge number of singles in an entry that was about unreleased songs; where you created a hook (which is still on T:TDYK) which conflated a city and a county; where you sourced your hooks with primary source press releases.

Incidentally, I believe this is beyond the scope of this discussion, and I only replied to your points so you don't get another chance to blur the facts. The facts, the main but not the only facts, are that: a) you added false citations to an article; b) you produced personal attacks with racist content. And I ca only agree with Sandstein's assessment that any of these should warrant sanction. If you also want to discuss the rest, we can start another thread. Dahn (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation for the racist comments, and have yet to provide proof for the sources you claim in the DYK hook. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where i attacked him as a person in the comments i posted on his talk page. Regarding the reference in the DYK hook I recognise that my inspiration was the same article in the Romanian Wikipedia and that i didn't research the relevant article. Mario1987 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out the relevant fact here, because it may otherwise get lost in the comments: "Regarding the reference in the DYK hook I recognise that my inspiration was the same article in the Romanian Wikipedia and that i didn't research the relevant article." Yet you added false citations to the source (which were not present in the Romanian version) and submitted the hook. This knowing full well that the article was not going to get picked for DYK without citations. This is called a hoax, and admins now have your admission. Further above, they have your confirmation that my translation of your talk page message is correct. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a link to the sockpuppet matter, and the case of Mario1987 being given a "last chance"? I am concerned that there does seem to be a case made by Dhan that Mario1987 is not acting appropriately in attempting to garner accolades, which was also the perceived intent in the socking. I would note that Mario1987 has indicated that their research in respect of the example given was not valid, and this does raise concerns regarding their lack of discipline when submitting content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the link to Mario's sockpuppets. I was not aware of the "last chance" remark until Sandstein mentioned it, but then picked it up from his block log. Dahn (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Richboyliang

Resolved

 – indef'd by User:NuclearWarfare. Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor has added impersonating an RfA candidate at different RfA discussion to his vandalism and creation of a User talk page for a non-existent account. The RFA deception is a major red flag that this will not be a productive editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor nitpick: the Dr joehigashi account does exist; he just signed up today. He hasn't yet made any edits though. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Richboyliang probably spotted that account creation and may have created the User talk page with a garbled welcome message in the edit summary, thinking that was the right thing to do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the new user doesn't know how to "sign" comments and was simply basing his comment on the RfA on that of another editor. It is unlikely, however, particularly since newbies finding RFA at the start is rare. Suggest keeping an eye on him. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching his Talk page and will check his contributions periodically.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This kind of disruptive editing, coupled with obvious vandalism from earlier in his editing history[140], suggests to me that he is not here to contribute productively. I have blocked him indefinitely. NW (Talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion for User:I cant think of a name 994

I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) was initially blocked for vandalism and for repeatedly inserting text into Blackout Ripper. They then created another account, Albsol88t (talk · contribs), which was subsequently blocked for ban evasion. The article was protected for a week, but after it wore off, the following accounts have shown up on the page and have been readding the same text:

• Noname8600 (talk · contribs)
• Bigone2 (talk · contribs)
• Howto8008 (talk · contribs)
• HAHAhahaooooooo (talk · contribs)

Per WP:DUCK, they are almost certainly all the same user. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The original indef blocks were also for harassment and personal attacks. The new accounts are repeating that same behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just added another username to the list, per this edit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an even earlier indef blocked account I never heard of was linked to all these by checkuser and all accounts have been blocked, with the article semi-protected to prevent more new accounts popping up to continue the disruptive edits. Thanks to everyone who looked into it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Treviso

It appears that Abdul Qayyum Ahmad (talk · contribs) has copied the article Treviso F.B.C. 1993, pasted the content in the new article A.S.D. Treviso 2009 and turned the former into a redirect to the latter. As a result, the full editing history is not visible, which doesn't comply with GFDL, IIRC. I don't know which is more appropriate: deleting the new article and moving the old article to the new name, or deleting the new article and starting a move request on the talk page.94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the relevant WikiProject of this discussion. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Alefbe reverted the cut and paste move. Abdul ought to be notified of this discussion and of how to (request to) move articles.  Skomorokh  23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In compliance with all other Italian football club articles, I have moved the entire article under the entirely new club denomination of A.S.D. Treviso 2009. History is now preserved, since it is a proper move, and not a mere copy-and-paste of it. In any case, I am unsure this is a kind of issue to be worth of being notified at WP:AN/I; a notification on the Football WikiProject would have probably been quite enough (but this is only my opinion). --Angelo (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Aggtown

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding by user, no problem here.--Otterathome (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that User:Cunard, a non-admin without closure rights, took it upon his/herself to relist a closed AfD. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It was never closed, unless I am looking at the wrong AfD. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It's now closed (by User:GlassCobra) , so the issue is moot. Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone can relist an article if there hasn't been enough talk after a certain period of time, not just admins.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User Njirlu

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 h for edit warring.  Sandstein  04:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Persistent fringe-POV pushing over the past few days in Aromanian language, Template:Aromanians and Aromanians. Reverted by several users, who explained in his talk page why his edits were unacceptable, and called upon him to produce reliable sources for them or at least discuss changes first. He did not, and was already blocked once for his persistence, but continued in the same pattern after being unblocked. He was again warned repeatedly of the consequences of his continued reverts (breaking WP:3RR many times) and especially yesterday in very clear terms by User:Dahn, but today he continues in the same pattern. Constantine ✍ 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I obviously endorse Constantine's (Cplakidas's) assessment. Njirlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already received a temporary block for his edits, but continues unabashed (depsite repeated claims to have reformed himself). The first problem anyone notices with him is that he can barely speak English. The second is that he adds the same fringe theory to countless related articles, basically inventing an ethnic terminology unattested in English, and which is misspelled even in Aromanian. He does the same on several project, regardless of whether he speaks the language in question or not. In addition, he has recently behgun adding political symbolism he thinks should represent the Aromanians to various pages, even those were no political symbolism is required or desirable. If you read his justification for this behavior on the talk page, all you'll encounter is a nationalist manifesto which seems not to be interested at all in wikipedia rules - no matter how many times he is advised to read the policies and guidelines.

By now, Njirlu has been no excuse for claiming he is uninformed about how wikipedia works, and he has already been blocked once for his disruptive editing on September 8 (note his fruitless appeal to the block is justified as "in the name of the truth"). This is POV warring and disruption at its most basic level. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a 48 h block for edit warring. If this pattern of conduct continues, it can be reported to WP:EWN for escalating blocks or to WP:AE if a more general sanction under WP:ARBMAC is required.  Sandstein  04:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

English Defence League

English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in the news a bit at the moment, leading to the usual problems. They are a far-right group who have been involved in multiple demonstrations against Muslims. Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discussed on the noticeboards before, he is an English nationalist. Recent edits include unsourced POV by JzG - note that the material removed was all sourced from BBC News and The Guardian, which are usually regarded as reliable sources on matters of British political reporting. Oh, and we also have a competition between English Defence League and English Defense League as the article title - obviously the British English spelling is correct as this is an English group. EDL come from the football hooligan community and even the [British National Party]] distances itself from them, but of course there will be attempts at airbrushing out insignificant and trivial things like the fact that a Minister of the British Government likened them to Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. Obviously we can't have that, can we, especially when reported by the BBC - that is "unsourced POV" apparently. Unless you happen to look at the front page of the BBC News website which prominently links "Denham condemns right-wing groups". Looks to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs. WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Guy. The editing is not so heated as to need protection, and no-one is acting so disruptively as to merit a block as far as I can see. Unless there's specific admin action you're looking for, I suggest you take it to WP:NPOVN or the content noticeboard.  Skomorokh  18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are, in my opinion, long-term issues with Yorkshirian's activist editing, and I am not here much at present. This is a call for more eyes on an article that's likely to see significant traffic. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Er what? Do you have any claim for your personal attack and lack of good faith, to claim I am a "nationalist" of any stripe? I do not support any political creed which come from the French Revolution, just to keep note. On Wikipedia, the WP:NPOV policy is central to the project, this extends to all articles, that includes ones on subjects which British communists are rabidly opposed to. Wikipedia isn't a podium for the far-left, its a neutral project. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That means that edits like this, in which you suggest that the UAF "opposed the group with riots against the police" and that "The Muslims and the far-left rioted" (neither claim being supported by the references provided) shouldn't be repeated. Stick to what the sources say and you'll be fine, but this edit seems to have at best WP:OR, and even some serious WP:POV, creeping in. I'm also unclear why the Communities Secretary needs to be described as "left wing", or the SWP need to be labelled as Trotskyite. Just because something's true (and I seriously dispute that Denham is left-wing, but that's subjective...) doesn't make it encyclopaedic or notable. Readers who need to know about the SWP (poor souls...) can click the link, but the Trotskyite label is irrelevant in the context of the Stop the Islamification of Europe and English Defence League articles. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Though some of these edits are of concern, I agree with Skomorokh that this specific content dispute is not suited for discussion here at ANI. Any longterm issues are perhaps best discussed at WP:RFC/U or in another dispute resolution forum.  Sandstein  04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpupetry by Sarandioti-Alarichus

Resolved

 – Wrong forum, please use WP:SPI.  Sandstein  03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made some research, considering the highly suspicious initiative by User:Alarichus on a recent Greek-Albanian dispute. A series of evidence can not be considered just coincidence and points that he is a possible sockpupet of User:Sarandioti .

Evidence

• Sarandioti contributed from May 26 to July 21 [[141]], with an addition of 4 minor edits in a last appearance in August 21. His contribution was considered highly disruptive with wp:npa, civility, 3rr [[142]] [[143]], reaching 6 blocks[[144]], with his last one in July 21, plus an one revert limit.

• Alarichus started to contribute to Wikipedia from July 20 [[145]], 23 hours before Sarandioti’s last ban. Although complaining in such cases and always making unblock requests, Sarandioti all of the sudden disappeared (just a brief appearance in August 21).

• The time pattern while both accounts were actively contributing: from July 20, 02:36 to July 21 01:27, (23 hours) is very clear that there were not simultaneous contributions from both accounts.

• Both users share the same isp with approximately the same i.p.: a series of reverts by Sarandioti in June 4, while intentionally unlogged in order to evade 3rr in his edit-wars revealed his i.p.: [[146]], as well as Alarichus’ ‘whois’ information in irc simply proves that. As I know their isp provides a dynamic ip address in a limited range, and that’s obvious since Alarichus joins irc:wikipedia-en, with a slightly different ip almost each day.

• A weird evidence of inconsistency is that Alarichus asked for the translation of an off-wiki text from Greek to English (with Latin characters), pretending that he doesn’t know Greek [[147]] . However, his whois info in irc clearly shows that he lives in Greece (Athens). Considering that he joins the irc channel more than a month, with his whois info always pointing to Athens, something is really weird with this situation. By the way Sarandioti spoke Greek very well [[148]] [[149]] and was active in irc too [[150]].

• Alarichus, from 20 July, has a good contribution for a rookie in minor edits in non Greek-Albanian topics. This contribution was not always without being massively reverted [[151]] [[152]], with the reason that his conts were unexplained.

• After becoming a ca. 45 day experienced user he decided to initiate as a ‘third part’ user, a Greek-Albanian dispute in the deletion of the template:Northern Epirus. However, in the process he decided to leave his neutrality and take the part of the one side. Moreover, accused the Greek side for launching a sock-meatpupetry concert. Quite wierd behavior for a determined newcomer in wiki to make such moves.

• In the following wp:ani, he didn’t hesitate to accuse me as a member of an extremist organization that posted a thread off-wiki, being based on a sequence of exaggerated assumptions [[153]] [[154]]. Paradoxically, the same time he carefully avoided any comment against I_Pakapshem, no matter his block history and disruptive contributions. It is sure that a real third part user, would deal with such a situation in a more critical way taking into account history records of both sides. I Pakapshem and Sarandioti were good friends in tag-teaming in the past by the way. Moreover, Sarandioti was used on making empty accusation and reporting users from the first days of his appearance.

• Alarichus made adjustments after ‘being asked from irc’, in template:Northern Epirus, still without explaining a real reason. Most of the template’s articles he deleted were of highly importance for Sarandioti too [[155]], [[156]], [[157]]

• Last but not least both userpages are of similar inspiration: infant A. Hitler and anarchism , satanic eschatological stuff, with a variety of revolutionary extremist style quotes.

I believe, as per User:Factuarius pointed, that these two accounts are used by the same person. It's really hard to believe the opposite, but everyone can extract his own results and opinion.Alexikoua (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Um, WP:SPI is that way......Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Osapkaopjdisaj

Resolved

 – Blocked by Blueboy96

Osapkaopjdisaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given a final warning about copyright problems a week ago. Judging from his behaviour since, the concept didn't sink in at all.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours--I was thisclose to blocking him indef, but some of his uploads have been within policy. Next time it'll be indef ... I'm about to leave an additional warning on his talk page. Blueboy96 03:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Esnupi

Resolved

 – Junk articles mass-deleted and editor blocked 48 h by PMDrive1061.

Esnupi (talk · contribs)

Yet another strange case, I fear. This is an instance of an apparenly well-meaning individual with a limited grasp of English who is posting machine translated Brazilian place substubs en masse from what I assume is the Brazilian Wikipedia. Some of these appear to be from other sources as well. He's finally stopped after a few requests from other users, but the fact remains that we have in excess of one hundred nearly incomprehensible and/or subminiature stubs. I'm about to invoke WP:BOLD and use the mass delete to just blow these out, but I wanted to get some opinions first. My opinion is they should go; they look awful, they took no effort to create and aren't even suitable for a starting place on a proper article. Any suggestions? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd go with that. I've taken a look, they are dreadful and unless someone wants to wipe the text and replace it with real English, go for mass delete. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Actually it's the Portuguese Wikipedia. (We divide by language of article prose.) And yes, for one case, São Sebastião (satellite city) is definitely a machine translation of pt:São Sebastião (Distrito Federal) — even down to the retention of the Portuguese abbreviations such as "DF" and the spurious HTML that caused ==History== to not parse as a heading (which I've just corrected). Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• FYI - He is starting to create articles again, an article about every 3 minutes. Clubmarx (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest ones are essentially just massive walls of text. There may be something coherent in there, but I'm not diving in to find it. Also, unless I'm reading it wrong this seems to be a personal attack. HalfShadow 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor must be blocked until they acknowledge the problem, and all edits deleted, unless someone wants to take the time to fix those messes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles could be worthwhile if we turn them into basic stubs, "<Name of town> is a town/city in the state of <name of state>, Brazil", with the geographic stub tags. I'm willing to do a few dozen of them. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nicer if we could just get him to at least stop or at the very least format his text. He has to understand that every time he tosses one of those...things...up, someone has to clean it up. HalfShadow 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. But how could he learn this on the English WP site when his responses have been barely understandable? He should be blocked. Clubmarx (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

er? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a Brazilian editor and I saw the notice of this issue at WP:BR's talk page. I was taking a look at his talk page, and I could deduce "go to be fuck" was a machine translation of "vai se fuder", which means "fuck you". In other words, that was a personal attack. Also, with "of the one tesao to type these archives", I believe he meant "I'm having a real good time typing these articles", in a quite bad faith sense. Would you guys like me to try a friendly Portuguese language approach? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you, Victão. I just looked at some of his latest "creations" and they are even more incomprehensible than ever. That machine-translated "fuck you" is going to earn him a timeout and I'll go ahead and do a mass delete right now. These are just getting out of hand. Thanks to all of you for the advice. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this approach.  Sandstein  04:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections. I cleaned up somewhat one of the early posts (which I now took the liberty to restore) but it it didn't help to set a good example rather to the contrary.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker

Resolved

Inurhead has continued a months long edit warring and incivility at The Hurt Locker, continuously reverting all edits to the article to his preferred version, sometimes bit a time, sometimes wholescale. He has displayed extreme bias regarding the film, attacking anything he perceives as negative about it. Attempts at discussions have filled the talk page and clearly show that consensus is against him, but he ignores it and continues his disruptive edits and accuses anyone who comes to the discussion as being either a meat puppet, a sockpuppet, or a canvassed votes when the harassed editors trying to work on the articles came to the Films project (per dispute resolution) for additional views.

He has already been left numerous warnings, and been reported to 3RR twice and to ANI twice. First ANI, in July, [158] he got a warning. First 3RR happened August 6th and he was again warned.[159] Next 3RR, August 14th, resulted in his being blocked 31 hours.[160] Soon as he was unblocked, he continued. At this point, the situation had escalated from a disagreement between 3 to Inurhead ignoring the comments, suggestions, warnings, and actions of half a dozen editors or more. I myself reported him here August 16th[161] and he was blocked 72 hours. Block expired, he went right back to the same stuff all over again.

Administrative review and help seriously needed. His actions continue to hamper the legitimate improvement work being done by some 5-6 editors. I have left notices at the talk pages of who I believe to be the major editors involved in the conflict informing them of this discussion, in addition to Inurhead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, the problem edits go back to mid-2008, when Inurhead first began editing articles such as Hurt Locker and related pages such as Jeremy Renner. The edits reflect a pattern of non-encyclopedic rewrites to focus on only positive comments; a lack of willingness to collaborate when consensus turns against his preferred version; and a tendency to use personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him. I've spent the better part of a year having to watchlist the Hurt Locker article to keep abreast of the frequent changes; now that regulars from Wikiproject Film are involved there, Inurhead has expanding his pattern of attack to include unfounded criticisms of some of the most established contributors from that project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. There is a gang of hostile editors that have recently taken ownership of the page and have tag teamed to revert every one of my contributions and/or changes. I made a suggested change tonight by one of them and yet I'm still being attacked by the above hostile editor. They have tried to lure me into 3RR several times by tag team reverting my contributions. Tonight I did not fall for their trap. Collectonian above, lists several times that I have been "warned". But there were only two times. She or he makes it sound like it was more. Again, this is being warned by contributors who were obviously canvassed to come and edit war and revert things I had contributed. I ask that User:AnmaFinotera and User:Ckatz and User:Erik and SoSaysChappy be blocked for tag teaming and trying to islolate and attack this contributor, in an attempt to try to provoke, harass, hound and irritate me, with the goal of discouraging my contributions and/or trying to block me permanently. This is totally unacceptible, as I am a good contributor to Wikipedia, not a vandal. Strict scrutiny must always be applied when blocking people and it hasn't been, in my case. Again, I am not a vandal and was contributing to this page long before this group of hostile minority-majority editors came and overtook the page. Wikipedia is not an "elitist" club for hostile demi-administrators and bureaucrats. Every person should feel welcome to contribute without being isolated, attacked and having all of their contributions constantly deleted. Inurhead (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every person should feel welcome to contribute, but equally, if they edit articles in the way that you're doing (removing criticism and starting the reception section with "The Hurt Locker has been very universally acclaimed among critics", copying and pasting, moving the plot into the lede section, and using unreliable sources), then they should not be surprised if their edits are reversed. You are not being tag-teamed; your edits are being reverted because they are wrong. If you keep disrupting the article, then it is only going to lead to another block or a topic ban. I'd strongly suggest discussing all your changes on the talkpage before making them. Black Kite 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that it would be fair to block AnmaFinotera for making false reports and for mischaracterizing the situation. I did not commit 3RR tonight and Collectonian is clearly trying to make it look like I did, when I didn't. He or she did not cite any disruptions from the past 24 hours and the ones he or she does cite are weeks old, and were again, when I was tricked into 3RR by their tag teaming. Mischaracterizing an editor as having made "bad faith" edits and making threats and false reports is disruptive to Wikipedia and must be punished. The minority-majority group which have taken ownership of The Hurt Locker page has been attempting to use policy to "muddy" the water and to get their way. Collectonian has used policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that this editor is editing in bad faith. Again, strict scrutiny must be used when "whipping" editors with warnings and blocking them. This should be reserved to prevent vandalism, not to prevent good contributions! Misrepresenting these events and being hostile to editors to isolate them is harmful to the Wikipedia environment in that it chases good contributors away. If you want to keep chasing people away, then by all means listen to the "Collectonians". Collectonian is the one that is at war. Her comrades, Erik and his cohorts use pettifogging and wikilawyering to try to drive contributors away. Believe me, any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times. None of my contributions to articles has been vandalism. All of it has been factual and backed up by sources and by what I understood was Wiki policy. They seem to be inventing new policy and policies-within-policies-within-policies to try to thwart new users from contributing and/or so that they can control every film article. It's insanity. Truly. Thanks. - Inurhead (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one is getting blocked here. Seriously, think about it - if "any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times" - and by a number of different editors - could it possibly be that it's your edits that are the problem? Black Kite 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I've reported on here before that I was being hounded and/or wikistalked by one of them who has admitted as much on the talk page of the article. He's the one who solicted them to attack and isolate me. By the way, I didn't "invent" that the film was "universally acclaimed." It is. Check Metacritic. Check Rotten Tomatoes. It is not "wrong" to state a fact. Facts are stubborn things. All laboriously documented. And the moving of a synopsis into the LEAD section was suggested by one of them! I was merely doing what had already been suggested, which several of them agreed about. Yet, that sends Collectonian into a tailspin! Go figure. They were just looking for another excuse to revert everything I did tonight. And you are letting them get away with it. What they are doing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. They are also doing it to try to distract me away from the article, to waste my time responding to these false attacks. THAT is also against Wiki etiquette. - Inurhead (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few things to report from my personal experiences with this editor...

• Says that I more or less don't deserve to make contributions to the article because my first edit to the article was only a month ago. Was also referred to as "SoSaysCrabby" (ho ho). [162].
• Borderline personal attack: Accused me of being a member of the film's production crew when there is zero evidence of any such conflict of interest.
• Since incivility seems to be a concern here...Calls my edits "boring" (I'm not trying to write the next great spy novel).
• Individually and collectively accused of being a sock puppet (apparently, my creating this User ID in April of 2008 is somehow strong evidence of this, and from what I can tell this user has a chronic habit of hounding users with puppetry accusations without going through the proper channels at WP:SPI.
• Simple childish engagement of mind games: Here is my my message to him about why I reverted to a 600-word (within guideline word limits) from his edit which expanded it to over 1100 words. He promptly deleted the post. Lo and behold, a few days later, he leaves this post explaining why the 600-word summary should be reverted to on his original one-paragraph pre-release synopsis. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inurhead, have you heard of WP:AGF? You seem to be thinking that anyone saying a word against your edits are involved in an evil plot to remove your contributions. From your comments above, I'm afraid you seem to have taken ownership of the article, and your comments at the article's talk page further strengthen that impression:

• you tell several editors not to revert because they are new to the article
• you say you're going to revert because they made a change when you told them not to
• you tell an editor to go work on some other article when he tries to make a change, and restores to your preferred version
• you dismissed an explanation for an edit saying "too much explaining for what is obviously a revert". I don't see how you can say that when you simply revert others' edits without any discussion at all.

The former 3 are somewhat old, and the 4th is very recent. There are plently of similar edits in between in the edit history if anyone is interested. And just today:

• you removed several comments made by other editors. For what reason, I cannot understand.

As Black Kite said, it looks to me that your editing is creating the problem here. Please discuss on the article talk page (and I mean discuss, not fighting to preserve your version) so that a you people can come up with a balanced version that is agreeable to everyone. If you continue like this, you're practically asking to be blocked and this time it's likely to be indef. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite the problems, Inurhead started a couple of reasonable discussions at Talk:The Hurt Locker, to which I've responded. I think that when so much time is particularly devoted to one article, it's hard to move on. I personally diversify my editing so if for some reason I don't agree with consensus somewhere, I can move on. With the editor's contributions mainly on that one article, though, it is somewhat understandable to take offense at the editors that have swooped in. Still does not excuse the false accusations, which does not help for collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Inurhead also has repeated his personal attacks on my talk page, including the stuff noted above about wanting me blocked for bringing the issue up here again.[163] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To echo some of the thoughts expressed above, my opinion of Inurhead is mixed. Like everyone else, we've clashed with Inurhead on The Hurt Locker. When I first got involved, he was very much asserting ownership of the article. ANY changes other than his were reverted without discussion and often disparraging [164] or hostile [165] remarks. Even once you got him on a discussion page, it was less than pleasant to deal with Inurhead. He characterizes those that disagree with him as trolls and/or socks. As he's done with Collectonian, he's left less then pleasant messages on my talk page. Eventually, some others from the Film project (Erik, SoSaysChappy and others) got involved with the article. I do not like dealing with Inurhead and his hostility, so with others involved, I've stopped doing anything on the article. It wasn't worth the aggravation, and seemed that others had it under control.

The Hurt Locker has gone from reading like a Hollywood press-release to a pretty respectable article. Much of the informaation has come from Inurhead (nearly all of his edits are directly related to the film, cast or crew), but have needed significant work to shift from press-release to article. Once you can convince Inurhead to actually talk about things, and discuss them rather than attack, he seems to be tolerable to deal with. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived as Inurhead appears to have just waited for this thread to archive, before once again starting back up with trying to revert The Hurt Locker to his preferred version, continuing to use false edit summaries while trying to remove any criticism of the film[166]. When he was reverted, he left his usual ranting message claiming no one has the "authority" to revert his edits and that he will "report" me for reverting his inappropriate changes that have no consensus[167] and claiming that no one else is disagreeing with him anymore (obviously false from above and the fact that its, oh, 3:30 am so unlikely most others are even awake). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week; this is their third block for the same thing. Clearly Inurhead has taken nothing of the above conversation in, not to mention the warnings on their talk page. Sadly, if editors are determined not to Get The Point^TM, then there's not a lot we can do except stop them from editing. No doubt an unblock request will be along shortly. Black Kite 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Being completely uninvolved in this, I decided to go look at the talk page, this really bad faith comment by Inurhead really sealed my opinion:

"That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons."[168]

Ikip (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海

Can someone examine the recent mainspace and talkpage edits by 虞海 (talk · contribs) which appear to be clueless, POV pushing or intentional trolling. Here is a summary of events:

1. user adds a false and POV disclaimer to India and Kashmir articles. (the disclaimer is false since the disputed territories are already properly marked in the maps)
2. When his edits are reverted by User:Sandeepsp4u, he explains to Sandeepsp4u that he made the edit because, "See what you did on Page Medog: Is this neutral??". Sandeepsp4u has never edited the page Mêdog County!
3. User 虞海 then readds the false disclaimer to India page, which I revert, with edit-summary, "revert false and pointy disclaimer". I also leave him a note on his talkpage. To this he replies, "I'll do what you did to me to others"
4. He then follows up by removing comments from some 20 odd Chinese/Tibet county pages, copying my edit summary (from point 3) "revert false and pointy disclaimer", which is not applicable to his edits. (sample links [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], ...)
5. User:Croquant questions 虞海 about one of the edits and edit summary (from point 4).
6. At this point 虞海 leaves a message on my talk page which copies verbatim parts of, (1) the message I left for him (point 3) and (2) Croquant's message to him (point 5)

I know this patently bizarre behavior may be hard to follow. Can anyone make sense of all this, and wave either the clue- or block-bat ? Abecedare (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like another case of Disruptive editing to me. Also, note that I've left a warning on his talk page for not assuming good faith for his edits on the article page of India and I'm now sifting through his contribution/edit history to see if he has made any other malicious edits or editing trend that's worth keeping an eye out for. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remember the three strike rule, I've just issued the second warning for his addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of Mongolia, now you guys just watch out for the third time he conducts another disruptive editing and report here immediately for the Admins to take the appropriate action. Also, you may report to WP:AIV if any of his subsequent edit(s) are/is deemed to be a vandalism edit, this will surely get himself BLOCKED faster than we can say anything here. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added after archival

Just fyi, that Mengwu Shiwei-related stuff Yu Hai added to the History of Mongolia is actually quite notable because it is the first mention of a tribal name that sounds similar to "Mongol". While it is apparently not very clear whether those Mengwu and the later Mongols are one and the same group or not, it is at least a well-known hypothesis. See for example Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, 1993, p. 7. So while the style and overall quality of Yu Hai's addition may be debatable, it is certainly far from vandalism. Yaan (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – blocked for ∞ - 2 days per WP:NLT by User:Jake Wartenberg. Tim Song (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In the following unsourced, uncited edit to the Henry Ndifor Abi Enonchong article, User:Abanie29(talk)(contribs) threatened "ANY PERSON HOW EDITS THIS PAGE WITH FALSE INFORMATION WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION AND LIEBEL". I reverted the edit, and given the legal threat thought I should post it here. For background, the article was created by a single purpose account with no citations or references, and edited by an anon ip. I came across the article later and rather then put it up for wp:afd, I rewrote it using all online references I could find. It was then overwritten by another single purpose. I reverted those edits.--Work permit (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block and CheckUser Abanie29--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that-a-way. MuZemike 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All right captain! Let's go!--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give a break to editors who just learned English yesterday, by reducing the lengths of their indefinite blocks by a day or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

...and infinity minus two would be what? ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That just means they get the last two days before the heat death of the universe to edit. --Jayron32 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. You're onto it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that they will be still be around two days before the Heat death of the universe...--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that some form of Darwinin belief?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the writing style and similar promotional interest in that guy, it's a good bet that Tracey29 [174] (another one-shot editor, who created the article) is the same as the guy we just blocked. Admin discretion as to whether to block that user also. But he only made the one edit under that user ID. Possibly likewise with user Dbtmamfe, who flooded the article with minutia, and soon after being reverted is when the legal threat popped up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bf20204 Personal Attacks after blocking And new editor account for block evasion?

Bf20204 (talk · contribs) Ba20204 (talk · contribs)

Hi all - after a 72 hour blocking for outing, BF20204 has returned with some pointed personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and other interesting points here here and here. Also, he has done some similar edits to an archived discussion from this page here here and a couple of other times. For the record, he used personal knowledge of who I am rather than an internet search - I figured out his identity on my own and he is a former co-worker who saw where I have edited from (countries) to figure out who I am. Does a neutral party want to take a look and see if he has crossed the line again? Bevinbell 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that my links were not working - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Foreign_Service&oldid=313348292 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_Foreign_Service&diff=313350537&oldid=313348432 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive562&oldid=312964573 and related editing by the editor after his ban. Bevinbell 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed he has a new account - Ba20204 but signing with his old user name! Is this block evasion/sock puppet/or weird new user account creation? Bevinbell 14:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's notable to look at the Special:Contributions/Ba20204 as he was actually editing the archives, and admits to having created a new account "First, this is Bf20204. I did not create another account to circumvent the system. I created an account to respond to the accusations leveled against me." I have left the archives untouched so y'all can see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edits to the archive, lest it go stale and undo become impossible. I wonder if it would be possible to set up an edit filter to prevent that sort of thing? Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the two accounts are the same person - as admitted by them.

• They received a 72hr block on Sept 8 (User:Bf20204)
• They created a new account on the 10th (inside the block time) and editing the archived ANI discussion (User:Ba20204)
• On the 12 (outside of the 3 day block) they used the new account to continue the same negative activities
• As of today, they're back on the original account, although they appear to have "given up the fight"

So, we have Block Evasion and further disruption, but it may have stopped. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - well, he has professed that he is moving on, but he has done some unfortunate things. I left a response on the article talk page as I did not want his comments just hanging there for folks not privy to the history. Given the discussion on ANI over his ban for outing, there was a call for an indef ban (which I do not think is warranted) based upon his OR and POV edits and outing attempt. I hope an admin would take his block evasion and new account creation seriously (I don't know what to think about editing an archived ANI discussion) as well as his picking up the negative activities again - whats the point of blocks if they are evaded? Maybe some additional ban and/or warning on multiple account editing and block evasion? Thanks Bevinbell 14:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton III

Dear admins, an issue brought here a couple of times before still seems unresolved. It was first noted by User:Alansohn at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some and again by User:Benjiboi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. The self-appointed policing by Drawn Some of Richard Arthur Norton seems to be constinuing as elaborated on per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind (he calls the later "non-notable" despite being covered in The New York Times as "JULIA A. BERWIND, A SOGIETY FIGURE; Leader Here and in Newport" in an article. I would think given that two separate editors had identified a pattern of what looks like wikihounding in the past Drawn Some would lay off, but as with today has these mass spurts of efforts to be rid of articles Richard works on even to the point of today renominting for deletion an article that closed as regular keep (not no consensus) a mere week ago. Moreover, when another editor (User:Ikip) politely requested Drawn Some consider redirecting per WP:BEFORE and WP:BRD, Drawn Some dismissed him as "I don't have time to battle the editors who think notability is unimportant". In any event as in the two AfDs exampled above, Drawn Some said to bring my concerns here and so I am doing so. For more of their interactions, please see here (I suspect their or more in the way of deleted contribs). Now, it would be one thing if these copy and paste nominations were unanimously supported, but again, we are talking about everything from a renomination a week later to dismissing royalty as "non-notable." And a whole series of them from an editor for whom he was twice discussed on ANI previously? I don't know it, it just doesn't feel right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • If you're going to quote me don't lift choice bits out of context. My reply to ikip was:

No, they need to go to AFD. I could have redirected them but it would just be undone without some consensus. I don't have time to battle the editors who think notability is unimportant and everything should be included in the encyclopedia. You see A. Nobody is already making irrelevant smokescreen !votes. Drawn Some (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not seeing how that is much better. What is with you and Richard? Why are you so fixated on nominating articles he works on or arguing to delete those he wants kept? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• It is interesting that you don't attempt to justify or explain your behaviour in any way. With the best will in the world it is hard to see how your actions can be considered acceptable. Ben MacDui 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a final warning to both to avoid each other, or next step would be a formal topic ban or even escalating blocks? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• The behavior that is inappropriate is mass-creation of articles on non-notable topics. Nominating them for deletion is highly appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Like Henry Clay Ide (AfD discussion) that you nominated for deletion today for being a non-notable Governor-General of the Philippines? There is a point where the claimed non-notability explanation beggars belief, and the more plausible explanation that you nominate articles not out of policy concerns but simply because Richard Arthur Norton was the last editor to touch them starts to make the more sense. This is especially so when it turns out that Richard Arthur Norton wasn't even the creator of the supposed "mass-created non-notable topic" article. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Drawn Some's fixation with RAN is unacceptable. The various afd's are clearly motivated by animosity and should be speedily closed. Occuli (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the goal of this ANI, isn't it? To keep articles that are clearly on non-notable topics. That would be inappropriate as well. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Drawn Some is having these conflicts with Ikip, with RAN, with A Nobody. (I don't think the main conflict is with A.N., though he was the one to bring it here this time) , Does everybody need to avoid him, or is it the other way around, that he needs a long rest from AfD. The problem is not the conflict, but the wikistalking. I think the example Uncle G brought shows it the most clearly. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a might big lie you're telling, DGG. Please back up your accusations about conflicts with facts. It is unacceptable libel to make statements like that. It is against Wikipedia standards of conduct to do that. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I wonder if a user conduct RFC would be of benefit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't even know who this person is, so if we had conflicts in the past, they must have been minor because I forgot. Can you provide some edit diffs A Nobody? I always have to ask you to provide edit diffs. I asked Drawn to redirect, but I didn't mention anything about Before. That was the total of my involvment with this person. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add here that Drawn Some does not seem to be acting in good fate. He nominates numerous historical biographies that have only just been created. Now i ask, is Drawn Some a historian? What basis does he have in determining that a person is not notable just because he does not know anything about the subject? Wikipedia is not complete. There is still alot that needs to be added. Now, wikipedia has thousands, if not thens of thousands of articles about minor historical figures such as these. There are countless of pages about minor nobility etc. And there are countless more missing. These pages add to wikipedia and should not be deleted. Drawnsome is actively working against good editors by preventing new articles from being created. Again: Wikipedia is far from complete. Furthermore Drawn Some nominates these articles almost as soon as they are created. Thereby he prevents anyone else from finding the article and adding to it. Alot of articles start off small, and become bigger. By constantly immediatly nominating anything created about minor historical figures, Drawn some is preventing this. I would also like to note that Drawnsome's entire contribution list is filled with these deletion efforts. There are no edits on articles that add anything to the articles. Drawn Some does not add anything to Wikipedia. He only removes. And drawnsome does seem focussed on RAN alot. Omegastar (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will add my voice to those above and say that Drawn is clearly stalking RAN, This behavior is unacceptable and must stop. The fact that two ANI threads failed to correct the problem makes it clear enough that there is no "good faith" cause for these actions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible topic ban if this continues

This seems pretty clear cut. User:Drawn Some. You have two basic options. You can continue down this path of nominating obviously notable articles for whatever reason you may have or you can accept that you may not be a very good judge of notability vis as vis these articles. The first path will result in your being topic banned from AfD, that is to say if you continue I will start a discussion here to reach some community consensus to ban you from starting AfDs or participating at AfD. The second path, which basically involves you reducing the volume of AfD discussions you start and immediately improving your batting average (As it were) is the lowest impact path because it does not require some more heavy handed community participation. Among the recent nominations of yours that I have reviewed (on this list, about 40% have been speedily kept or look to be on that road and <40% appear to be approaching no consensus (That is, 40% is the upper limit for your success rate, even including no consensus closes). .400 is a good average in baseball but not for AfD. It is doubly disturbing that you appear to be following a specific editor and nominating their articles for deletion. If you want to continue to nominate articles, please endeavor to exhaust all options before deletion, write a full and convincing nomination statement (ensuring that it is accurate) and refrain from nominating a string of articles made by a particular contributor. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded, with the note that I will support any topic ban proposal if you fail to adhere to the second path. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to merge, delete and redirect articles on unimportant members of the peerage - heck, I tried to change WP:POLITICIAN to exclude the lords - but this goes over the line, particularly the apparent "stalking" of one particular editor. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo the words of Ironholds.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --Jayron32 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ironholds. Targeting a particular editor and wikilawyering are totally unacceptable. Salih (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've snow-closed the offending AfD, because the drama it was creating is unnecessary. However, I am concerned that Protonk's and Ironholds' admonishing remarks addressed to Drawn Some are more strongly-worded than strictly necessary in this case. I do not always agree with Drawn Some, but he is a good-faith editor motivated by a genuine desire to improve the encyclopaedia; I tend to think of Drawn Some as a deletionist counterpart to A Nobody or Ikip. I think that what is needed here is guidance and encouragement, not a kick in the arse, and I specifically think Drawn Some should not be topic-banned from AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But look at the point that Uncle G provided. There, RAN made a few minor additions to Henry Clay Ide, a governor general of the philipppines and diplomat; an obviously notable person. Immediatly after Drawnsome nominated the article for deletion. This article was not even created by RAN( the article is 5 years old!). It was only edited by RAN. But as soon as RAN made the edit, Drawnsome appeared to nominate the article for deletion. Omegastar (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

One comment that I found particularly disturbing is "Yeah, I was on vacation and I was talking about this guy to some friends and they agreed he probably has issues he can't help and that he's not actually hurting anybody. I will still try to clean up after him some when I have time." I have had some fierce run-ins with some, mostly now indefinitely blocked, editors, but have never been so fixated on anyone that I needed to discuss them with real-world off-wiki friends and certainly not while on vacation, not to mention borderline personally attacking him by suggesting on wiki that anyone "has issues". Then, to outright declare after the previous two ANI threads that he "will still try to clean up after him some when I have time" is an outright admission of intent to follow the editor around. On Wikipedia we might occasionally have arbcom appointed mentors or voluntarily join the adopt-a-user program, and yes, we all are vigilant against vandalism and problematic editing in general, but to be a self-appointed janitor with regards to a specific editor and especially to assert that you will continue to do so in the face of two different editors who thought it problematic enough to start admin board threads just ain't right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban, per above. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand this concern but remain of the opinion that the line presently being taken with Drawn Some is too strong, too early. There is a behaviour pattern to address, but I do think there are better ways to deal with a good-faith editor than this. For example, one might propose a mentorship arrangement, or simply take the matter to his talk page.

  I do agree that RAN, who is a good-faith editor too, should be able to edit without being wikistalked and I understand the Article Rescue Squadron's desire to protect him, but I think a topic-ban would be punitive rather than preventative at this stage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns and wrestled with them when posting this. My view is that we shouldn't topic ban him now but should he keep this up the face of what is very obviously strong disapproval, we should topic ban him. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is how I read Protonk's comments: Protonk is just warning Drawn now. Ikip (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I realise that. I'm merely advocating a lighter touch in this matter in future, because I think the line presently being taken is a bit stronger than strictly necessary. Drawn Some's quite bright, and I think he'll get the message loud and clear without any further drama.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I too support Protonk's position on this. My concern is that, notwithstanding S Marshall's hopes, as yet I see no sign at all that Drawn Some has understood that his actions are beyond the pale. I fear we may be back here again soon. Ben MacDui 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

another opinion - Drawnsome has repeatedly deleted without discussion all across Wikipedia. He/she really gets on my case about a valid potential COI on the only subjects i am interested in (Majora Carter/South Bronx), but always goes way over-board (obsessive), is really self-righteous about it (mean), and can't seem to collaborate, just fight to the point of scouring WP for the purpose of diminishing references to Majora Carter that I had nothing to do with. People usually get "Drawsome fatigue" and leave articles behind - for which they suffer. It's not a creative or productive relationship for readers, writers, or editors. --believe me (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose editor who is the husband of the subject of the article who actually inserted a photo of her kindergarten class. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• My rate of successful nominations for AfD is probably higher than the average. Any talk of a topic ban is just posturing by people who believe that there should be no standards of notability and that anything verifiable should be included in Wikipedia. I find this witch hunt highly offensive and any further threats need to be backed up with facts. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, it is perfectly acceptable to go through a user's edit list to look for problems. I have not "wikistalked" anyone. The repeated misapplication of that term and such accusations need to be backed up with facts or else it is a personal attack against me. If someone wants to accuse me of wikilawyering for asking that accusations be backed up with facts and that lies are not thrown at me, so be it. Without truth to accusations the accusers run a risk of having it backfire. Drawn Some (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Ezekiel Emanuel

I am not sure if the is the right spot, but I didn't see anywhere else to post it. The primary editor of this page had been (probably still is) doing a large amount of original research and synthesis of material. Some of this I have removed, but it appears that he primary solution is to include huge sections of blockquoting that appear that they may violate copyright issues. I don't know the explicit rules regarding taking lage quotes from articles so I thought I would get an answer here. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to link the editor to the relevant guidelines/policies instead of just 'giving up' so easily.--Otterathome (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this editor, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a false statement on the copyvio. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Request block for 74.93.128.121

Resolved

 – School IP blocked for 3 months, report should've been at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Otterathome (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:74.93.128.121 was given a last warning 4 May 2009 (UTC), but has continued to vandalize, as shown by the recent edit at Irresistible grace.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Halfshadow, but Luigi has come to rescue her this time.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to report vandals. I have moved this request to WP:AIV. Intelligentsium 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a school IP. Block. End of story.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It should have been reported to AIV, chummer; that's what HalfShadow and Intelligentsium are getting at. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never reported anything like this before. Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reticent and vandalizing IP

Resolved

 – Blocked by Blueboy96.

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

Problems with blanking articles and reticent edit warring.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kuru.

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

IP has constantly introduced incorrect information and has been warned several times.BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the IP at WP:AIV. In future, you can cut out the middle-man and go straight to WP:AIV - after warning the vandal first, of course. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...and they're blocked. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:220.233.113.184‎

Resolved

Warned on uncited, with 2 diffs after report for Socialist Alternative (Australia), blanked their entry at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism threetwo times. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours for disruptive editing. Rodhullandemu 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 88.233.4.217

This user insists on adding Turkish alphabet to irrelevant pages (like cities of Ukraine, Greece, Iran, Macedonia,...) and deleting referenced to Kurds in Kurdish-related articles. In recent days, it has done the same thing by using other IPs (including 88.233.168.53 and 88.233.68.134), so, semi-protection of those pages might be a good idea [175]. Alefbe (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody there? Check also recent edits by user:88.233.1.84. Alefbe (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest placing a warning on the page of the most recent editor; I don't see any warnings to date. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please block 124.253.115.133

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, IP was not warned correct number of times, user advised.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

See their user acct. Its only two edits took huge chunks out of memory hierarchy. I'm reverting them. CpiralCpiral 04:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the use if those are its only two edits at the mo? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This request doesn't make sense - why hasn't this anon been warned like any other account that does the same thing? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's takes four warnings, and then the vandal has to vandalize again. Besides, this should have been at AIV, not here.Abce2|This isnot a test 05:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I put a welcome template on the IP (maybe a waste but hey), and one warning template for removal of content.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone place a "resolved" tag?Abce2|This isnot a test 06:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Kay!CpiralCpiral 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) — hard-core PoV-pushing anon

Resolved

 – Blocked by Gamaliel.

See Special:Contributions/71.241.218.107. See also the extreme incivility at User talk:71.241.218.107. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...a quick look at said talkpage had me lose count of the fuck, fucking, and fuck you's on that page. User knows one synonym, though: shit Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

......actually, there are only seven "fuck"s and one "shit". Tim Song (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you people doing counting expletives? Don't you have any better shit to do? Narrow minded horror at "naughty words" aside, what is the general feel for his article edits, are the POV pushing, or is this a content dispute masquerading as a policy issue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little from column A (content dispute), a little from column B. Shitty behaviour, for sure, but does it deserve scrutiny here? Fuck, no. Seriously, I'd suggest forwarding this to WP:WQA. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to infer bad faith, could you at least provide some evidence of where I've been struggling with 71.241.218.107 over content? —12.72.73.42 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the deadly (but small) dog, but for my part I didn't see you as necessarily being in a content dispute - I saw 71.241.218.107 as being in multiple content disputes (and responding to some by denouncing other editors as "neo-nazis" - hence my belief that civility is an issue). Hope that clarifies, and I'll leave it to KC to clarify further if they, in fact, believe that 12.72.73.42 is also involved. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He or she isn't simply in content disputes, but is pushing articles in a particular direction, in defiance of established consensus. For example, there is repeated conflict over what to call the award that the Bank of Sweden added to the Nobels, but established consensus has been that it's to be called “the Nobel [Memorial] Prize in Economics”. User:71.241.218.107|71.241.218.107 has participated in discussion at “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences”, so he's aware of where practice stands. But, after that participation, he or she has repeatedly edited articles to name the Prize as he wishes, and in some or all cases is now edit-warring about it.

There's plainly no masquerade here, even if one somehow doesn't agree with my assessment. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the point still stands that this isn't an WP:ANI matter. If they're edit warring, take it to WP:AN3 - which is the appropriate forum for reporting edit warring. I'd also suggest that this is pertinent to WP:WQA, too.

(Incidentally, it's always helpful to provide WP:DIFFs demonstrating actionable behaviour - I based my assessment on the user's talk page, and a quick scan through their edits. I'd have been able to steer you towards WP:AN3 earlier if you'd been more specific, and provided diffs, earlier. In the absence of specific things to look at ANI reports often degenerate into chit-chat about counting expletives ;-) )

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the appropriate set of diffs to determine whether he or she is (as I say) engaging in hard-core PoV-pushing would essentially be all of the edits in his or her edit history. as to taking the matter eslewhere, het, I feel that I've done my part as it is. If admins won't act, that's not on my head. And (sincerely) you have a good day. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not admins will act - but I reckon there's more chance they'll react if you alert the relevant forum. The admins who hang out at WP:AN3 tend to be more familiar with edit warring, just as the admins who hang out at WP:WQA tend to be more familiar with civility, and the admins who hang out here tend to be more familiar with incidents. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's an "incident" and when did AN/I become "administrative notice board for instructing editors to take it to another notice board"? The editor is clearly out to lunch on both content and behavior. I first noticed this odd piece of vandalism[176] and this battleground approach.[177] Pigeonholing specific behavioral outbursts as vandalism, incivility, edit warring, etc., is just a labeling exercise and does not clarify anything here. This is a slightly unusual case, a static IP editor promoting what looks to be an extreme anti-capitalist beliefs,[178][179][180] and a genre-hopping range of vituperative reactions to any who try to reign that in, from accusations of bad faith and personal attacks to dogmatic anarchist screeds to simple cursing. I admonished the editor to cool it and was told to fuck off, in so many words. Do we really want to be the type of encyclopedia that tolerates that, or that puts bureaucratic obstacles in front of simple requests for help dealing with obviously inappropriate behavior? This report won't fit better on any other board, and an RfC or some other silliness to determine the obvious just wastes people's time. It would take five minutes to review the editor's last week of diffs and decide whether a block or a warning is in order. The incivility, obviously, cannot continue unless we've just given up on civility. Wikidemon (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back to serious-land. Scanned the IP's edits. Disruptive, IMO. Esp. the pointy redirect of Capitalism and the totally inappropriate responses on the user talk page, as well as the repeated recent edits against apparent consensus and the pointy edit summaries. Tim Song (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An incident is something requiring urgent administrative attention, and this board became what you bemoan sometime ago - there's a large section at the top of the page instructing editors where to go and why ;-) This report wasn't gaining any traction here - the best I could do was direct the reporter to a board where they were more likely to get a response. And I still believe that WP:AN3 and/or WP:WQA are more appropriate forums for addressing edit warring and civility issues. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Flag is correct; we frequently suggest better venues. I note your vandalism example is more POINT than blatant; the vulgarity which you loudly declaim we cannot put up with is confined SFAICT to the editor's talk page, and is largely of the language choice type, which as we all know is largely a background and preference item; and most damningly, I fail to see anyone making any significant attempt to engage this editor at this time. Since I posted on his page, no one else has, and s/he has not posted anywhere. I suggest this is not an emergency, and the world will not end if we wait to see if the editor in question responds either here or on the editor talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Mostly pointy edits. Disruptive? Sure. Blockable? Probably not. Wait and see. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, leaving a "welcome" template is a nice touch.[181] Other than that, this is exactly the response I was complaining about, giving the legit editors the run-around (and some chiding to boot for daring to come here, apparently) instead of dealing with what looks like WP:BADHAND account of an experienced editor (their ninth edit, on their first day of editing, was to remove another editor's talk page comment, citing WP:NOTAFORUM).[182] An increasing number of reports go down that way. Maybe the admins who hang out on noticeboards enjoy chatting whereas the ones who actually deal with things are elsewhere? If you've been to WQA lately they don't do anything, they generally send editors back here with instructions to file an RfC or Arbcom case if that doesn't work, claiming that their noticeboard is for mediating good faith disputes among willing editors regarding whether conduct is uncivil, not intervening in case of recalcitrance clear incivility. The edit warring board intervenes only in case of active recent (as in, the past few hours) edit wars and tends to reject as stale or "no violation" slower, longer-term tendentiousness that don't cross 3RR. AIV is only for active blatant vandalism. Don't you see the contradiction in saying nobody is making a serious attempt to engage the editor, and justifying as a "language choice" preference the editor's telling those who have visited their talk page "are you fucking mad",[183] "your hypocrisy as an editor",[184] "fuck you",[185] "fuck off",[186] "fuck off" and "piss off",[187] "I sure hope you don't have kids",[188] "stay the fuck off my talk page", "you quivering sack of shit", "seek mental health counseling", and "neo-Nazis".[189] I would say I tried to engage the editor, although I was stern, as stern as an admin should be in saying that blanking the article on capitalism was not acceptable. The response, Please read WP:AGF, and then fuck off with your unwelcome and accusatory interjections. Go defend hypocrisy elsewhere[190] does not suggest any likelihood of constructive discussion so thank you but I'm done interacting with this editor. I think it's a fair call that the complaint is stale and unblockable at this point, in which case... I hate to tell y'all how to do your volunteer job here, but a reasonable response instead of telling concerned editors to go to a different board where their request will also be ignored, to leave a warning as an administrator on the offender's talk page that their behavior is not allowed and they will be blocked if it happens again, and ideally, to be ready to back that up. Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"leav[ing] a warning as an administrator on the offender's talk page that their behavior is not allowed and they will be blocked if it happens again, and ideally, to be ready to back that up." - all outside my ability, I'm afraid. Best little ol' me can do is assist with procedure. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? This has to be the most fucking ironic "discussion" I have ever seen. And I've been accused of incivility??? Fuck that!

I am fucking sick to my stomach over the fucking lying hypocrites which includes the mainstream media and the POV cover-ups of the Left. This is why Wikipedia is the mess it is. It's a democracy where majority rules on arbitration votes. NO! Wikipedia operates on consensus. NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T!!! Look at what happened in Washington D.C. on 9/12. What? You only read the Washington Post or the New York Times? Then I suppose you wouldn't know that reports of almost 2 MILLION fiscally Conservative Americans marched on the Capitol yesterday. WHERE IS THE OFFICIAL PARK POLICE COUNT?? Suppressed by Obama? I was there, pictures don't lie, as much as the Left would like them to: http://michellemalkin.com/

So I hope someone fucking reports me for this post, especially since I am a "newbie" poster to this discussion. I happen to think TFWOR is probably a pretty cool dude (although somewhat politically confused). If I want the Truth, I know Wikipedia is not the place to look for it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Shinerunner (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I could be in error, here, but I believe that was intended as Humor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot reach agreement on what it IS, you will never reach agreement on what it is NOT. A negative cannot be proven because if something is absent, it would not be there to prove its absence. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Think of the time wasted here that you could be improving this collaborative (is it, still?) encycopedia.

This boils down to a bunch of market fundamentalists getting ticked off because I dared to declare that the emperor has no clothes. There's no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics. The prize in question has a name. I'm not interested in whatever names the market fundamentalist editors want to invent for it, to lend significance to their economic feudalist heroes.

Your supposed "consensus" collapses the instant someone comes along to challenge it. You don't get to declare an article frozen and demand justification for future edits. In the future, when "consensus" has supposedly been reached that "capitalism" should be renamed "freedomism," I'll challenge that, too. (When, not if; the systemic bias in favor of market fundamentalism at WP is astonishing. Probably because the emperor here is a Randroid, and nobody wants to tell him he's naked.)

Now comes the part where you declare me a POV-pusher for challenging your POV-pushing. Begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like there is a content dispute between a hostile editor who doesn't sign his posts, regarding (among other things) the common name of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and a hostile but less foul mouthed editor who tried to frame this as POV pushing. I'm ready to close this, unless there is a significant dif from the complainant. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care whether the award is called a “Nobel” by Wikipedia. I care that, with various things having been (for the time Being) decided by consensus, we have an editor who is changing articles in violation of that consensus, and in order to advance a PoV. Now, please stop levelling this accusation about my motives; I asked you before to at least produce evidence. Since you didn't even try, it's completely unfair for you to repeat the charge. —12.72.73.40 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd block this user for consistantly attacking users. See his talk. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The uncredited essay on the IP's talk page is a copyvio from here. It's from an essay by Fredy Perlman, "The Reproduction of Daily Life", published in 1969. --John Nagle (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't you be on the horn to the pigs? John Gray isn't Fredy Perlman, either, so you might want to have him thrown in a cage as well. While you're reading essays, I suggest this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs)

Removed.[191] I hope we can all agree that WP:COPYVIO is enforceable. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, users - even IPs - get a certain amount of latitude on their "own" talk pages. If this behaviour continues elsewhere I'd certainly agree, however. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that 71.* isn't here to work constructively. What would I know, though - I'm just a puppet of the evil Rand conspiracy. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you're a comrade who's been playing too close to power and should probably stop aiding and abetting in their purges. When you're "rapidly coming to the conclusion" that their POV is accurate and that comrades who challenge it are not "here to work constructively," then you do begin to appear rather puppet-like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs)

I've no idea about their POV or your POV. I just think you're a WP:DICK, and that the project would be better off without you - comrade. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised that the comment had been re-added - I thought I'd rolled back immediately after making it. I've struck the comment as it's less than civil. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we're just being had. It's hard to imagine anyone sincerely meaning all that. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating what I've been saying. WP has a systemic bias in favor of market fundamentalism. The response to anyone who challenges it is disbelief. Surely "capitalism" is a synonym for "freedom," right? Well, no, actually, that's wrong. But like a fish who "cannot comprehend the existence of water" because he is "too deeply immersed in it" (attribution!), you cannot comprehend systemic bias when it comports with your own worldview. You are incredulous when it is pointed out to you, and assume that those who try to correct it are the ones pushing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's worth thinking about. Marxist analysis has its uses, especially when capitalism breaks down. But for Wikipedia, it has to be cited to reliable sources who use it about the specific subjects of the articles being edited. Editors have to avoid doing their own Marxist analysis. Can you find some good sources? --John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's some form of pseudo-anarchism. "Anarchism" appeals to some people; anarchism appeals to others. It's moot, anyway, the IP has been blocked by Gamaliel, thus confirming that we're all part of the conspiracy and working for The Man. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was part of the left-wing conspiracy, not the right-wing conspiracy. Oh, I can never keep track of all the conspiracies I'm participating in. Well, as long as the checks keep rolling in, it doesn't matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio again and issued a warning to the user. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they're blocked for now... Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this user does not respond well to criticism, to say the least, I've blocked him/her. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Dear administrators, while cleaning the article Goce Delčev of POV, one user called Jingiby called me with nationalistic names, calling me Macedonian nationalist and publicly wants to damage my authority as user. Please react since I cannot edit with such nonwiki behaviour. See here. He has been blocked several (15) times for his behaviour and I think he did not learn the lesson. Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: moved from WP:AN by Mifter (talk · contribs). Best Mifter (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final decision (point #1) - failing to adhere to the policies of expected behavior. A recent view of contributions show a disturbing level of personal attacks and a clear violation of revert parole. The complaining user is not dealing with these issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever check the comlaining user's activity on Macedonian Question? The complaining User is extreme active with disruptive, vandalizing, non-referenced edits on it. This is checkable. I am not under revert-parole yet. Thank you.Jingby (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, why should we have? At any rate, his conduct is not relevant to the question of whether or not your conduct, which is at issue here, is proper. You, too, should address your conduct here.  Sandstein  19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has about 12 entries in WP:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans and a very long topically relevant block log (although his revert restriction does seem to be expired by now). The edit at issue does contain an insulting edit summary, and a sanction seems to be required. What do other admins think? (For future reference, WP:AE is the dedicated noticeboard for such cases.)  Sandstein  19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonist is a scientific term, not an insult. The term has been used to describe persons, which behavior is in concordance with the Republic of Macedonia's dominant official state doctrine, which is now current. The term is also used in an apologetic sense by some Macedonian authors.Jingby (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you often use endearing terms in conjunction with absolute vandal? And is clown meant to be positive. At this point, I would like to hope for redemption, but the lack of taking responsibility is worrisome to say the least given your many opportunities before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Our article defines the term as "a political term used in a polemic sense to refer to a set of ideas perceived as characteristic of aggressive Macedonian nationalism", so I can see why it can be perceived as insulting, but yes, it is not a serious insult by the standards of the topic area.  Sandstein  19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremly rear. This is also checkable. Also absolute vandalism and absolute vandal are equal, I think. Jingby (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs?  Sandstein  19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. User:MacedonianBoy has indeed a history of toying with articles falling within the scope of ARBMAC and a quite sufficient number of personal attacks ([192]) Due links will be provided if issued. He has a history of harassing other contributors on another project, where he happens to be an admin. All this has made even admins refer to him as a nationalist, which is in no way uncivil in this case (especially since he has acted in such a way). Macedonist is, as Jingiby noted, a scientific term, referring to ethnic Macedonian nationalists. In this particular case he has failed to provide any adequate reason for his actions and has clearly acted only in order to get Jingiby a block (which excuses Jingiby in no way for falling right for it).--Laveol ^T 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A user that uses insults such as: extreme nationalist, clown, vandal and other things should be blocked immediately. I expect a block for him since that behaviour is far away from a normal one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to explain the term Macedonist that Jingiby uses. That term in the world is known as a term for a person that study the Macedonian language (Македонист / Makedonist on Macedonian), but unfortunately in Bulgaria it is an insult for the ethnic Macedonians, since the Bulgarians do not want to confess that Macedonian nation exist. Jingiby obviously did not use the word in linguistic annotation, since i did not study Macedonian, but English. The insult is the right meaning of the term.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot this, if you see his contributions, you can see that all contributions are related with Macedonia. He and his friends do not allow to the Macedonian users to contribute and they Bulgarize the articles i.e. the articles are according to their will. They represent the Macedonians as nationalists and we cannot do anything here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, aside from pretty much what I had to say in my comment, you did not even take the interest of reading what wikipedia has to say on the term. Do you seriously suggest that it is so pejorative? --Laveol ^T 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment were not as responses to yours, but in general. I cannot imagine a user to edit freely if he characterizes other users with extreme nationalist, Macedonist, vandal and imagine clown. How pathetic. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You for instance have used tons of racist slurs towards me and a number of other editors and, yet, you are still editing. Any suggestions? --Laveol ^T 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I communicated with you during a period of one year? Yes. Have I said something bad? No. Leave the old things from two years ago and focus on your pall.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Immediately and vorever, maybe? Jingby (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why this is achieved eve though it is not solved?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rain City Blues, reposted from WQA

I originally brought this up at WQA, but was advised to take it here instead. Having been blocked twice in the past two weeks for edit warring on George H. W. Bush, Rain City Blues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to harassing the admin who performed the most recent block, User:FisherQueen, accusing her of a conservative bias referring to her repeatedly as "Mary Cheny" (FisherQueen identifies as liberal and LGBTQ on her userpage). See this talkpage section. Some choice comments: "Mary, you started this, and I'm the one that's going to end it."[193] "As a concerned Wiki user, for the good of the community, I'm afraid I will have to politely remind you of your incompetence and inability to properly execute the duties associated with your position until you back off. I intend to perform my duty as long as necessary, until you resign or cease your behaviour."[194] (note the charming edit summary) Perhaps the most troubling: "More like a schoolayard bully than a teacher, and as well all know, the best way to deal with bullies is to make their lives hell until they stop."[195] Rain City Blues has been given multiple warnings about making personal attacks (check the talk page history, as they've all been blanked). This user is clearly aware that s/he is being disruptive and intends to continue. I'd block myself but I was involved in the original discussion on Talk:George H. W. Bush. Also, I hate to post and run, but I'm going to be unavoidably offline for two-ish hours and won't be available to comment (unless I can get my blackberry to cooperate, but why would it start now?) -- Vary (Talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most charming. I've issued a two week block for violating WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA with the "bullies" comment and with "the polite way to tell someone where to place their head in relation to their anus" ([196] in edit summary). This is an escalation of the most recent block, which was set to last a week.  Sandstein  18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So, as his threats increase, on the theory of making another editor's life hell on earth, so do the length of his blocks. I detect a trend. What we need is for Dr. Phil to go to his page and say, "How's that workin' out for ya?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My life, by the way, is not hell. I'm actually doing okay. Thanks to all who followed up on the incivility problem with User:Rain City Blues while I was at church. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your life not being a living hell is further evidence of how well things are working out for that blocked editor. I'm seeing a scene from Airplane!, in which a radio station DJ is shouting "[call letters] where Disco lives forever!" a split second before the plane hits the tower and knocks them off the air. That's what sometimes happens with editors who scream and yell about what they're going to do, right up to the moment when they go "off the air", and ol' man wikipedia just keeps rolling along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

Would an administrator stop Citation bot[197] until its operator is once more monitoring it? There is an iassue about ISSN's being discussed now, at Template talk:cite journal[198], and I've asked BAG members and other Bot owners to look into the number of bugs the bot has recently and the apparently low response and resolution rate by its owner. I've notified the Bot owner of the request at Bot owners noticeboard[199][200] and will post a link to this also.

At this point, the operator needs to respond to and deal with the bugs, which he does not appear to be doing on a regular and routine basis, and BAG is not responding to my notice, and another user is also concerned that the bot is running and performing a task that is being discussed right now, without any action by its owner to stop the bot and gain community consensus for the task. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you post diffs of obvious errors made by this bot that would warrant immediate administrative intervention? Just having bugs does not warrant a block - every computer program has bugs.  Sandstein  06:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly immediate, either my request, or the response, and what I said is what I said, supported by the diffs provided. The bot is running, currently unattended by its operator, who is not dealing with the existing bugs. An editor pointed out that the bot is adding ISSNs when it should not be (up to debate), this being discussed at the link I provided. Meanwhile, the bot operator is unresponsive. This is a bot operator who had a bot running without his knowledge before, and, really, there's no harm in stopping a bot for a time, when the operator is not paying attention to its bugs, not responding to user concerns. In fact, this operator became an administrator for the sole purpose, according to his RFA, of being able to restart his bots at his convenience, so there's also no inconvenience to him to stopping it while he's unresponsive, as he can, and will simply restart it. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We (or I, at any rate) will not block bots unless we have diffs showing that the bot is doing obvious damage, or unless there is consensus that the bot is doing something that it should not.  Sandstein  08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what is now being discussed, whether or not the bot should be doing what it is doing. This operator has had prior problems with bots, running them without approval, running them while issues were being discussed. I personally worked very hard to clean up over 5000 bad articles created by this operator's AnyBot. I think erring a bit on the side of caution when it comes to irresponsible operators and a board full of ignored, unrepaired bugs, and questions about whether the bot should be doing something in the first place.

And, as the bot operator's tendency is to do whatever he wants regardless of consensus, that leaves others out of the loop of deciding consensus. In fact, if you work on that theory, that the consensus is for not doing something, then you are authorizing a bot to do unauthorized work. Whatever. You can't be bothered to read my original note, and I can't be bothered to discuss your side arguments. Why don't you clean up the last few hundred anybot articles remaining? Others did the first 6000, created under the "if there isn't consensus to not do it" theory of creating crap. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: admin clearly unwilling to look at anything posted, when vague reasons for not looking can be supplied.-69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this and feel I should add a little explanation because of the history (another bot by the same author resulted in a decision to delete around 5000 articles created by the bot). It's quite likely that the IP reporting the current issue is the user who was previously thanked by many people for assistance in relation to the previous disaster.

A quick look makes me believe that there are no knock-out examples of bugs with Citation bot, but there is an ongoing debate about some of the edits it is making, with several editors expressing a view that certain changes should not occur (while others like the changes). It should be noted that Citation bot is agreed to be extremely useful in general; I think the issue is that some recent additions to what it does are disputed, and that the bot owner is not available to react.

In this comment, Eubulides says "Citation bot has been running for several days now, with no apparent oversight, and has added a lot of ISSNs and months that many editors oppose. Who's going to undo all this mess?" (I will notify Eubulides of this discussion). I don't know if the bot has bursts of activity, but at the moment it is not editing often, so waiting another 24 hours would appear to not be a particular problem. However, if no one speaks up in favor of leaving the bot running soon, I think stopping it pending discussion would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Recent problems with the Citation bot below. Eubulides (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent problems with the Citation bot

Recently the Citation bot has been having several problems, in two categories. First, editors have different preferences about citation formatting, and the bot is supposed to make changes only when there's a reasonable consensus that these changes are improvements, but recently two changes to the bot were installed without that consensus, and the bot has been running for several days now and has installed what must be hundreds of changes without the consensus. Second, there seem to be bugs (not just preference-disputes) which aren't getting fixed. The changes I've noted recently are:

Adding ISSNs

There have been multiple independent complaints that the bot is adding ISSNs against editorial preference (e.g., my complaint, Headbomb's). The bot operator Smith609 (talk · contribs) replied that he thought there was consensus for it, pointed me to a May discussion that he thought established that consensus, and invited me to restart the discussion. I read the May discussion: it never mentions the idea of the bot automatically adding ISSNs (what it does, is reject the idea of automatically removing them, which is a different matter). I restarted the discussion, and if you look at the resulting thread you'll see that adding ISSNs is highly controversial, with no consensus that the citation bot should be adding them. In controversial areas like this the Citation bot should leave things alone.

Adding months to dates

Again there are again multiple complaints (mine, Headbomb's). When I asked earlier this year that the month not be added (in response to an earlier problem like this), the bot operator replied that the problem was fixed. This time, however, the operator merely replied "Is there a guideline for when a month is appropriate?" with an edit summary "Month is sometimes (always?) useful" and has not followed up to my response of four days ago. This isn't a good enough response to reports of a malfunctioning bot, and indicates a worrisome desire to have the bot add material despite a clear lack of consensus to add it.

Messing with author format

I reported the problem six days ago, the bot operator quickly replied that he patched the bug but said he might undo the patch when he completes a module, I quickly responded that that the bug is not fixed and gave an example, with no response yet from the bot operator. As far as I know the bot is still chugging away installing these changes (I've disabled it for some articles I help maintain, so they're immune for now). In this case, there does not seem to be any dispute that it's a bug in the bot.

Adding unwanted URLs to wrong places

This was reported a couple of days ago by Literaturegeek. It's a serious error and apparently has been going on for some time. No response yet.

Given all these problems, about 30 hours ago I raised the possibility of shutting off the bot for now. No response yet from the bot operator, who has not edited Wikipedia for four days. Given all the above, the bot should be shut off for now, and I'm afraid its changes over the past few days may need to be undone (a task that's beyond me). The bot is very useful when it's working, don't get me wrong! But it's not working now. Eubulides (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To add something, the bot only runs on manual mode. I don't know if it's appropriate to block that bot, given it's not going to do anything unless triggered by meat with eyes. I know I still find the bot useful given all it's current flaws. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, why does User:Citation bot #User interaction have a huge red Emergency shutoff button saying "Administrators: Use this button if the bot is malfunctioning."? Surely that button was put there just for the purpose we're discussing now. (Or are you saying that that big red button does nothing if an administrator presses it, and it's placed there only to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling? :-) Even if the bot is run purely manually (whatever that means), surely we shouldn't be encouraging users to run it if it's malfunctioning sufficiently badly. Eubulides (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To stop it for when it's in fully automated mode. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's odd. If you look at Special:Contributions/Citation bot, the behavior isn't consistent with a human-triggered bot. It's creating lots of pages, such as Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.pcl.2007.01.008; it's never created pages for me when I triggered it by hand. And its most recent edit to an article, which was soon (rightly) reverted by Materialscientist with the edit summary "useless", doesn't have the feel of a user-triggered bot; instead, it has the feel of an editor who's reverting a bot gone haywire. (Previous comment struck because perhaps Materialscientist tried to use the alt bot.) And anyway, even if this stuff is really human-triggered, that still raises the question: why are we encouraging the use of a bot that has serious bugs right now?
• Let's put it another way. The last time someone reported the bot malfunctioning here, it was with a simple report "Citation bot is incorrectly formatting authors, and User:Smith609, the operator, does not appear to be online." (something that sounds very much like the current situation). Then, the bot was blocked right away. That seems like the right thing to do. What's different this time?

Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

These templates are the results of {{cite doi}}, you probably are using {{cite journal}} and {{cite books}}. As for what's different, I don't know. I'm not saying the bot shouldn't be blocked, I don't know what's standard procedures with a case like this. I'm just giving context and explanations of what is actually going on. I'll let an admin with bot-related experience decide wheter or not this warrants a block. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days, hence my absence. The bot is currently only editing mainspace pages when requested to do so by a user. The user who activates the bot is expected to check the output of the bot. Regarding Cite Doi subpages, the bot is correcting systemic bugs introduced under earlier revisions of its code; on the whole its improvement rate should be better than its bug rate, and as I have time to develop the code its success rate will improve further, with existing bugs being corrected.

If you are willing to discuss actions that need to cease immediately, I can either stop said action occurring until I have time to fix it, or disable entirely the script that is making that class of edit. Without concrete examples, it is impossible for me to know which scripts need disabling and (when I have time) fixing, and which can continue to operate in safety.

Hope that helps; I may have a couple of free hours over the next day or two, and a message on my talk page is the best way to get my attention. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sambokim Link spamming, again

see previous here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_etc
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#User:Sambokim_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_yet_again._Suggesting_topic_ban_and_block
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_yet_again.

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) The editor has twice been blocked for repeated insertion of copyvios. He's also been told before not to insert links over and over. The problem is the editor doesn't communicate, and keeps making edits over and over until blocked. His job for the hockey team is english promotion and scouting. Anytime an NHL.com article mentions the ALH or his team he makes sure to run to all the articles and add it as a source,even though there has been no content taken from it. He also edits as an IP, 220.88.45.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Its a long term IP and often redoes some of his undone edits, or does them first, then he redoes them with his user account. Once again an NHL article was about the ALH and he ran through several articles as his IP and put them in. I undid it, and he came back with his user account to not only put that back in as a reference, but to go to a few other pages and do his normal link spam. This player for example is a new acquisition by his team this year [201]. He indiscriminately just fires links onto the article without considering if they have any place. For example, the last link in that bunch doesn't even talk about the player, it is an old article about the team, he likes to try and add it to every single page he can to help promote the team. This user has a clear conflict of interest and through two blocks he still won't communicate and just continues to be disruptive with his editing and tries to use wikipedia for promotion--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be the conduct for which he was previously blocked (creating copyvios). What he's doing now is inserting an external link, http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=497976, which may indeed be inappropriate per WP:EL, into several hockey player articles. Have you tried discussing this particular issue with him?  Sandstein  03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"He's also been told before not to insert links over and over. The problem is the editor doesn't communicate,..." It seems he has tried discussing. There are a few of these accounts rolling around lately, inserting spam links, creating copy and paste copyvio articles, ignoring all attempts to communicate. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Several attempts have been made to communicate with him. Several sections have been started on talk pages, edit summaries have been used. The user wasn't blocked for linking spamming, but he's been linking spamming for at least a year. Its been reverted so many times. The user is Samuel H. Kim. He was blocked for inserting copyvios, but the reason he was inserting the copyvios was promotional in nature, the same as what he's using these links for. Here you can see as far back as last december he was trying to randomly insert links into the article [202] He does make some helpful edits, like updating the roster, but the majority of the rest of his contributions generally consist of link spam and copyvios. He's being paid to promote the team and he can't seem to help himself. In july his edits to the ALH article itself were solely to promote Halla and then insert a few random sites into the references section [203], sources which were written 2-3 years prior to any of the events he detailed in the article body. I'm also going to privately e-mail you the same e-mail exchange I sent to another administrator. I also had brought up the link spamming in the first complaint. He ended up blocked for copyvios but the linkspamming has been known about since then.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though the e-mail seems to have no particular relevance to his conduct here. I don't believe admin action is required at this time - his contributions do not seem to be very useful, consisting mainly of adding links and copyvios, but the latter occurred some months ago. I recommend giving him a warning about not adding useless links to articles, since per his talk page nobody seems to have talked to him yet about that aspect of our editing practices.  Sandstein  18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of the e-mail is to show his level of communication ability, which is relevant since he never responds to anything on here. As you can see from the e-mail he completely misinterpreted something very simple which shows that he has a big problem communicating in English. The latter also occurred 1 month ago, not "some months ago". His block hadn't even finished a month ago when he was link spamming. Per his talk page, he was given several warnings about copyvios, AN/I threads were started, and he neither responded nor changed his behaviour until blocked. Even that didn't change his behaviour as he had to be blocked twice.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris

Once again, I'd like to draw attention to this problem. A problem that is NOT going away. Frankly, I'm frustrated at how long this persistent disruption is being ignored. This User has manged to make a joke out of every article or template he has gotten himself involved with. This user is NOT a contributor, all his activities on Wikipedia revolve around revert-warring and the many disputes he has started because of his extreme Croatian nationalist views. The User arrives at an article, and does not stop revert-warring and arguing until the other side finally gives-up - regardless of sources, regardless of any mediation efforts, and regardless of the amount of time necessary for him to wear down the guys that are trying to make him see sense. For example

• on Talk:Independent State of Croatia, I have presented university publications specifically supporting my edits. I have been prevented from including the information by User:Imbris. First he demanded the publication's primary source, when I pointed it out he simply raised the bar on evidence and so on.
• on Talk:Hey, Slavs, the argument involving no less than four users (User:No such user, User:Hxseek, User:Ivan Štambuk, and myself) trying to prevent User:Imbris' and his edits (which he constantly revert-warred to push) had lasted for an incredible five continuous months. User:Imbris had simply kepts changing his argument in perpetuity until every single other User simply gave-up. I can't even remember how many times the article got protected because of this farce.
• on Talk:Hey, Slavs again, User:Dottydotdot had (heroically :) gotten involved in an effort to mediate the dispute. Having heard all the arguments she reached a decision that was not to User:Imbris' liking. She recommended this version as "the most neutral & least POV" [204]. User:Imbris simply decided to ignore the results and continue on his merry way with the edit-warring. The excuses, now that the result was against him, were that the mediation had taken "only seven days"(!?) and that "not every single step" had been taken before requesting mediation. :P
• Template:History of Croatia had been made into a husk by User:Imbris' edits. All my efforts to improve it and widen its scope were simply reverted, and I simply do not know what to do? Do I discuss? What's the point? The user's revert is ridiculous and obviously detrimental to the quality of the template, and yet there is no way he will ever budge on this issue.

This user is now revert-warring on no less than six articles and templates (Hey, Slavs, Maltese (dog), Independent State of Croatia, Socialist Republic of Croatia, Template:History of Croatia, and Template:Infobox SFRY). Discussion is utterly and completely pointless, since even if there were a way to present 1st class sources against User:Imbris, it wouldn't change a single thing. When User:Imbris joins in one might as well give-up.

As a "little girl that complains admins all the time", I'm calling again for repercussions against this sort of widespread disruption, or at least mediation that would end the ridiculous conflicts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Imbris about this thread. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or am I getting the cold shoulder again? Its so nice Imbris has been notified, now he can see first hand how his reliance on admin disinterest in this problem is still working just fine. He's a clever one, just ignores all reports and they neatly go away... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

First of all, I must say that I detest the accusatory tone of my fellow Wikipedian User:DIREKTOR. (1) Opening lines – In his opening line he complains about a problem. What is the problem? Perhaps I am a problem?! For this alone Mr. DIREKTOR should be warned not to make such hidden commentaries about a fellow Wikipedian. Then he continues to bicker his personal view on my style of editing, complains about not alleged not enough contribution level, speaks about revert-warring and even makes ridiculous claims of extreme nationalist agenda. All of his personal views on my person are null and void, and should be taken in context. (2) I have contributed on the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia, the Flag of Serbia, the Province of Ljubljana, ZAVNOH, AVNOJ, National Front of Yugoslavia, several Montenegrin articles, and in a number of fields where additional information was necessary. We all know how fixing false or unreferenced material can get difficult and very exhausting. Recently I have started a minor attempt at correcting some false information and stumbled upon a group of people that are not happy with my editing. (3) That group of people could be considered Yugoslav nationalist that consider former Yugoslavia as the best framework for the states that comprised it (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (with Vojvodina), and Slovenia). They consider that naming the languages of Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, and also Serbs is highest and extreme nationalist agenda, and that those nations should speak only Serbo-Croatian language. Maybe some of them really believe in such agendas, maybe some of them think that a new Yugoslavia in the fashion or formula with Albania, without Slovenia should resurrect, I cannot say with certainty. But I can say that some of them still believe in Yugoslavia, its agenda, its facts (and myths), they declare as Europeans and do not hold Communism or Socialism in high regard; but advocate that Yugoslavia was simply the best, which advocating places them in the logical error, where they simply must defend the entire socio-political system of Yugoslavia. DIREKTOR made several defamatory messages about me to User:Dottydotdot (I did not sneak anything), User:AniMate, and involves himself into every issue where he can make his input on my person.

• On the Independent State of Croatia article, the DIREKTOR retrieved a source that is highly biased by the fact that it was written by a Tito' supporter, who wrote at least two biographies of Tito and several other books on Yugoslav partisan guerrilla fighters, Battle of Neretva, etc. He was also an agent of the Intelligence community for the UK. I mention those facts as a contextualization attempt to show Mr. DIREKTOR the fallacies of his primary source. (a) The book by Maclean could not be considered as a primary source, he did not wrote the book as an autobiography, he did not write in the form of diary (with dates, names of persons, etc.), he did not portray the written paragraph (that I contested) as an eyewitness account, etc. (b) The contested paragraph clearly indicates that eyes were sent for inspection by the Poglavnik (Leader) with explicit remark that it was to be done cyclically, when enough were collected. (c) The Maclean book was issued in 1957, and the original oft-told story of dubious authenticity (which dubious was portrayed in the university publication as well) was published in a fiction novel Kaputt in 1946 (first edition in English language was in 1946, while the author himself wrote that he finished the novel by December 1943). (d) I have contested the Maclean story by three diff sources. (e) Maclean did form his negative opinion rightfully, but exaggerated rhetoric is a conjecture in direct link with the Kaputt : the novel written by Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi) (f) The Kaputt story is not only about the basket of eyes, but on the inspection of those alleged packets by the Leader, and for that matter regularly. (g) Something is not a 1st class source if it is taken out of context, if there are other reliable sources to contradict, and if the secondary source quotes from also a secondary source. To conclude: DIREKTOR will write everything as long as it supports his POV, despite the controversial, biased and defamatory "truths", he was involved in the DALMATIA DISPUTE that landed a 1 year restriction.
• On Hey, Slavs. DIREKTOR had canvassed Ivan Štambuk to the discussion on the anthem with the words settling this thing once and for all User:Dottydotdot started the informal mediation without 3O and without RfC. User:Rave92 was not called by the initiator of that mediation, nor by the mediator. The entire mediation failed because the initiator of the mediation did not portray all the issues, he limited himself to some issues but raised other within the process. User:Zocky agreed with User:No such user that there should be minimum number of lyrics in the article, also using some kind of reference able material, such as official sources, etc. Both DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk agreed to minimize the number of lyrics and then suddenly changed their perspective by forcing removal of the list of all Slavic languages (to make it less Pan-Slavic) while at the same time inserting Bosnian language version of lyrics and also Montenegrin language version of lyrics which cannot be sourced by a reliable source.
  • Users User:Rave92, User:Ex13, User:No such user and myself supported the inclusion of Croato-Serbian as an appellation (at least twice, in the article). User:Zocky considered the quarrel/discussion not important enough to join in it.
  • In this topic/issue it is impossible to find a solution because Ivan Štambuk falsely presented on his user page that he consider himself a native speaker of the Croatian language. He said that he believes only in the Croatian variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. The entire time Mr. DIREKTOR insisted in bringing the issue on the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language to include his trusted companion (who is sharing the belief system). I do not want the matter resolved on that talk page because of the minor dispute (dispute originated in the Mr. DIREKTOR's unwillingness to compromise) and because this would lead the supporters of the idea of there is only a Serbo-Croatian language.

• On the informal mediation by Dottydotdot
  • Dottydotdot did not recommend any version as the informal mediation had failed. Mr. DIREKTOR and Mr. Ivan Štambuk wouldn't allow the insertion of the term Croato-Serbian twice, which was supported by Rave92, No such user and me.
  • Because of the imprecise notion for the informal mediation, this was made out of procedure by Mr DIREKTOR; the users that discussed did not know precisely what languages are in plan for removal. It was during the discussion, crystallised that Mr DIREKTOR and Mr Ivan Štambuk wanted to delete Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and also Serbian lyrics (because of their shared POV), by this they would leave only Serbo-Croatian (without stating it is also Croato-Serbian).
  • Dottydotdot should advise Mr DIREKTOR to WP:DR in the order that it is ordained on that guideline. Dottydotdot should have read the discussions led previously, had the mediator read it thoroughly – the mediator would use the proper name of the Croatian language, and not call it differently. Dottydotdot should have insisted on sources, Dottydotdot did not insist on those, did not look at the sources I presented, etc.
  • No decision was made, it was informal. Dottydotdot did not call Rave92 to list his opinion, and he said his opinion at the discussion about the Montenegrin language being included.

• Template:History of Croatia: Was not made into husk. The issue is partially solved by the effort of User:Spellcast. DIREKTOR wanted his POV more visible by including articles that are specifically Yugoslav, and in the same time not yet specifically pertaining Croatian history. He was against a division of Modern History/Contemporary History. I support the latest editing by Spellcast, where he included the article Croatia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
• Socialist Republic of Croatia: Where DIREKTOR insist on false information, consider self-proclaimed and not-internationally recognized (not recognized even by neighbouring countries) entities, successors of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, he insisted on Coat of arms of the Federal State of Croatia, which proved to be false, he listed data pertaining to certain happenings in Bosnia and Herzegovina with that article, etc, etc.

I have tried to show Mr DIREKTOR fallacy of his approach of POV-pushing without caring for reliable sources, referencing, gathering different views and contributing without the final judgements and final conclusions or finality of anything. Everything is and should be changeable with sources and with editing for the benefit of the reader (not the fraction of writers). I cannot say that edit-warring is a solution, or that it would ever be one.

I have successfully edited the Maltese (dog) article with User:Mangojuice and also several Olympics related articles with User:Andrwsc, so the remarks that DIREKTOR makes are purely ideological, he simply cannot understand that someone can cherish the good stuff about ZAVNOH, and in the same time do not support his theories of illegality of certain historical entities (+ the defamation campaign on everything pertaining to that entities).

• The Template:Infobox SFRY issue is all about Mr DIREKTOR's POV, whereby a nominally socialist state, which implores certain aspects of free trade, and for that matter capitalism should be only regarded by its up to 1948/1950 legal system. Mr DIREKTOR will not stop at WP:OR, he would do anything to further his view, quote sources which are opposed, use schemes to entrapment, accuse everyone and anything of nationalism, accuse of stalking, drop out of discussions, gather support by canvassing, etc.

As for the "little girl" remark; that remark was a joke and is followed by a smiley (+ not aimed at Mr. DIREKTOR personally or directly). I was subjected to a whole range of ridiculing by Mr. DIREKTOR, who spoke about me questioning a Serbian zombie without eyes (plucked out by Ustaše. Mr. DIREKTOR usually starts any comment he makes by "LoL" or similar gesture of bad faith. He ridicules any opinion other than his own; it is very difficult to stay "professional" when subjected to such behaviour, etc.

As for the conclusion of all of the above, there is no mediation necessary, not if WP:DR rules are met, no singular administrator should enforce a solution. Mr DIREKTOR is very hopeful that some users inclined positive towards his attitudes would be placed in the mediators position and judge once for all (as he very often knows to say), by joining ranks, choosing sides, and similar, all this instead of reliable sources (and much of them), without the proper referencing and with as much as pushing his blatant POV around.

The normal editor, who wish to quote reliable sources, as many of them necessary to solve issues, like the issue on Maltese (dog), should not be subjected to such harassment, defamation, and false accusations as it has been done in this case. DIREKTOR is just mad because someone else is playing in his turf (figuratively speaking, naturally). In all of those articles I have edited before Mr DIREKTOR and I get discussing.

All of this started at Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, I mean not for me, but for Mr DIREKTOR.

Imbris (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm glad to see something is being done about this individual. Less sophistic nonsense, more real editors! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What a post! Perhaps a bit more detail would've helped? :) WP:TLDR, and rather confusing as well. Moving on...

Unfortunately, Notpietru, little is being done as yet. Do not assume that the length of this MASSIVE post is indicative of a response to the widespread disruption you, I, and about five other users have been forced to deal with as best we can. :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really prepared to get involved in this mess; just voicing an opinion. Hopefully things will be suitably resolved soon. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of File:1917 Darband, SIR GEORGE ROOSE KEPPEL, SAHIBAZADA SIR ABDUL QAYUM.jpg by ImageTagBot

I have uploaded some very unique pictures to wikipedia page on Amb (princely state). ImageTagBot attached speedy deletionm tag to one of these images; although I have edited te summary of the Image and mentioned that the picture is from my personal collection and is not available on any other book opr website and has no copy rights issues attached. I informed the Bot operator Sam Korn of the problem but he does not seem to be available at the moment on wikipedia. So kindly check this issue and remove the Tag before the image is deleted, as it was nominated on 8th September. The following is my correpondence with Sam Korn on this issue. "Hi, you have nominated File:1917 Darband, SIR GEORGE ROOSE KEPPEL, SAHIBAZADA SIR ABDUL QAYUM.jpg for speedy deletion. This speedy deletion nomination does not satisfy any of the wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion; if so do let me know. This pic. is of great significance to the Amb (princely state) page and belongs to my personal collection; and I have edited to mention this in file page. So kindly take back this speedy deletion nomination.Wikitanoli (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You havent as yet removed the nomination for deletion template your bot noted, from the above mentioned file.Wikitanoli (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Korn"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitanoli (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Wikitanoli (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Wikitanoli. As you've made an effort to provide a source, I have removed the deletion tag. If a human editor has a problem with it, we can review the matter. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Skomorokh! Wikitanoli (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just checked on the Amb (princely state) page; the image still is captioned under the details as nominated for speedy deletion. Can you remove that aswell, Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the tag. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou TFOWR! Wikitanoli (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Beck

Resolved

 – It was satire. Morphh refactored to make clear. I was probably being overly paranoid. Hey, it's late here, give me a break!

An uncited rumour was added to this talk page, which I removed citing WP:BLP concerns. I initiated a discussion with the editor who added it, who seems quite happy to address BLP concerns (and, indeed, has done so and has added a new comment that addresses BLP).

I've also requested oversight for the first set of edits.

Other editors, however, are now re-adding the comment. I've requested oversight once, but I suspect that this could go on for a while.

Could someone take a look and (a) let me know if I'm being overly paranoid, and (b) take action if needed?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NB. Since I've requested oversight, I've not posted diffs. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the parody web site? That isn't even a real rumor; it's a critique of Beck's style of accusations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue may be that the original poster continually calls it a rumour. I've left a note on the talk page clarifying the issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So I gather. My real concern is the uncited suggestion on the talk page that there are credible rumours that Beck did quite unpleasant things. In the later (bowdlerised) section the fact that this all stems from satire has been addressed; it's the earlier section I'm concerned about. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: why have I spent today on ANI defending the right and applying policy to the left? Life just ain't fair! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because in such situations it is the correct thing to do? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoil-sport - getting in the way of good grumble ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyhoo... Morphh has refactored so it's clear it's satire. I'm happy, everyone else too? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Blake Davenport, or User:User:Vlchristianlv

User:Vlchristianlv created a page about himself (?) which was speedy deleted. He has a subpage with the exact same page User:Vlchristianlv/Christian Blake Davenport, complete with an invisible page move semi-pp lock, and has also recreated the page as his user page. I blanked the user page and left a warning, but I'm guessing he's not here to do anything other than promote himself. As there is nothing in mainspace I'm not sure that it qualifies for COI or BLP, but I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I can tell you that creating an autobiography in article format in one's userspace is generally considered acceptable (see WP:UP). You probably were wrong to blank the userpage, but you might have a case at COIN if he creates the page again in the articlespace. Intelligentsium 00:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vlchristianlv notified about this thread. Come on people. Exxolon (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

75.5.232.53

• 75.5.232.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism-only account. All edits consist of removing content from Emmy-nominated entertainment pople, such as [205]. The destruction he's caused today will require massive cleanup. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

picking a few edits at random, seems to me their edits aren't vandalism at all, rather general fixes, tidying, and removal of OR, [206], this edit for example was clearly an improvement to the article--Jac16888^Talk 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But you may want to take a look at my contribs; I've been cleanup up his mess for the past hour or so. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit you linked to is apparently part of a wikiprojects cleanup attempt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#On-going projects/to do lists. By reverting it you're probably going against whatever consensus they have there--Jac16888^Talk 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted my reversions and removed the warnings from his talk page. Captain Infinity (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trump Soho

Resolved

 – Moves and histmerges complete.  Skomorokh  05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone moved Trump International Hotel and Tower (SoHo) to Trump Soho without moving the page history correctly. Could you make sure the histories and the talk histories are all moved correctly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bash at it. Have a look, Tony, and let us know if anything is out of place. Cheers,  Skomorokh  01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems messed up. I am getting redirected to a redirect and unable to see any article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be at your last revision now.  Skomorokh  03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the article should be at Trump SoHo and not Trump Soho.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to move it there; Trump SoHo is empty. Cheers,  Skomorokh  04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check...moved and changed the redirects and 2 links. - Sinneed (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Check. All history present at Trump SoHo.  Skomorokh  05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie O et al.

This request is an {{adminhelp}} from User talk:MetricSuperstar, moved here by  Skomorokh  02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kyle & Jackie O & Jackie O, G and Danni Show are being redirected to each other by users Martin451 and 114.76.21.137. As far as I can tell they are different shows and neither of the redirects were talked about on article talk pages. I left a notice on each of the users talk pages but there have since been more reverts so I decided to contact an admin. _Met^ty 02:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Officalbehindbigbrotheraustralia created a new copy and paste article Jackie O, G and Danni Show‎ with BLP issues, and redirected Kyle & Jackie O to it. I reverted the change and warned the user about BLP, and Cut and paste. Then User:114.76.21.137 tried undoing my changes. As I was attempting this user:MetricSuperstar started undoing my changes and requested admin intervention. Martin451 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia search hit for "Van Jones" on Google

Resolved

I wanted to alert the administrators that as of 9:20 PM EST when you search for "Van Jones" (recently resigned special advisor to the White House Council on environmental equality) in Google the following appears under the line to the Wikipedia entry:

Anthony "Van" Jones (born September 20, 1968) is a racist, anti-American environmental advocate, civil rights activist, attorney, and author who served from ...

The actual Wikipedia article on Van Jones contains no errors, but someone has somehow edited the search results in an attempt to slander him. I am not sure whether this is a problem that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia or Google but I wanted to bring it to your attention so that a correction can be made immediately.

Van Jones is a talented and dedicated public servant and an African-American and in the midst of the controversy (and increased internet traffic) surrounding his resignation I do not think Wikipedia wants to be seen as endorsing this viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.226.240 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We had this problem before when a vandalized version of Barack Obama was "cached" by Google. There is nothing that we can do on our end to fix this problem, unfortunately; one would have to contact Google and have them purge their cache. If that isn't done, I think it will take about three weeks for Google to update their cache. NW (Talk) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite a common issue. Another one that I was recently made aware of is google:yeoman. There is a way to contact Google to have them fix this (as was done during the Obama issue) but I don't have the link. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it usually goes faster than that. Highly trafficked articles seem to be updated by Google every few days or so, sometimes every day. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Even so, we don't want it left up there for two days. How do you contact them? A little insignificant (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Google result has changed back to a good one now (I assume the Resolved sticker up at the top already indicates that, but just to be double-sure, I checked.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, here is the link. [207] I've reported this specific issue already, however. They should retrawl soon, I hope. --Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For further future reference, Hersfold has created the guide WP:GOOGLEPURGE for dealing with such issues.  Skomorokh  03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GeorgeSRocks

Resolved

 – Deleted, message left for user about WP:USERPAGE. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This user page was recently vandalized, but when I went to revert to a good version I found there isn't a single version of this page that isn't a violation of Wikipedia policy. Even the original account user's versions are either attack pages or threat pages. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move closure

Resolved

Requesting an admin close Talk:Republic_of_China#Proposing_Article_Title_Change one way or the other. Discussion has gone on for 10 days, it's effectively a Proposed Move, it's edging towards incivility. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on Pineapple Express (film)

Resolved

 – Blocked 31 hours by User:Lifebaka for the legal threat. MuZemike 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here. Not particularly serious, but a legal threat nonetheless. Based on the talk page, probably doesn't bring much value to Wikipedia. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt that user would carry-though with that threat. MuZemike 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously not legitimate. It's trolling...considering Michael Jackson is dead, he obviously wouldn't be editing that article... --Smashville^talk 14:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, to quote that duet with Paul McCartney "I thought I told you Paul, I'm a lover, not a Wikipedia editor"  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, doesn't matter, now. IP blocked for the legal threat. MuZemike 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cody7777777 and disruptive Byzantine Empire FA additions

Cody7777777 (talk · contribs) has been continually adding undue weight to the lead of Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Reversions: 1st: [208], 2nd: [209], 3rd: [210]

And that's just today, it's been going on a while with no sign of stopping. Cody continues to revert to his version, usually saying "per talk" after firing off a post and not letting anyone respond, and has asserted that because it's sourced, he should be allowed to put it in,[211] despite the disagreement of me and another user. He has also apparently not heeded the talk page notice that suggests nomenclature issues first read the archives, where the present form of the lead was hashed out. I'm at a loss as to what to do. —Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how the admins can help you with this just now. Perhaps wp:conflict resolution would help? While that can lead here, I don't think the time is yet. This isn't really an edit war, as both sides seem to be making reasonable cases for their view, though the reverts are speeding up and Cody is the only one reverting against the wp:UNDUE argument...and I would encourage Cody to stop and try to be more convincing. wp:edit warring against multiple established editors, even if one's position is right, works poorly.
• Looking at the recent (lonnnnng) talk posts, I see reasonable arguments for both sides. I don't see clear consensus. wp:UNDUE is very much a judgement call... it is going to need consensus.
• For what to do next, wp:conflict resolution. As I read it there are 4 editors, 1 not very vocal, 2 arguing that it is ok, 2 that it is wp:UNDUE weight. I could easily have missed a sig, that is a lot of stuff! Also as I read it, I think the "It is undue" position might be a bit more compelling, but I wasn't blown away by any feeling of "OBVIOUSLY that is undue weight."

All just the opinion of one ordinary editor. Hope it helps. - Sinneed (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also notified User:Cody7777777 of this section. - Sinneed (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also placed a non-template edit warring note at User talk:Cody7777777, no wp:3rr, but a pattern of reverting against multiple editors will probably not work and may well be seen as edit warring. Hopefully a caution from an ordinary, uninvolved editor will help. - Sinneed (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. There are a considerable number of books shown in the talk page there (some which were also published by the Cambridge University), which support the fact that the name "Romania" for that empire is not a minority view or fringe theory, I have not seen yet any evidence that it is a controversial or incorrect translation. Also, after watching through the previous versions of the article, it appears that the mention of "Romania" was added by user:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ nearly two years ago. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

gu1dry is Vandalizing my User page and Trying to Trick me into Thinking that I'm Blocked

Resolved

 – Gu1dry didn't understand how templates worked. Both need to stop revert warring

gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing my user page and attempting to trick me into thinking that I'm blocked: [212], [213]. Then, he removed my warnings from his talk page: [214].--Validbanks 34 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't trick you into anything. I have not vandalized your talk page. You were the one vandalizing, abusing & in general, harassing. You were edit warring, I asked you move the discussion & you continued to edit war & starting personally attacking via the edit comments. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended but it does appear that you put a false block notice on his userpage. Regardless of the history that isn't entirely kosher.Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a warning. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, a "blocked template" doesn't look like a warning to us. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Both have been reported to 3RR noticeboard here--Terrillja _talk 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid per vandalism & abuse. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 19:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You undid the removal of your false block notices as "vandalism"? Not only is removal of messages permitted by WP:TPG, but how the ... does removal of a false block notice count as vandalism? Do enlighten me. Tim Song (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It still does not excuse your action. I also suggest that you read WP:VAND. Having a different viewpoint is not vandalism. Purposely adding erroneous information or altering the article in a malicious manner is. I do not see the edits as vandalism, rather as a content dispute.--Terrillja _talk 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a content dispute and some minor, if well-intended, misunderstanding and sniping from otherwise helpful and reasonable people. Blocks are probably overkill if the edit warring stops, but I'd really like to see people talking to each other like adults. Throwing around templates and reverting with edit summaries decrying edit warring are a little too comically Wikipedian for comfort. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the question now is regardless of whatever his intention maybe, but rather, it is his action that speaks volume of his personal standing when the two of them lost their cool conducting edits on the article page of Mac OS X, and ended up edit warring between themselves. However, the temporary block template which User:gu1dry had placed on User:Validbanks 34's talk page is in itself a wilful act of imposting as an Administrator of Wikipedia to give the Validbanks 34 a wrong impression and that in itself is liable for immediate Block per disruptive editing. You do not do something on Wikipedia just to prove a point to a fellow editor, no matter what your viewpoint is! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from this comment, Gu1dry is claiming that was a misunderstanding; do we have some reason not to take that claim at face value? Frustrated people aren't generally renowned for their comprehension skills, remember. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a troll magnet and when I say that (obviously I have sifted through his edit history), I know how this guy operates... read WP:DE#How disruptive editors evade detection. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please avoid personal attacks. I see no reason not to believe Gu1dry is reasonably frusterated over an edit warrior and unaware of how the warn-warn-warn-block progression works. Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The two of them were both warned for edit warring and what have you? --Dave1185 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave, this is becoming disruptive. I suggest you stop. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm tired of this shit. Validbanks 34 gets away with this shit, & yet I get a finger pointed at me, because I reported his ass somewhere else. Wikipedia is fucking bullshit, all political games. I will now ask for this discussion to end & I will not be responding to this discussion any more. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, that template was meant for use by any Administrator (except you!), you can reckon them to be "gods" or responsible people with vested powers in them, whereas you are not. What is so political about that? How long you want to take a break now is entirely up to you, it's your call! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave1185 - adminstrators are nothing but users with extra buttons. There is very little chance that Gu1dry will be blocked here. Please try not to bite the newcomers. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Right, by your definition of newcomer... I should be newer than him! According to his edit log, Gu1dry started editing on 2007-09-26. Come on, get your facts right first. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave, Gu1dry has never been involved in dealing with revert wars or disruptive editors. You have. "Newcomer" is not about days, it's about knowledge. Secondly, he has no substantive edits before March 2009, and few before May. Please at least try to familiarize yourself with the users you are defaming. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note WP:DNFT. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, Hipocrite is right in that the user is not experienced in dealing with these types of disputes (as far as I can tell). Please stop, and whilst you're at it see WP:DICK. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And WP:DRAMA. Because that looks like what we're trying to start here. --Smashville^talk 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Robbieejoness

Resolved

 – Blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Robbieejoness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated a copyright violation as his first edit since the block against him for serial copyright violation expired a few months ago. Where has he been, you ask? Obviously editing as 90.203.235.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To get the copyright violating image installed, the anon added the link to the article, and then Robbieejoness uploaded it. With that sequence, coincidence isn't even a possibility. Since then, Robbieejoness has been uploading more copyright violations. Blocks needed all around, I think.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Account blocked, and the IP will be autoblocked by default for 24 hours. Keep an eye on it and tell me on my talk if this starts up again under a new account. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 'revoking' permission to use AWB & threatening block - IP abuse on User talk:Marek69

See User talk:Marek69 where 93.97.167.197 (talk · contribs) and 85.94.186.91 (talk · contribs) are telling Marek69 he can't use AWB. In March IP 93.97.167.197 has a long series of edits warning other users, but no other edits. Those users had two things in common -- they were all IPs, and many had been given warnings by Marek69. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IP abuse on User talk:Marek69 – IPs pretending to have admin rights or similar. Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also got an impersonator here who could use a block (they attempted to get "the real" Marek69's AWB rights removed) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Impersonator hardblocked. Will be 'interesting' to see if one of those ips suddenly cannot edit from the autoblock. Syrthiss (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And I rolledback 93.97's edits as vandalism, and 85.94 has been warned by another editor. Syrthiss (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time 93.97.167.197 has been a problem going after Marek69; after some checkusering, I've blocked that IP for a year. On the whole, 85.94.186.91 looks to be a productive user. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what IP 93.97.167.19 was trying to achive, or their motivation.

However, I think IP 85.94.186.91 was genuinely expressing their opinion and trying to give good advice. As a subscriber to freedom of expression myself, I have answered IP 85.94's messages and attempted to address the issues raised. Marek.69 ^talk 01:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with user Bandurist

In the recent past I have experienced civility and other problems such as edit warring[[215]] with user Bandurist (talk) who in my opinion is not only rude but also impossible to work with. He reverts without explanation and then deletes any attempts of communication with him from his talk page for example replacing them with the smiley face.[[216]][[217]] Here are just examples of his unexplained reverts, moving pages around etc. from last few days and today, all without any explanation: [[218]][[219]][[220]][[221]][[222]]. Today again my edit was reverted by him without any explanation[[223]] and my attempts of communicating with him, asking for good faith first then warning him that such behavior is inappropriate were immediately ignored and deleted from his talk page[[224]] Could somebody please examine his edit history [[225]] and at least warn him regarding such behavior since any attempts done by me are immediately deleted. Thank you. I left a message on users talk page[[226]] informing him about this complaint. Hope this one will not be deleted.--Jacurek (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey

I wish a formal enquiry/investigation into User:YellowMonkey's, (I consider,) improper administrative action in blocking me for two days without issuing a warning for allegedly "revert-editing against strong consensus" on WP:Naming Conventions.

1.) The action was one-sided, with only one party of an edit-war sanctioned, even though the other participants were at least as culpable. 2.) The action did not end the edit-war since the other side felt endorsed in their activities by YellowMonkey's actions, and emboldened to keep on reverting remaining opposition to their changes to policy. 3.) It was clear from representations from myself and other editors on this page that the situation was complex, and the complainants against me were accused of harrassment, edit-warring, incivility, tag-teaming, serious breach of proper practice in editing policy, and other breaches of WP:Rules. It appears these charges were not looked in to, and totally ignored by Yellow Monkey, while hasty, one-sided action was taken against me alone. 4.) It is clear that no proper investigation of the history and circumstances of the events took place - as it should have done. A proper investigation would have found there was no "strong consensus" for the change, as alleged, that I had not actually engaged in a plain revert war, and that the change Hesperian complained of me for, was actually suggested by him. 5.) I was sanctioned without proper warning, against policy on blocks. 6.) I was blocked for two days, instead of the 24 hours laid down for this "offense". YellowMonkey was therefore either acting improperly in favour of one side in a dispute, or else a hasty and improper manner, sanctioning individuals without properly learning the facts of the case.

If this is not the right place to raise this matter, kindly direct me to the appropriate forum. I believe this is important since arbitrary or one-sided abuse of admin sanctions should take place on Wikipedia. Xandar 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked, I don't see any cause here to investigate Yellow monkey. What I would suggest, is that you drop this, and move your actual content dispute from this page. You should look into dispute resolution and use the tools there. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't see a cause to investigate these accusations, perhaps you ought to think about stepping down as an admin - because these are pretty serious charges for which there is plenty of evidence. Nor is this a content dispute - it's a dispute about one-sided and biased adminship, and ignoring actual breach of practice by certain editors, or else it is a bout an admin who sanctions editors improperly without doing the basic job of investigating the incident concerned. That is something that needs to be gone into. I'm not interested in cover-ups - or people who think ordinary editors are some sort of lesser breed, who can be subject to arbitrary sanction without the person doing so being held to account. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of how this was allowed to happen. If this is not the forum where that can be done, and we can find out WHY this admin abused the proper procedures, I would like to be directed to the correct forum for this. Xandar 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any differences to back up your comments? It's hard to look if there are no links provided by you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NonvocalScream is not an admin. Mike R (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's at WP:NC. At a glance it appears to be a valid block, and there was discussion on Xander's talk page prior to the block, although not a formal template warning that I can see. I don't see anything here to do, WP:RFC/U is >> that way though. — Ched :  ?  23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This needs more than "at a glance", I feel. As far as diffs are concerned, I added these in an unblock request: My last four edits were certainly not "edit-warring" at all, but attempts to find a form of wording that would gain acceptance from PManderson and others. However my words were reverted out with new forms of wording each time, and I adapted to the new wording. In fact Hesperian, on my talk page, first suggested, then congratulated me on the new wording, before turning volte face when PMA and PBS continued to revert it. User_talk:Xandar#Consensus_wording_at_NC.3F

B) If I have been blocked for "edit-warring" Why am I the only one? It takes 2 parties to edit war. Looking at the diffs on this subject we see NINE REVERTS to the controversial new wording over just TWO DAYS by the supporters of the new "policy". These include FIVE in two days by PMAnderson, against both me and Arthur Rubin: 10 Sep Against Rubin

and 10 Sep 2nd Against Rubin

and 10 Sep 3rd against Xandar and 11 Sep Against Xandar and 11 sep 2nd Against Xandar How is this different from what I am alleged to have done? What is being done to penalize this? There are also an additional TWO reverts over the same period by Philip Beard Shearer [11 Sept Against Rubin] and 10 Sep against Xandar Plus two more reverts by another of the same view, Born2Cycle 10 Sep against Rubin and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions&diff=313030327&oldid=313022285 10 sep against Xandar]

Again like my edits, this is not strictly 3RR, but the same purpose is being achieved by what looks like tag-teaming. Yet this not been sanctioned by admins in an even-handed manner. The reverting also continued against Arthur Rubin after my blocking for the same "crime". Nothing has been done about this.

C) With two editors against the new wording suddenly introduced to policy, how is this the "strong consensus" given as a reason for the block on my editing? Wikipedia policy on editing guidelines requires considerable community consensus for substantive policy changes. There was not even real consensus among the handful of editors on the page at the time, let alone the wider consensus required. reference the extensive poll on this issue only weeks ago. Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_13#Strengthen_COMMONNAME. The fact is there is no strong consensus for this policy.

D)Why have I been blocked for two days - when this is not even technically a 3RR "offense"? -

E) No warning was issued to any party before the block was imposed - as per the guidance. see. Wikipedia:EVADE#Education_and_warnings}} Xandar 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The original thread is archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Xandar.

Obviously I can't contribute much here, as an involved party. For what it's worth, though, I think YellowMonkey acted appropriately.

One error cannot be allowed to stand, howover: "the change Hesperian complained of me for, was actually suggested by him". My complaint was not about one edit; it was about nine reverts. As I acknowledged in my report, the sixth of them was an attempt at compromise, at my urging. That compromise having been rejected by others, the reverting continued unabated. To twist this into the narrative that I suggested he edit war, then reported him for it, is going too far. Hesperian 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You suggested I make the change, said it was a good one, then when it was reverted out with different new wording each time, and I tried to adapt to the new wording, you then decided to complain about my edits to ANI, whwere YellowMonkey, who has not so far dared defend his actions, leapt in one-sidedly. However you did not complain about PMA constantly reverting me and Arthur Rubin, or the mass of reverts on that side of the argument, (only some of which are diffed above.) That seems very suspect to me. Xandar 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my username is KhatriNYC (I cannot log in with that name since its blocked), and I would like to second this investigation into YellowMonkey. He seems to be power tripping with the blocks he throws out without even discussing or giving the user (in this case me) the opportunity to discuss the reason. I made a change on the Khatri page and forgot to log in with my username, and he accused me of sock puppetry. I explained to another admin William M. Connolley, and he said would look into why YellowMonkey blocked my access and requested YellowMonkey to give me an explanation. I have yet to receive that explanation. This YellowMonkey is seriously reckless and just throwing out blocks as he pleases. I urge please to look into his reasoning and perhaps revoke his admin rights. Thanks - KhatriNYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.7.178 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to IP sockpuppetry in order to defend against accusations of IP sockpuppetry? Hesperian 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor at User talk:98.116.7.178/User:KhatriNYC seems not able to understand: continues to edit anon when blocked for sockpupetry, asking why blocked for sockpuppetry... continues to restore Khatri to a point in time the editor wp:LIKEs immediately after a block for repeatedly doing the same thing. - Sinneed (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that reported User:KhatriNYC. His last 250 contributions show that almost all his edits are reverting everyone else on Khatri including regular editors, admins, bots and IPs; reverts also include removing image tags, dab link corrections, typo and language fixes, content addition/deletion. Edit summaries and talk page comments are also abusive and he owns the article. He was blocked for 3RR by User:William M. Connolley‎, around the end of his block, he came back as an IP and did a mass revert which I reverted, and soon after the end of his block, he reverted once more, two reverts in less than an hour of his block expiring. I contacted YellowMonkey to check if the IP and the editor were the same, turned out they were, and the block was issued. Hope that explains it. My talk page is also an area where he likes to discuss. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

His contribution record is pretty startling. Take a look at just his mainspace contributions, the vast majority of it is reversions at two articles. Almost no original contributions -- just reversions. This isn't how Wikipedia articles should be maintained. How has this managed to go for this long? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Doesntworkciscoworks appears to be an obvious block-evasion account

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. ~ mazca ^talk 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the User:Doesntworkciscoworks account was used by the same person who had used the now-indef-blocked User:Osicwcrocks account. Both accounts were used solely to vandalize the CiscoWorks article in the exact same way; compare this edit and this edit by User:Osicwcrocks with this edit by User:Doesntworkciscoworks. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, indef block? Maybe account creation block, too? A little insignificant (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked indef (account creation blocked) by Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · logs). ~ mazca ^talk 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't some of these go to places like AVI?Abce2|This isnot a test 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This one should've been an SPI case. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Joseph A. Spadaro

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 2 weeks. MuZemike 06:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef'd by User:Jclemens a few months ago. He's returned as 64.252.72.160 (talk · contribs), among other IPs - see，for instance, this and this AN thread. I've rolled back the IP's most recent comments (largely repetitive attacks on "deletionists" with no substantive content), which no one's responded to, and struck his previous comment on this AfD. Can someone take a look? Tim Song (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

There seems to be a backlog. I wonder what could have contributed to this? Verbal chat 05:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and problematic edits by User:Miami33139

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miami33139 has decided to wikistalk me after I added WP:COMP's {{WikiProject Computing}} banner template to a number of articles that Miami33139 prodded as part of a mass-prod of software articles. I noticed Miami33139 was again mass-prodding articles as I monitor the article alerts notification page for WikiProject Computing. I added templates to a handful of articles that they prodded as part of their mass-prod in hopes that some of the other editors who monitor the article alerts page could help improve some of these articles.

• Reverted my removal of an invalid CSD R2 template here [227]
• Edited a userfied article here [228] that was userfied in an AfD I participated in.
• AfD'd an article I just reverted vandalism on. [229]
• Added a false !vote to the Davfs2 AfD [230] where I had participated.
• Went on to mass prod and AfD other filesystem articles such as UMSDOS prod, AfD (This one in particular shows that they are not even trying to find sources before prod/AfD as UMSDOS has been covered in great detail in an enormous amount of published works and other reliable sources), and others [231] [232] [233] [234] [235]

In keeping with their typical pattern with these sort of disruptive edits, they then went on to make a ton of minor edits elsewhere in an attempt to bury these edits in their edit history. [236]
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid much? Looking at user contributions is not stalking.

Cross namespace redirects are regularly deleted. It is now at RfD.

Userspace articles do not belong in mainspace categories, I have removed hundreds of instances of these in my history. Following a deletion discussion to a recently deleted/userfied article is a quick way to remove these pages from mainspace categories.

Mass proding of a category of articles which are almost all poorly sourced is fairly typical. That's why the process exists. Note my edit history is quite extensive and regular (except for ones which were deleted).

Calling my part of an AfD discussion false, when it is very much a part of my long established rationale for deleting non-notable and poorly referenced software is bad faith.

I've been making minor edits all night long before and after looking at a few of the same things you did. Get a grip on reality. Miami33139 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert D'Onston Stephenson article / User:DreamGuy

Resolved

 – Not a matter for ANI, needs to go to WP:DR or WP:3O. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Robert D'Onston Stephenson article is a minor article related to the 'Jack the Ripper' murders. I started it about a year and a half ago. Yesterday a major portion of the article was removed by User:DreamGuy, in spite of the fact that five months ago a consensus was reached, after my request for an 'outside view'. I have tried to revert user DreamGuy's mangling of the article, but to no avail. As it seems his behaviour is much the same as five months ago, I see no other option than to ask for an outside view once again, and, if any such thing is possible, for a general investigation into user DreamGuy's behaviour. (This user has, from what I understand, been blocked on several other occasions.) I'm reposting my request of 2 April this year, as DreamGuy's act does seem to represent a 'repeat offense' - first removing the whole, or major parts of the article without any explanation, and then, when confronted, acting as some sort of "arbiter of expertise". That is not, from what I've been led to understand, how this project is supposed to work.

From my request of 2 April:

A week ago [the Robert D'Onston Stephenson article] was redirected by User:DreamGuy, with the claim that parts of the article was slanted, and that a very short section in the Jack the Ripper suspects article was better. I added some material to make the Stephenson article more objective and reinstated it. A large part of the material that has been there since last year was then removed. I added some more material and reinstated the article again. And then the same user redirected it again. I have reinstated the article again, with some changes, attempting to reach a consensus. But I expect it will be to no avail. I know this user quite well from the 'Jack the Ripper' article and noticed last year that he was trying to redirect another article related to the same subject, at least 11 times (Whitechapel murders), though I did not take part in that discussion. It seems to me that "DreamGuy" has been redirecting the Stephenson article to enforce his new version. Which surely cannot be right ? He also seems to have this habit of talking on behalf of "experts" without any referencing, and pointing at wiki policies without actually providing any arguments. And he has an abusive style, that makes it seem quite impossible to argue with him in a rational way. Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at that article ? Thank you. ΑΩ (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ΑΩ (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy notified. I'm getting tired of having to notify users about threads. If you're going to raise a complaint here about someone, you are REQUIRED to notify them. Exxolon (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware. When I filed my first complaint here five months ago noone told me about this requirement. I can see, though, that making ones adversary aware of the complaint is also a matter of common courtesy. Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So instead of filing a WP:3O, User:ΑΩ comes running here to talk about some supposed "consensus" that was actually about the redirect and not the section in question? This is one of a handful of editors I've dealt with who unfortunately immediately jumps to making over the top complaints and giving extremely biased accounts of old conflicts as a way to try to prevail in any disagreement he has with me. In this case he acts like he WP:OWNs the article in question and never shows any intent to enter into any discussion or compromise; I've given up on redirecting the article, but weeding out some of the major WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problems still present is long overdue. The content in dispute is not covered at all in most 400+ page books on the topic, largely because it is both trivial and has been shown to be wrong more than a century ago, something he apparently doesn't want anyone to know based upon his edits there. I hope that ΑΩ eventually learns that he can't pull stunts like this as a way to try to get what he wants, especially as the editors he learned this behavior from have largely either moved on or been permanently blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are the users I'm supposed to have "learned this behaviour from" ? And how would this slanderous allegation be proven ? It is, of course, unprovable. And so, it is slander. As opposed to DreamGuy and whatever other users he might be referring to, I never have been blocked.

And the content in question is more than mentioned in Evans' and Skinner's 'Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook', one of the most widely acknowledged reference works on the case. Six pages in all on Stephenson as a 'contemporary suspect', and most of it about the theory he presented to the police at the time. The quality or validity of Stephenson's theory hardly matters. Parts of it or the whole of it might have been disproven or found to be irrelevant to our present understanding. It doesn't matter. If it had not been for Stephenson's letters to the police about his theory, and the article in the Pall Mall Gazette about the same theory, he never would have become known as a 'contemporary suspect' (however minor, and unfounded) and several books about him as a suspect never would have been written. So, it seems the real issue here is not whether Stephenson's theory should be presented in some way, but how much weight it should be given in the article about him, and how it should be presented. This is also why I made this complaint "immediately". The relevant section was removed in its entirety, without any attempt to improve it, and with no prior explanation on the Talk page. And that is, in fact, very much the same procedure as five months ago.

And thank you for making me aware of the WP:3O. If I had been aware of it, I might have made my complaint there instead, even though it does say that "The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute." In my experience you're not a very civil person, as proven by your attempt here to smear me by some unprovable association. In view of this 'repeat action', I'm asking for an outside view. ΑΩ (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect this to get you anywhere, ΑΩ, just to let you know. This noticeboard is for problems that require immediate administrator attention. All you want to do is "ask for an outside view". Have you ever read dispute resolution? Those are the steps you should take when you disagree with another editor regarding what should go into an article and have had problems discussing it with them directly. I suggest you use that as a guideline. Asking for a 3rd opinion, as DreamGuy suggested above, is typically your first step. If you're declining to even try dispute resolution then you're just living up to DreamGuy's accusations which I'm sure is the last thing you want to do. So I suggest you give it a try and see what happens. -- Atama頭 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)