Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565

False positive block of User:Elengul

Resolved

 – Admin came back online.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to unblock a new user and sooner rather than later, who I think was mistakenly blocked by SarekOfVulcan, but obviously I don't want to undo another admin's action without discussion. There's good faith on both sides. This brand new user made what appears to me to have been a good faith request to remove vandalism as their first edit, which was itself misinterpreted by Sarek as blatant vandalism, which the edit could be mistaken for out of context. The misinterpreted "vandalism" edit can be seen at this diff. Everything else is explained at the bottom of SarekOfVulcan's talk page, who unfortunately appears to have gone offline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here was that the title he was requesting the move from didn't show up in the page history, so I thought he was pulling a fast one -- I didn't know to check {{Hinduism}}, which is where the vandalism actually happened. I've unblocked and cleared the autoblock: hopefully that will let Elengul edit without problems going forward. Thanks to Fuhghettaboutit for running this down. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin cabalism and spidey holes

Resolved

 – Pleasantly dramatic at the beginning, but ultimately yielded nothing but some cute one-liners. Move along... Wknight94 ^talk 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If admins are going to use off-wiki discussions to coordinate and collaborate actions, these activities and discussions should be fair game for discussion on Wiki. Transparency and accountability are critically important. Those who refuse to be trustworthy should be desysoped post haste.

I'd like to offer this thread as a chance for any crooked admins to come clean and acknowledge that they haven't been forthright and have been violating the spirit of our policies and the collaborative and collegial nature of this encyclopedia building effort. Those who refuse to do so should be shown no mercy when their activities are discovered. I encourage those with the knowledge and links to do so to post the content from inappropriate discussions on or off wiki so we can root out the corruption. The double standards and sleazy collusion (while telling good faith contributors to discuss things and abide policy) should end now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I assumed you were talking about IRC. I don't use it (I used to, but frankly the admins channel is dead 99% of the time). Soooo .... what are you talking about? Black Kite 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's this. TNXMan 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's the main criticism against WP:SPOTLIGHT because of its inherent "off-wiki" live-collaboration. MuZemike 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it's necessary to ban IRC channels, but if they are used there should be no restrictions on posting the logs. What objection is there to the light of day being shown on discussion related to article development work? If there's nothing untoward going on then there's no issue. There shouldn't be any teaming up or coordination for editing advantage, as that would be equivalent to socking and meat puppeteering. If there are any real names involved or issues of real life identites being disclosed then redact those parts. But I expect other editors and admins in particular to be transparent in their activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with ChildofMidnight. IRC channels and off-wiki mailing lists have been around since the very beginning. Where there is transparency, inclusiveness and openness there should be no problem. Manning (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I shot JR. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am Spartacus. Kuru ^talk 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

seems reasonable. Not sure what the previous comments are meant to add.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They are poking fun at the suggestion for "crooked admins to come clean..." Dallas (TV series) ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT ::In fact, there are a lot of areas on Wikipedia that can only be viewed by administrators, which does lead me to be suspicious of what the administrator's get up to behind closed doors. I have to admit that my trust in the administrators we have now has shrunk so much over the past month or two that I find contributing to the encyclopedia to be a less honorable task as it once was, which has been leading me to contribute less and less. Yes, there are good admins out there, but there also admins who seem to abuse their rights in various ways. I will stop editing if the bad admins out there cannot sort themselves out.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some evidence that Arbcom is willing to be more proactive, so I think that's a good thing. The problem of a workable dispute resolution mechanism for areas of confrontation is also an issue. Arbcom deals (sometimes ineffectively) with behavioral issues, but I've always thought it would be nice have a binding mediation mechanism for content disputes. I believe the issues Russavia is involved in, the issues WMC and SciApologist were caught up in, the disputes over Ireland, and the political feuding could be sorted out if we empaneled a group to consider sourcing and content issues once the existing boards have been exhausted. They wouldn't have to decide every issue, but they could direct and mediate to the appropriate existing venues and make sure article content and sourcing remain the focus so disputes don't deteriorate into bickering. The existing alternative of a time consuming and seemingly endless Arbcom proceeding that only considers editor behavior and not the content seems ridiculous to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"...these activities and discussions should be fair game for discussion on Wiki." And are they not? Any activity is clearly able to be discussed, I don't think anyone can dispute that - this thread is in-of-itself proof of that. There is however an issue with so-called public logging, considering that what people type on IRC is not inherently released under CC-BY-SA 3, and so quoting an IRC conversation of mine here could be construed as a copyright violation. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(quote)In fact, there are a lot of areas on Wikipedia that can only be viewed by administrators.(end quote from Sky Attacker).

Um... what? I don't know of any pages anywhere in Wikipedia which have restricted viewing. I'm no techie, but I was under the impression that the Mediawiki software doesn't even support that possibility. (By all means correct me if I'm wrong). Manning (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A volunteer ambulance worker was being berated for being an hour reaching the scene of a wreck, just before dawn. As the ambulance pulled away (she was too tired to drive the ambulance safely, a deputy Sherrif had to do it, and already late for work), she climbed up on he porch and said: You are all 100% correct! It takes too long when I have to drive from home in the south part of the parish to the north part, get the ambulance out, drive to pick up the only other volunteer EMT at his house because he has no car, then drive to the scene of the emergency. The only other @#$% VOLUNTEER driver is down with the flu (but he made the 1st run tonight so I could sleep a couple of hours). And Friday a new VOLUNTEER EMT class starts up. And you can volunteer, and you can volunteer, and you can volunteer, and YOU can volunteer. And then she climbed in the seat of the deputy's car and went to sleep. Aren't we lucky that Adminship doesn't require expensive weeks of training to be even minimally useful?
• Clearly the admins need to at least be able to ask one another "Am I hallucinating or did Sinneed just call me an ambulance chaser?" or "God as my witness I hate vandals at 2AM." or, worse "I can't remember rule x, what is it @#$% called?" without people's hair falling out of their collective heads. - Sinneed (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see deleted pages... are there secret admin pages at Wikipedia that I wasn't invited to? I feel left out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to contact your admin nominator to get your decoder rings, which allow to access the ADMIN: namespace. Horologium (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Horologium - you are clearly suicidal. By telling them about the decoder rings you risk them finding out about the secret "super-admin" permission. Only TCTISSTAEMOW can decide who gets to know about such things and I fear they will be coming to punish you soon. Manning (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jokes aside, there appear to be mailing lists and admin channels. And I've seen pack mentality take place that isn't constructive. Anyway, I mostly wanted to spur discussion. I like the I am Spartacus statement best so far. And we'll see what comes of the Arbcom case just opened. Let's make sure we all look out for one another and keep things collaborative and collegial. The neutral point of view core policy makes clear there are appropriate ways to include diverse viewpoints and opinions. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch that if someone contacted everyone who complained about off-wiki cabals, and offered to organize them all into an off-wiki cabal, most of them would join. Then they could have leaked logs of their very own. Wknight94 ^talk 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Am I alone in thinking this referred to WP:SPIDER? Because it certainly sounds as if someone needs a ladder to come down off the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Also, what admin action is needed here? None that I can see. → ROUX ₪ 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? Please fess up now. It will only go worse on you if you don't. Syrthiss (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it looks very much like a communist conspiracy. As we speak they are trying to go after the whistle blowers who uncovered the wrongdoing (related to article content having to do with Russia). Perhaps those who disclosed the impropriety will be quietly sent to the gulag. The Supreme Democratic Committee of Administrators should never be questioned. And outing their indiscretions is a high crime that threatens the foundations of this Federation of States that is Wikitopia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation.

I am concerned that this is a clear violation of the owner's rights to the image. It appeared on the page of the subject and has now been removed. Could it be speedily deleted? File:091009 Wilson.jpg .--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• You could tag it w/ the appropriate tag. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did , and it was changed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a fair use rationale for File:091009 Wilson.jpg, and it is disputed. Unless fait use can be justified it will be deleted after 24 Sept, as the page says. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it had a FU claim (however vacant the justification) so F9 didn't apply. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A note. When linking a category or file do like [[:File:File name.jpg]] with the colon right before the file. Otherwise it adds the category or transcludes the image. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What the...?? I did that. How come it didn't work? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I will contact the owner tomorrow and see how convincing they feel the argument is.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What owner? Protonk (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That of the image.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Three things. The AP has a ...unique...interpretation of fair use that isn't consonant w/ US Law. And wikipedia's "Fair use" guidelines are deliberately much more strict than US Law requires (because we want to actively promote free content as a substitute). And I strongly suggest you simply deal with this through the normal image deletion policies rather than bringing in third parties. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds omnious. I would think the owner ( Chip or the AFP, if chip didn't retain rights) would be primaries, rather than third parties--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, misread it. AFP not AP. Regardless. Please just use the normal deletion channels. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now really curious as to what their position will be. Curiosity killed the cat.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. I suspect the answer will be rather mundane. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I broke it in the edit conflict, I think. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I nominated if for deletion through our files for deletion process. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

TY. I never could figure out where and how to do it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

From the open-mouthed look, resembling a codfish, Wilson appears to be suffering from a bug that a lot of Republicans caught this past year - the dreaded disease called "disenfranchisement", colloquially known as "the outs". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lol. Inc. complaining about BLP. ;) Protonk (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All this fuss over a picture taken at a bingo parlor? -- Atama頭 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One curious thing is that someone got a nice, clear photo from a supposedly spontaneous outburst. You don't suppose this could have been an orchestrated event, do you? GASP! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it -- I'm sure there were cameras all over the place watching the "audience" to get reaction shots, and this one happened to be in the right place at the right time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher, again

Resolved

 – user blocked (vandalism) for 72 hours Manning (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. Once again, I'm here to report Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs). I reported him ten days ago, but the report seemed to get brushed aside (see Archive). Well he's still being non-responsive and adding nonsensical and/or false information. But also of note is a new-found knack for profanity [1] [2] Deserted Cities (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear-cut vandalism. User blocked for 72 hours (this is the user's first block). Manning (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Deserted Cities (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. All part of the service. :) Manning (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

BOT at an IP address

Noticed this on a friend's talk page. It is obvious the BOT has signed out and it still working. Not sure if it should be blocked until it signs back in or what the procedure for these things is, but I thought I would bring it everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy

I reverted an edit yesterday by this user to Automatic double tracking, which asserted that ADT was "the same thing American engineers had been doing for ten years", and inserted the word "supposedly" into the statement that ADT was developed at Abbey Road Studios. This editor offered no proof of his claims, or documentation to back them up. Not long after, he inserted WP:OR and "synthesis of data" tags onto the same page, asking for references, and left a comment on the article's talk page. I provided the references he requested (happened to have time off work, and the book handy), removed the tags (since there was now documentation), and pointed out that he still hadn't provided any similar grounds for his own claims. (He says he wants "neutrality" for the article, against "worshipers of Beatlemania and Abbey Road"; while I can sympathize with the latter, "supposedly" is hardly a neutral word... it's more of a weasel word, and his general tone is hardly "neutral".)

I just logged in, to find a WP:CIVIL message (my first, in almost five years editing on here) on my talk page from him (and about my edit summary, of all things), and "unverified" tags on each and every header of the ADT article; far more than is called for in such a situation. (Somebody wants to edit-war, and it's not me.) I went to leave a reply at his own talk page... and discovered it was blank, and that he regularly erases messages, warnings, etc., from other editors. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, from here... and life's too short for me to keep dealing with such people. Zephyrad (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the wp:CIVIL violation. I myself have been guilty of the over-flagging thing, and have learned to avoid it...I hope. I did add a {{refimprove}} article flag. There are large chunks of text (entire sections) that are entirely unsourced. - Sinneed (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor adopting username very similar to mine to spamlink with

Resolved

 – blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have in the past removed linkspam from a set of articles, and reported the spammers, who have been indefblocked, one as a suspected sockpuppet. E.g. Wikipedik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), BennyObama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just noticed a new editor called Struway22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), i.e. my username with an additional '2' on the end, adding the same linkspam to some of those articles. Don't know if this breaches the username policy, or whether I should just be flattered they've remembered me, but thought I'd mention it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The account was obviously created for purely disruptive purposes, so I have blocked the account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Images on User Pages

Is Fair Use Image Bot dead, because I see many user pages with fair use images. See this for example. miranda 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since March. Is that the bot you were thinking of? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But I do see a lot of fair use images on user's pages. I think people should start manually removing them per FURG since the bot is not working. miranda 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is down indefinitely due to some changes in the MediaWiki software. See also User_talk:Carnildo#FairuseBot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Brandon runs a removal bot. I also have a report at Tools:~betacommand/NFCC9.html that lists the issues. β^_command 18:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Brandon's bot does not remove non-free content from the template space. That has to be done manually. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot doesn't handle images in userspace -- it's simply not a fight I want to get involved in. The closest the bot comes to it is that if it finds a non-free image that's used only on a userpage, it will mark the image for deletion as unused. --Carnildo (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the bot which places a big C on copyrighted images in userspace? Can't someone make a clone of that bot to deal with the userspace issues? miranda 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user User:Rejace3836 back as User:Jigkiller3836

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Luna Santin. Evil saltine (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rejace3836 was blocked for being a vandalism only account. She claims to be an actor by the name of Jalen Carter [3], and takes an interest in horror films, specifically Saw VI. There were blocked after several vandal edits, including personal attacks. It appears that they are back as Jigkiller3836, first creating a page for Saw VII [4] then creating an article about Jalen Carter, and now posting at the Saw VI talk page. Thus far they have not done anything as bad as they did under their previous account, however they are evading a block. After three years I'm still not up on the ins and outs of a block but I was always lead to believe that block evading is a blockable offence, however innocuous the new edits are. If someone could let me know what the lay of the land is, or warn the new version of Rejace3836 I would appreciate it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've blocked Jigkiller3836 and suggested they request unblock as Rejace3836 if they'd like to continue editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To the extreme

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:MuZemike per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/By78. Evil saltine (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, the activities of By78 is getting intolerable. He is going and vandalizing the pages. Please take action.Bcs09 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this seems to be referring to a dispute on Fast Attack Craft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? A little more context would be helpful. Looks like there's been some reverting back and forth, maybe three or four in the last three days, but people are at least talking to each other via edit summary. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's over which pictures to use. Evil saltine (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... following up a bit, I've notified By78 of this discussion, and noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/By78, which seems connected to a different dispute at Stock market. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for disruption, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry. MuZemike 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only incident see loeth's talk page for more details [5]. Vedant (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens. If he so wishes to come back earlier, I'm sure we'll see another sock or something. MuZemike 17:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion about this user a few days ago on AN. Evil saltine (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with IP editor repeatedly hounding me for months

I have been having issues with 206.170.111.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) repeatedly hounding me over the last few months, including repeated personal attack on my talk page. I had previously reported this to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Repeated personal attacks by an IP) While the personal attacks have largely gone, the hounding has not.[6] —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I issued a final warning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your warning before I blocked Julian, and I did so (for three months as the ip appears quite static) for multiple harrassing personal attacks over quite some time as well as numerous other vandalistic edits with a bent toward the homophobic (see e.g., [7]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly as static as I thought so changed to 1 week.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

fine by me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a week is not going to phase the individual harassing me. They only leave these personal attacks on my page about once a month and rarely ever edits between such times. I doubt they will even noticed the block until after it has expired. If there is a way to keep this particular IP from editing my talk page without affecting other IP editors, then that would be the preferable solution. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation allows for semi-protection of your user space see your talk page for further details.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At once very three to four weeks (if not longer), it's not really worth the semi-protection. —Farix (t | c) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am being harassed by an admin User:Frank

Resolved

 – based on concluded discussion at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#I am not happy Equazcion (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I am being trolled by an admin, I am not saying they are a troll, they may very well just be having a bad hair day and are an otherwise good admin (I do not know him at all, first time meeting the admin). A bit of background, I had to along with others request an arbcom due to years of drama on ADHD articles by user scuro. This resulted in policies, including no incivilty and no personal attacks being passed by arbcom as well as other editing restrictions on scuro. I saw what I deemed a personal attack on ADHD talk page, it was in response to another editor (Doc James) but was aimed at other editors as well. I thought about going directly to arbcom and requesting enforcement but then thought, nah I will just send a warning template first, I don't want to go running to arbcom enforcement for every violation. I hoped my level 4 warning template would do the trick. Instead I got 2 disruptive editors for the price of 1 sadly, as one admin showed up and said "it wasn't a "personal attack", anyway I disagreed. I expected the conversation on my talk page to quickly fizzel out, with us agreeing to disagree but sadly this admin is just going off the deep end. I have requested 3 times for them to leave my talk page now and they refuse. They are now resorting to the level of twisting facts, quoting people out of context to "win an argument". I am getting messaged multiple times daily now, message after message. I find them obsessive and to be quite honest displaying similar behaviour to problem editors that I would usually end up reporting to admin noticeboard or getting into drama with. Basically the issue really is beyond the point of whether I "should have went straight to arbcom enforcement" and was wrong (to be nice) and give them a warning first or whether I was correct or wrong in interpreting comments as a personal attack. The issue is that I am actually now being trolled and harassed by an admin and I would like the people/admins here to basically just say stop harassing literaturegeek, let it go, leave him alone, stop making a mountain out of mole hill etc. This is the first time to my knowledge that I have had to report an admin and do not like to do so but I can just see the signs that I have seen in other disruptive editors I have dealt with in the past and would like someone to put a stop to it. My evidence links are here.User_talk:Literaturegeek#I_have_requested_administrator_Xeno.27s_help_with_regards_to_your_threats I would rather deal with the initial seperate drama via reopening arbcom (if that becomes necessary) rather than here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state that at this point I DO NOT want admin Frank blocked, unless it is just blocked from my talk page. I have no gripe with him, I do not know him, I just want him to go away is all and let the subject drop. I am tired of being harassed over and over again over what is in reflection a trivial argument over a subjective interpretations of what is or is not a personal attack. It is at the point of craziness please intervene.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some diffs would be a good starting point.. Never mind, found them. Thanks Manning (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

LG, perhaps just simply archiving that discussion on your talk page would work? Not sure anything more productive is going to come from it. While I'm a bit surprised Frank (normally pretty laid back, IMHO) hasn't respected your three clear requests to stay off your talk page, you're replying to him and then requesting he stay away, and sometimes it's hard for imperfect humans to leave things alone when that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More background information can be found here on user Xeno's talk page.User_talk:Xeno#ADHD--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fluoquen, that is a good idea and I think any future comments made by admin Frank that I will just ignor. On my second attempt to get him to leave my talk page,[8] I specifically worded my response in a way not to invite more debate and gave him a "carrot" by suggesting that we agree to disagree and part company. As it was an admin and has administrative powers and influence I felt compelled to respond.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's far too much wall-of-text to expect poor uninvolved people to wade through it all, but at a glance I see some unreasonable behavior on your part. I would suggest just letting this drop, and refraining from giving editors warnings in the future. You don't appear to know when a giving warning is or is not appropriate. If there's a real problem, someone else will come along and deal with it. Friday (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually just DID read most of it and came to the identical conclusion that Friday did as well. Let it go and move on. Manning (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. I have used the twinkle tool on a daily basis thousands of times without problems. I will avoid in future all warnings for scuro however and just request his immediate block on arbcom enforcement. I feel being a nice guy and giving a warning first is not worth all of the drama. Friday and manning you are not familar with the arbcom or the situation on the ADHD talk pages. I understand and appreciate that you both cannot wade through mountains of text or arbcom evidence and findings. That is why I specifically requested intervention regarding why an admin will not let this drop and what I can do when an admin who I do not know has taken an intense displeasure of someone disagreeing with them to the point of harassing me. I did not want any admin to do a reassessment of the arbcom findings and the drama on ADHD talk pages. I must say I disagree that uninvolved admins are going off-topic and passing judgements on ADHD drama which is covered by arbcom. I will go back to arbcom if that area needs covering as they are familar with the background and have enforcement policies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Frank's initial point was correct; while Scuro's comment included a characterisation that you reject, I don't think it was a personal attack per se and clearly it did not warrant the template warning given. Inaccurately weighted warnings are a problem when using the pre-loaded Twinkle options, but there are multiple levels and Twinkle (and other tools) make it abundantly clear that you are solely responsible for your edit. No harassment has occurred that I can see. Having said that, I'm not sure why the conversation continued much beyond that and it seems clear it doesn't need to go any further. Archiving the section and moving on is the right way to go. Nathan ^T 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's initial comment about it being not technically a personal attack may have been correct who knows, subjective. That is not the problem. The harassment may not be the best description but problem was not leaving talk page after several requests and my suggestion to agree to disagree and also and most importantly Frank resorting to quoting out of context people, knowingly posting very dishonest interpretations of the situation to make me look bad. Essentially being very dishonest to my face knowing full well that I knew he was being dishonest, this was very antagonistic especially from a complete stranger, this was the issue. It is being discussed in the below section.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Been reading this and felt the need to interject. When you continue responding to a discussion and don't like the result in the end, that's not harassment. It's just a discussion that didn't go the way you planned, and the other guy just won't see how wrong he is. There are no extra rules for admins concerning how reasonable and agreeable they have to act towards those they argue with, so you won't get any leeway just because the user you're arguing with is an admin. His "interpretation" of the situation probably seems about as "dishonest" as yours does to him. If you feel annoyed by the discussion, there's no need to ask the user to leave your talk page. Simply stop responding, archive the discussion, and be done with it. If he then continues to post to your talk page regarding the same issue, that might be a reason to come here and complain. Equazcion (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. I did continue to respond after asking him to leave. Ignoring him would probably have been a better move. In the past I have had problematic editors on my talk page and I just undid (removed) their edits from my talk page. I felt doing this in this instant could have backfired as he was an admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Response from User:Frank

(sub-heading used because I'm responding in general, not to the comment directly above)

My opinion of the edit that led me to LG's talk page hasn't changed one bit; it was an inappropriate warning. I generally don't think that "leave my talk page alone" is sufficient answer to "your warning was inappropriate" because it doesn't address the core issue of civility. However, I've said all I needed to at the page - and, perhaps, more.

Having said all that, I hope, LG, that you understand that me being an admin has nothing to do with this. Nowhere did I threaten you, and nowhere did I assert or even imply that what I was saying had more merit because I'm admin. I made my comments purely as a member of the community, which is what all of us (admin and otherwise) are expected to do. If you perceive otherwise, please re-evaluate without attaching any ulterior or power-hungry motives to my actions. I never escalated, and I never brought my status as an admin into the picture, and I never said anything remotely like "you'd better agree with me or else". That would be highly inappropriate. Instead, I've tried to get you to see not my point of view, but the community's point of view on the matter. Indeed, I actually asked you to provide support for your assertion that it was a personal attack, giving you the opportunity to show me where my interpretation of community values is incorrect. I have steadfastly declined to investigate past drama and have also declined to ask anyone else to support my point so I could say "see?", and I have also avoided looking into your past edits. Those things would be harassment; none of my actions fit that profile.  Frank  |  talk  15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to agree here with Frank that "leave me alone" is a useless, inappropriate response. Anyone who says such things is probably not well suited to a collaborative project. I don't believe Frank's actions were out of line in this case. Friday (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I start off by saying that I DO NOT care if scuro made a personal attack or whether it was "technically just uncivil or inappropriate. I do not want Frank or anyone else to divert this conversation off-topic. This is what I mean, he has resorted to levels of twisting facts, this is what I mean by saying he is being antagonistic, harassing (perhaps there is a better word for it) and disruptive. He states that my response to him disagreeing with his interpretation of the situation was to tell him to go away. Nope, that was my response to him resorting to twisting facts,[9] to imply I sent a warning because an editor requested consensus and NPOV. He had resorted to being nasty resorting to dishonesty, that was why I asked him to leave. I politely engaged him at first. More to come...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not quite exactly what is meant by "letting it drop". Friday (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok to address the rest of Frank's comments. Actually Frank I DO see your point of view. Your interpretation of the situation was it was not a personal attack, but was more an uncivil or inappropriate comment? At least Xeno saw it that way and you didn't disagree. My point of view arbcom passed a dual motion of no personal attacks or uncivilness, there is an enforcement block for violations (although I am not completely sure if personal attacks OR uncivilness is blockable by them would have to confirm). My point and PROBLEM is NOT that we disagree about subjective interpretations of demeaning comments, my problem with you is that you have on several occasions escalated the situation by twisting facts, quoting out of context and just generally being nasty. THAT is my problem, not to mention suggesting that we agree to disagree and asking you to leave my talk page and you ignoring my request to agree to disagree. It was the form of lying, distorting what issues were, quoting out of context people to "win an argument". I cannot deal diplomatically with people who resort to these tactics. Can you not see my point of view that resorting to dishonesty is very antagonistic? Please address this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Friday, according to a wiki tool, you have edited just under 100 of the pages that Frank has edited so I would consider that you have a conflict of interest as far as Frank goes and you may not have a neutral interpretation of this situation. He is also a fellow admin. I am not criticising you at all, I myself have sometimes commented in drama situations where I probably wasn't neutral, none of us our perfect and I could be entirely wrong about you being friends with frank, so please do not take offense. Just saying I am not comfortable is all. Hope you understand.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Friday, according to a wiki tool, you have edited just under 100 of the pages that Frank has edited so I would consider that you have a conflict of interest as far as Frank goes and you may not have a neutral interpretation of this situation." - Sorry, but this means nothing at all. Friday and Frank are both admins, so obviously they're going to edit the same pages (RFA, ANI, RFPP, AIV, etc). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your point in saying that Friday and Frank have edited a lot of the same pages? Are you accusing them of colluding with each other, or of being sockpuppets? Warofdreams, the closing bureaucrat on Frank's Request for adminship, has edited 110 of the same pages as Frank has. Would you consider him to be "too close" to Frank to be impartial? Are you planning on demanding that Frank stand again for RfA because the closing bureaucrat has a conflict of interest with him? Because by your definition, Warofdreams has more of a COI than Friday, who has 98 pages in common. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it's only 100. Generally, I'd thought admins across the 'pedia should have about 150-200 in common, given the tasks we need to do. ↪REDVERS ^{I dreamt about stew last night} 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokes! User:J.delanoy and I may need to be checkusered. :( (Of course, with 283659, User:J.delanoy and anyone may need to be check-usered. User:Redvers, I think we have to bundle you in on this, too.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

J Delanoy and Redvers, I was not making an assertion but a suspicion. My whole post also said this, I am not criticising you at all, I myself have sometimes commented in drama situations where I probably wasn't neutral, none of us our perfect and I could be entirely wrong about you being friends with frank, so please do not take offense. Just saying I am not comfortable is all. Hope you understand. I thought that I worded it in such a way that I was not casting judgement on them or accusing them of being a bad person. I have never met Friday before so it would be impossible for me to judge them. I was just trying to say that I felt uncomfortable. Friday has posted on my talk page and I would like to publicly state that I do not believe Friday and Frank know each other and have said sorry to Friday.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I can see admin board discussion is not going to address my complaints. I just wanted to be left alone by Frank. I believe that this posting on the admin board has achieved that objective. I never did want any of the admins here to take any administration action against Frank.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want admin action, then ANI is probably not your forum. As it says at the top, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." If you think you're dealing with harassment and you can't resolve it in conversation with the other user, WP:WQA may be a better place to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I felt admins could help as far as just requesting Frank to respect requests for him to leave me alone after he had made his point multiple times. Thank you for your suggestion moon. Perhaps WP:WQA would have been better.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy

I have moved this text to the talk page as it is better served there.Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_am_not_happy--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry vandalism?

Resolved

 – Blizzocked. MuZemike 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:90.233.167.166
• User talk:Eliminiatedguy

Dear administrators, I am not sure if the following is more appropriate for the sockpuppetry or vandalism admin board and so am bring it here. Anyway, please compare the following:

• From the IP: [10], [11], [12], [13]
• From the account: [14], [15], [16], [17]

As seen above, an IP and now account are making the same kind of "she is hot" edits to the same articles and even after multiple warnings. I appreciate attractive women as much as the next guy, but even if the claim that these women as "sexy" or "hot" is something we can agree on, we still cannot just add our opinions over and over, with swearing, poor grammar, etc. That it seems to be the same person from IP to account, I bring it forth here for admin attention should the individual do additional IP/account hopping. Please help! Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the users of this thread, on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Basket, you beat me to it! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the user just decided to sign up for an account. That in itself isn't against the rules. He or she probably did not see your warning to the IP due to creating the account. I would just treat the user like any other vandal, warn then block. If the user returns as a sock, we can deal with it then. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Eliminiatedguy indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only, IP for 2 weeks. MuZemike 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast action! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sweetfornow disruptive editing and now personal attacks

Unresolved

See previous discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Sweetfornow.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_new_account.2C_edit_warring.2C_no_communication.2C_copyvios.2C_many_issues
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#User:Sweetfornow_copyvios.2C_no_communication

Sweetfornow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Previously this user has edit warred on 3 different pages, introduced copyvios, original research and numerous problems into various articles. Their initial response to all the warnings they got and previous AN/I threads was to blank the warnings and carry on. Only recently have they engaged in any communication, their first of which was basically a violation of WP:OWN[18], along with borderline personal attacks [19], and assumptions o bad faith[20]. The user may be engaging in pointy edits as evidenced by this [21]. Several of the users contributions were removed for using bad sources, or no sources. Today I noticed a couple of problems in addition to this.

• This prod [22] in only a few seconds of googling I was able to verify most of the info on the page, I reverted it and added one source I'll add more later. The claim that no sources could be found just doesn't ring true at all.
• The serious gutting of Matt the Knife with extremely dubious claims [23]. A well formed cite went 404, so their response was to take out whole paragraphs rather than find the source. Regardless if an article or link goes 404, especially to a news paper or radio show, it doesn't invalidate the citation. They were also removing citations and large portions of the text because a newspaper cite went to the home page and not the article itself. It took me less than a minute to check the newspaper site and find the correct link [24] [25].
• Here [26] the user is removing most of the article (including a citation). because they apparently can't read the entire article since its a for pay article.

These edits are very disruptive and creating a lot of work for other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this user has not done much wrong. Please post more evidence of wrong doing if you still feel we should sanction this editor in any way. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Come again? This users first 100 edits had to pretty much all be undone because of various problems. Since then the user has inserted copyvios, tried to own articles, edit warred to try and push/remove content into articles. The editor has now stated on my talk page that anything not perfectly sourced is "libelous" [27]. They're not even taking the time to check to see if the sources are valid before gutting articles. How is that not disruptive?--Crossmr (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they've been warned by other editors as well. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

they have been warned plenty they like to blank their page and others see mooops talk history for that. I'm mobile now can't link--Crossmr (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The history of Terry Evanswood, a magician who's apparently not a favorite of this editor, shows an example of editing that harms the project. The article was prod'ed for notability, but it took very little effort on my part to establish notability. I came to the Evanswood article after reverting this edit to Brandon Hein, in which this editor removed a valid and necessary citation with the false edit summary "corrected links". --CliffC (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow missed that one. That is a blatantly false edit summary in an attempt to hide citation removal. Here is there attempt to hide talk about them on another users talk page [28].--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this may be a sock of indeffed Headlikeawhole (talk · contribs). This account appeared about a week after Headlikeawhole and his socks were blocked and some early edits were to topics that Headlikeawhole was interested in, like Crunk rapping and Paris Hilton. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The user is still trying to edit war on the Terry Evanswood article [29] after more than one explanation that we don't have to see the content on the web for it to be a citation. If you have the evidence for thisi multixfer, can you do up a sockpuppet case? Or exactly how much evidence of disruption do we need here?--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I made those edits because the links doesn't reference the page. I click through each link and read the content. I removed the links because they don't contain any reliable info. Removing info and fake citations isn't against Wikipedia's rules in any way. People shouldn't vandalize articles and write whatever they want to. Some of the paragraphs do not have reliable citations. The links only take you to a homepage of a website, not the actual content stated in the Wiki articles. Without reliable sources, then the article would be false. Crossmr: I'm sick and tired of writing the same shit over and over again on your talk page. I have a reason to remove the links. Unless you have a good reason to complain, get over it and stop whining like a child. Jumping to immediate conclusions won't help. Sweetfornow (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The citation isn't fake just because the link has gone 404 or there is no link. You removed a citation to a radio show. It is unlikely that that radio show is online anywhere, but that doesn't mean you can just go through and gut articles because you can't see the citation this moment conveniently on the internet. As I already pointed out it, it took me all of 30 seconds on the homepage of the newspaper to verify the article existed.There are probably tens of thousands of citations in wikipedia articles that go to physical books without a weblink. By your logic those citations and any information drawn from them should be torn out of the articles. you have had numerous editors undo your edits, and either warn you or attempt to explain this to you. Read WP:NPA as well as you've now crossed the line into blatant personal attacks. As for your reasons for removal, let's look at them:

• Here you complain of a broken link [30]. Yet look at the source. The link provided is simply a link to the radio series, not the individually cited episode. While the link to the series needs to be updated there is zero problem with this reference. Yet you went through and removed every single time it is used and then yanked all the content.
• Here you claim to remove "several" broken links yet again its just one, plus several uses of it [31]. It is again not a broken link. Its a link to the main page of a newspaper, but the article, date and authors are cited. Within 30 seconds of going to the website in question I was able to find the article.
• Here you removed an entire section because you can't take the time to check the websites in question to see if the articles are there [32]. The section you removed was also cited with the radio show which you pulled out in your first edit.
• [33] [34]More of the same. The article, author, date, etc is cited. Direct links to the articles are not required for citation
• Here [35] you remove another episode citation from a show.
• [36] here you remove more citations which are perfectly fine and gut more content
• And then after ripping almost every single citation out of the article, you tag it for notability [37].

That is an absolutely atrocious series of edits. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the citation system on wikipedia.

• [38] here you complain of an inability to find sources. Taking the name and putting any book name in quotes I returned a plethora of sources in under 1 minute.
• At the Terry Evanswood article you keep removing sourced content because you can't read the whole article. We assume good faith and the editor that added content based on that article is assumed to have added it correctly. Unless you have access to the full article and want to provide it to contradict some claim that was made with it, you shouldn't be removing it.
• As pointed out above, you provided a false edit summary [39] here to try and hide what you were really doing to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of "dead links" are often stripped from ref lists and their content blanked when the information is often available on the internet archive. Just another point. I see way too many people blank legit online references when the link is dead simply because the article was moved or something. Just a general comment. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also a general comment: among the edits of Headlikeawhole (talk · contribs), mentioned above as possibly a related account, this gives an interesting insight and makes me realize once again how much time is wasted managing disruption. --CliffC (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls is definitely a time waster, I'll give you that. Worrying about what trolls think is pointless and self-defeating. The fact that anyone feels pleasure at acting like a dick on a collaborative website and getting blocked for it is pathetic to the nth degree. That's why WP:DNFTT is such a great policy and why revert-block-ignore is the best possible response. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be a nice response, but after 3 days of this sitting here, not a single admin has commented on this.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't even an issue of going to internet archive. Look at the first removal. They were removing content sourced to a broadcast radio show. There is no online copy of it that I know of. So removing it just because the series about page is dead is completely wrong. If a citation is ONLY a link with no information about an author, date, publisher, etc and it goes dead, it can be hard to find out what was on it. This is why we include these things. We don't run around gutting articles because a link in a citation is bad or has gone 404. This almost looks like a concentrated effort to trim the article so that it could be tagged for notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bcs09 suspected sockpuppet account of indefinitely banned User:Chanakyathegreat

I'm not sure how to submit a suspected sockpuppet but I thought it was important enough to submit this one here because User:Bcs09 appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Chanakyathegreat, who was blocked indefinitely after a long history of very disruptive behaviour. This case is based on judging by both accounts have an almost identicle edit history pattern, both have the same arguments with the same editors, both have the same edit wars, and the creation of the User:Bcs09 account was just after the indefinite block of the User:Chanakyathegreat account. 81.170.18.20 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I doubt it. Anyone else smells dirty socks? HalfShadow 00:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:BertramJohnson

BertramJohnson (talk · contribs) was repeatedly creating a bio of himself. Although there were several warnings on his Talk page, nobody sat down and actually told him about WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:RS. By the time I got involved and explained that to him, he was blocked. I know he was given a final warning, but he did seem to be reaching out to people to ask why he couldn't have a bio. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse at MfD

• Gurrenlaggan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orangesodakid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Orangesodakid/hidden page challenge. The first account posted a personal attack five minutes after being created. It appears that the user is using socks to talk to himself to make good appearances for himself. The spelling mistakes further make this obvious. Triplestop x3 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be a few off-wiki pals involved, there, by the looks of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, orangesodakid does not know how to talk on this page he says that he cant say anything because he is blocked what should he do?--Coldplay Expert 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not blocked as far as I can tell (see his block log). Evil saltine (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And the IP he is claiming to be caught in an autoblock by is not currently blocked, either. Regards, Javért ^☆ 00:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about the autoblock. It doesn't actually the show the IP that is blocked, does it? I see an autoblock for User:Gurrenlaggan on Special:BlockList, but it does not give the IP. Evil saltine (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, it's actually Coldplay Expert (talk · contribs) who is blocked. The latest developments at user talk:Orangesodakid in regards to sharing accounts is also quite interesting... Regards, Javért ^☆ 01:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

豪庸

豪庸 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly inserting false information into music articles. Completely unresponsive: he's at final warning level for unsourced and false info, and repeated today. Despite the warnings, he has never made an edit to user talk space or article talk space, nor has he written an edit summary.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I smell sock, but cannot remember of whom. MuZemike 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The only moderately likely candidates for this area would be JuStar and Petergriffin9901. This doesn't feel much like JuStar: JuStar was big on detailed citations to garbage sources: generally one-off references to obscure music charts. His big trademark was edit-warring: if you moved a comma, he'd move it back. I'm mentoring Petergriffin9901, and believe him to be reformed. 豪庸 (Goyo, if you will) doesn't edit war and doesn't fight. He just silently inserts errors into articles.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally gave him a final final warning to quit and explain himself (I also notified him of the discussion here while I was at it) upon threat of a block if continued. MuZemike 01:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoax article

Resolved

 – Both deleted and user warned. AniMate^draw 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Two hoax articles from the same user have been tagged for speedy deletion for a few hours. The articles are Sees Me Through and One by One (2010 TV series). Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That first one sounds like a show about Superman's X-ray vision. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow issue

I didn't do anything. I just answered questions on his talk page, that were posted by other users. However, he refers to it as vandalism, and so he puts a warning template on my talk page, without stating a logical reason, so I warned him about the use of such templates.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I twitch just before I make a 3rd-party post on someone's user talk page: Some folks are very sensitive about that. It looks like you may have offended one. But I don't see how it would fall under wp:vandalism. It appears the editor went on a warning-spree that doesn't make much sense. I am interested to see if one of the Admins has an idea how to help here, as I can't see a way. - Sinneed (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this isn't the first time that Mikhailov has required admin attention:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#User:Mikhailov Kusserow and RfA irregularities
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikhailov Kusserow/Archive

Rami R 10:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mikhailov's contributions seem to consist mainly of posting welcome messages to users and asking for personal information such as where they live. (diff, diff, diff, diff). They're also adding username warnings to various user pages: for examples, see here, here and here. I've contacted Mikhailov about the username warnings (my concern was that they didn't specify what was wrong with the username), but didn't get a response other than Mikhailov archiving my question (maybe due to a language barrier?). I too would like to see if anyone has an idea on how to help get through to this editor. Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, he asked personal questions on talk:Relly Komaruzaman this talk page that were not in English, and funny enough I had to answer in Indonesian. Anyways, he really went on a spree there, warned 5 users that is yet to be understood by any of these contributors (including me).--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by Off2riorob

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Off2riorob has probably realized it was an inappropriate comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see this inappropriate comment by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) [40]. He has been blocked numerous times in the past for disruption [41].

As this inappropriate comment was left at my talk page, I would appreciate an uninvolved admin taking action here. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment is obnoxious and uncalled for but seems more like a WP:CIVIL than a WP:NPA problem. In any event, I doubt it rises to the level of blocking by itself. However, the general pattern of behavior by Off2 is clearly very less than idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything in that comment remotely requiring any form of action. The linked comment was "you seem focused on A ... do you happen to be A?" It's likely rhetorical, but not a vio of WP:NPA or even WP:CIVIL from what I can see. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EC. It is a bit much to come rushing here for this simple question. It is also not disruptive or obnoxious. I have been asked to declare my interest in topics before and I have been asked if I have any other accounts, both questions I have answered and it is overly senstitive imo to come rushing here to report an editor after being asked Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few interactions with RioRob. He has made rough comments about my conduct. He is willing however to explain himself in a reasonable manner. Maybe a smoother touch would be helpful but thus far I've seen quite a few admirable qualities in this editor, including the ability to help out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing actionable here. Off2 isn't being the most diplomatic, but it's not egregious. He asked a question.. one he apparently thinks is relevant. You may choose to answer it, or not. Friday (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also request that there is no reason to actually bring this here that this not develop into a general discussion about me and I would politely request it to be closed and if any editor would like to discuss my editing they could open a RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I would like to think that if I had problems with your editing, that I would discuss it on your talkpage - that's what it's for, and the first place before WQA, ANI or even RFC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt's reaction is understandable and Off2riorob might not have been aware of the context. Cirt is very protective of his pseudonymity: he previously abandoned an account and restarted due to legitimate fears of offsite harassment. Rob asked Cirt whether he was Rick Ross; Rick Ross edits Wikipedia under his real name. Cirt is not Rick Ross. Most people seek to truncate a sensitive discussion when the opening query accuses them of obsession. Rob may not have realized he was opening a cupboard that had several cans of worms on a low shelf. Durova³¹⁹ 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad there is a reason for it. Do you think posting that would be the smartest thing here? If there are people trolling and they possibly don't like Cirt we would be setting him up to go through it all again. I am very sensitive to somethings though so you made a great point aside from that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been spelled out in much greater detail as arbitration evidence, so there's no harm to mentioning here. Cirt's security issue with the previous account has been resolved. Durova³¹⁹ 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this previous issue that Cirt has had regarding his identity the reason for Cirt rushing me to the noticeboard? Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't read his mind, but it seems possible that might have a bearing on why he would take a hard line on WP:OUTING. Both Cirt and Rick Ross were parties to that arbitration so your question was tantamount to asking whether he had socked an arbitration case. Not sure whether you were aware of that; the case grew so long and tangled that it's almost unreadable. Durova³¹⁹ 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not on my mind, it was just a feeling and it was in my mind and I asked, I have seen other editors ask these type of questions on talkpages and thought that it was ok to ask.Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I find the spelling problems in the disputed comment troublesome, and yet we're not supposed to refactor. Such are the trials and tribulations of Wikipedia. Do they have deprogrammers that can help with this addiction? Rick, are you reading this??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also involved in editing the page. I think it's pertinent to point out that while there is one editor who has openly admitted a conflict of interest (and this has been handled perfectly well) he has suggested that there is more than one editor with a COI, and that (in a comment he later said was a joke and withdrew after Cirt complained to him) Cirt was editing on behalf of the COI editor. The apology factored as part of rob's talkpage is here.I don't think rob is trying to uncover anyone's real world identity; he's just not happy that consensus has gone against him and is carping. He simply doesn't like that the article exists.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IP User:68.187.219.254

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

User:68.187.219.254 persists in posting WP:OR of his view point on the Michael Richards page, 6 different editors have reverted his (and same) edits, with [| numerous warnings ] already given on his talk page. He just violated 3RR. It's becoming quite disruptive. Tendancer (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jw120550

I have received an email from Jw120550 (talk · contribs) in regards to being unblocked, and requesting me to mentor him. Looking over his edits, I see nothing much more than juvenile vandalism, and am inclined to accept barring any other issues I haven't seen. Posting here to get some feedback on whether unblocking is appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's best to wait a bit and see if they're really serious about wanting to contribute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more than merely juvenile, it's politically motivated. If you're willing to mentor him, I would be okay with an unblock but only if we can be assured he won't make any edits to articles relating to US federal politics for the next year. This guy goes a long time between periods of editing. Also, I was particularly troubled by the way he refused to answer my question as to why he vandalized. It made me think he's just saying what he thinks he needs to in order to be unblocked. Mangojuice^talk 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that he would need to not edit anything at all, in either article-space or talk-space, on US federal politics. For at least a year, but I would prefer longer. We should also agree that if he were to vandalise again then an immediate block, without cascaded warnings, would be imposable. On that basis OK give him a last chance, but I also feel that his edits were political rather than juvenile. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes needed for Prattville COI/spam problem

The article Prattville, Alabama is being repeatedly edited by an IP (User:98.89.12.105 who is Mtp1960, self-identified as being a principal in the "ourprattville.com" web site. The user in question has added numerous spam links for their site to Wikipedia articles, and has repeatedly reverted against three sysops (myself, AniMate and Mahanga) and two editors (Themfromspace and Baseball Bugs). They remain convinced that their site has a "right" to be mentioned. I've temporarily locked the article, but I'd like fresh eyes to assess the matter. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz - your actions seem legitimate and fair. I note the user is now using an account to get around sprotect. I would endorse a 3RR block based on prior activity. If you feel you've intervened enough let me know and I'll come and assist. Manning (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Better idea: Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz - I've left an instruction on the talk page to work towards consensus. I'd like to change the protection level back to sprotect if that's OK with you. The user *might* start to be cooperative, and if not then further reversion will be grounds for a block. Manning (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; the protection was only intended to allow me to place get some feedback here. (I actually went to semi-protection first, but the IP returned to his/her registered account to circumvent that.) Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - back to sprotect for a month (to stop IP spam). If the user adds the spam link back despite the repeated warnings in then I think a block is well in order. Manning (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The COI is obvious, but I am concerned that these news services might be legitimate. I've gave several options to the user on how to proceed, but it appears they've decided to edit war instead. I just wish that instead of edit warring back, there was some real attempt to engage them and make them understand where we are coming from. AniMate^draw 07:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Where the IP address (or one of them at least) made their mistake was in spamming that so-called "online newspaper" to other articles (I think Tim Conway was one) in an effort at self-promotion. If it had stayed as solely a link in the Prattsville article, it might have stayed under the radar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, efforts to explain the EL guideline have been countered with what are essentially demands to be included, as well as claims that we are questioning their journalistic integrity. --Ckatz^chat_spy

Again, there is a spam blacklist. Cut them off on a technical level and they'll be bored soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, XLinkBot. The website doesn't look as if it always would be inappropriate to link to, so I think the blacklist is overkill at this point. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – Attack image deleted, user indefinitely blocked

WP:AIV Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This user should be indef blocked immediately....User talk:Somody long term pattern of vandalism Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs I'd tend to agree. Someone should get on this. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User uploaded File:RookSame.jpg and is using it to vandalize Asia-related articles. It needs to be speedy deleted and he needs to be blocked. Is anyone here? Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef, file deleted. Camw (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Camw. Equazcion (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• AIV is again backlogged. Let's get this cleaned up before some of these reports "time out" and aren't blockable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why would it matter if they "time out". If someone stops vandalizing without being blocked, then what is the need for a block anyways? --Jayron32 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I should have used the term "stale". After awhile the reports just become "stale" or "time out" and blocks aren't given, but it leaves the vandals room to come back in an hour or two and keep on vandalizing. It is better, in my opinion, to block them immediately and not let AIV get backed up, then to give them a free pass on the vandalism they have committed. That is just me though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally like Cockroaches they come back..,..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Except when they don't. --Jayron32 06:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Terminix. (my comment has been in no way spnosroed by Terminx.)Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk vandalism

I collapsed an entirely inappropriate post by IP address 70.171.239.21 on the Humanities Desk, "Irish vs Germans in America", on the grounds that it was soapboxing, trolling and using the Reference Desk as a discussion forum. The user has twice reverted this and accused me of vandalism in doing so [42].

Note that he brings up User:Taxa, who has recently returned to the Ref Desk making disruptive posts that are extremely similar in tone and content to those by IP 70.171... I believe that this IP address very likely to be Taxa himself. His own IP address is in the range 71.1* and he has been caught in the past using a false signature to disguise this (ie normal text formatted to resemble a Wiki signature) [43]. He has twice reverted my efforts to collapse his trolling thread on the Humanities desk about "Irish vs Germans in America"; I have no intention of breaking the three-revert rule to deal with him, so I'd request an immediate ban on the IP address, and sanctions of some sort to be taken against User:Taxa. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have outright deleted some of those threads, except I get yelled at for "censorship". That stuff is purely intended to create debates, which the ref desk is not supposed to be about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you had deleted them, the troll would reinstate them. Which is why he needs to be stopped. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The ref. desks aren't articles, they're just ref. desks, so simply not responding is a better approach than deletion. But silly me, assuming more good faith than is warranted, I keep hoping an actual question will emerge from those lengthy essays. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If somebody has an answer to what I have asked, which is not ad hominem (re: above nonsense from those two), but simply academic, then the discussion will cease, as I will have understood with more clarity, the topics raised. I have no perennial interest in the subject matter. It's just unresolved questions I can't seem to get straight answers on, especially if I asked directly of some people who are at the center of my scrutiny in the issues. I'd rather not provoke belligerent people. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and neutral, but all I am getting here is misdirection and ad hominemism which doesn't address the issues referenced, so much as call foul on the individual with a "stupid question". I may be stupid, but the questions are not...or at least that's what my old schoolteachers used to tell everybody in the classes I went to. So, perhaps there are too many non-academically, non-intellectually, non-philosophically inclined people, such as Malcolm XIV and Baseball Bugs, who don't have the answers and instead of leaving well enough alone, decide to crap on the person who might get better replies from more knowledgeable scholastics here.

The above, unsigned as usual, is typical of the kind of meaningless rant the IP posts on the ref. desks, containing no discernible question, just a lengthy and obscure essay. And when we ask him to actually ask a factual, answerable question, he acts upset. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you address me without being negatively ad hominem? What specifically have I stated that upsets you? Are you a German who fancies himself nativist? Do you take offense to the rise of Irish Catholics in America? Please be honest why you oppose my questions, or I shall assume that is the cause of your belligerence.

Sign your posts by using 4 tildes (the squiggly thing in the upper left corner of your keyboard). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like another sockpuppet of the reference desk sockpuppeteer (forgotten the name now, but I've dealt with a few relevant SPI cases). Blocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. The other complaint was about Taxa, but he at least signs his posts, and occasionally makes useful comments, although most of his questions are debate bait. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think talking to TAXA would be the best way to proceed, either on their talk page, or the ref desk talk page. As I recall all their posts haven't been half as soapboxy as the recent ones.

I think we need a prescribed method of dealing with soapbox type questions (not deletion since that causes hassle), but some closing method. Please discuss on the ref desk talk pages.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The best method (which I plead guilty to not following sufficiently) is to simply not respond, since if no one will play, they will likely go away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxa is a sockpuppet of the Ref Desk troll. [44] [45] [46] [47] Observe also the similarity between the responses given above by 70.171.239.21 and those given by User:Multimillionaire (another sockpuppet of the same user) when called out on his abuse of the Ref Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer - request supervision or close mentorship

Resolved

 – It's not you - it's me. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

In August, several editors (including admins) edit-warred with an IP over the placement and removal of a WHOIS template on User talk:94.192.38.247. (This is the static IP of User:Izzedine.) The IP was blocked for edit-warring. Neutralhomer was one of the main participants in this episode and left several aggressive messages, including "Keep it going and I will personally see to it that you are blocked indef". When cooler heads prevailed, there was some discussion (which incidentally called the treatment of the IP harassment), the IP was unblocked and two admins issued an apology about the whole debacle.

On 11 September, Neutralhomer ignored the resolution of the previous episode and replaced the WHOIS template after it had been removed by the IP, thus restarting the edit war. Neutralhomer started a thread on ANI. Both Izzedine and I directed readers to the previous resolution, but it had no positive effect. Subsequent to this, Neutralhomer began a series of very aggressive postings on Izzedine's user page, which prompted Izzedine to start a discussion at WP:WQA. Neutralhomer also began berating me on my talk page and would not stop posting there despite being asked several times (see my talk page history for 12 September). Neutralhomer eventually closed the ANI thread and declared himself "retired". He ended up being blocked for edit-warring.

Neutralhomer is obviously not retired, since he continues to edit. His conduct on 12 September can best be described as throwing a tantrum. This is not an isolated case - Neutralhomer has a long block log for incivility and harassment of other editors. I am requesting that if he continues to edit here, it is only under supervision or close mentorship. Since this may be an emotional issue, I plan on removing myself from the discussion and letting others decide if this is a reasonable idea. Someone please notify Neutralhomer of this thread. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou DC for giving an accurate and well-articulated description of the incident, and suggesting that Neutralhomer be subject to supervision or close mentorship as a result of his behaviour. Izzedine (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see on that talk page history that you suggested a couple of times that he get professional help. Not terribly CIVIL of you...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think DC's edit summary comment in context can be viewed as understandable - after having being repeatedly confronted by an aggressive and uncivil editor. Izzedine (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said in a single edit summary was: "Please get some qualified professional help. I don't mean that insultingly. This is not an invitation for a reply". This was siad out of genuine concern after requesting that Neutralhomer stop posting on my talk page to no avail and this was the third time I had simply deleted his comments unread. It wasn't intended to be uncivil. I'm replying here to set the record straight because I think your comment is likely to poison any serious discussion otherwise. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have advised Neutralhomer of this thread. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot this diff: "I'm letting this one slide because I know you have some form of disability, but that excuse only cuts you so much slack." I think you've done a good enough job poisoning the discussion without my help, actually.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And you forgot that the disability is self-declared, namely Neutralhomer's past claims of Asperger's Syndrome as, in effect, a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for his behavior. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that he had self-declared a behavioural disability, and that this comment was a response to his uncivil behaviour, it was not particularly unreasonable. Izzedine (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This will be the only edit I will make on this subject. My Asperger's Syndrome is not "self-declared" or a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card". I can provide documentation that I was diagnosed with Asperger's in 2003 and have had it since I was born. I don't use my Asperger's as any "card" to get out of trouble. That is mentioned on my userpage as something I am proud of and something others should be aware of if I make a weird joke or something. My Asperger's is always kept in check. I would really like people to stop using my Asperger's against me as if I use it as some sort of crutch. Walk one day in my shoes with Asperger's and you will change your very misguided opinions of me. This will be my only response. Thank you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• "My Asperger's Syndrome is not "self-declared"
  • Having declared it on your userpage yourself, that makes it self-declared. Izzedine (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Deny using your claim of Asperger's as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card" -- followed immediately by trying to use Asperger's as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card". Which, as I've said, you've done in the past. Pay attention here and don't go off on your usual irrelevancies: if your disability or however you want to characterize it keeps you from behaving within the lines, then you need to disengage instead of using it as an excuse to continue. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, you're way out of line there. Neither of those diff's is using a disability as a "get out of a jail free card". In one of them he effectively says "my Asperger's forces me to treat others the way they treat me" ... is that an attempt to get out of jail free? Heck no. You're going borderline incivility related to a disability, and mischaracterizing badly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't start this topic to attack Neutralhomer or speculate about the cause of his actions. It is a fairly straightforward issue - we have a user with an established history of being periodically disruptive. He was warned about 3RR again yesterday. I believe Neutralhomer would benefit from having someone -- a mentor -- with whom to discuss things before they turn into problems and Wikipedia would benefit from fewer of these episodes. If you have snarky comments or complaints about my conduct, feel free to leave them on my talk page, but can we do something to address the issue here? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, ad hominems shouldn't detract debate from addressing the issue. Izzedine (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, you're way out of line there. Bull. According to you, he's using it as an excuse for his behavior, which is exactly what I said he has and is doing. And Izzedine needs to learn the actual meaning of ad hominem. Hint: describing bad behavior =/= "ad hominem". --Calton | Talk 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment was a reply to DC, and a reference to those comments critiquing DC - instead of his message, which unfortunately has been ignored. Izzedine (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Since the insults spread to me after my last comment on this, I had hoped it was simply going to be allowed to blow over. It seems clear to me User:Neutralhomer, User:Delicious carbuncle and User:Izzedine all need to behave better: and that quite possibly the only way that is going to happen is to simply leave one another alone. Surely the 3 can do 1 or both without the community telling them to do so? - Sinneed (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Since the insults spread to me after my last comment on this"
  • I don't see any insults there, at all.
• "...I had hoped it was simply going to be allowed to blow over"
  • Why should a legitimate report of harrassment be ignored and allowed to "blow over".
• "It seems clear to me User:Neutralhomer, User:Delicious carbuncle and User:Izzedine all need to behave better"
  • To equate the three of us as troublemakers without pointing to any of my own or Delicious carbuncle's 'bad behaviour' is mischaracterizing the issue.
• "...and that quite possibly the only way that is going to happen is to simply leave one another alone."
  • Myself and Delicious carbuncle have left each other and Neutralhomer alone. It is Neutralhomer who wouldn't leave us alone. Izzedine (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, all I have seen from you are unproductive threads. To reuse your own phrase, I don't mean that insultingly. They just are. — neuro^(talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unnecessary ad hominem. Izzedine (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy routinely undoes my factual edit to an article irrelevant to his knowledge. He calls it "vandalism" that I add a true, verifiable statement to the article regarding the music mix of a Minnesota radio station, then keeps threatening me with blocks every time I undo his deletion of factual info. He's not behaving fairly at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.226.27 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 September 2009

You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ after your comment.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The anon can also not edit war at KKCK any more. 7 8 reverts so far today against 3 editors. Blocked back on 6 Sept 2009 for the same thing. But here again, user:Neutralhomer is calling repeated insertions of wp:OR vandalism and has just kept on reverting. Part of the edit would be covered by wp:SELFPUB, but part is pure opinion of the station about what its competitors do. Clearly 208.101.226.27 is a fan (or, ignoring wp:AGF a station staffer bragging), with a wp:PoV based on experience as a listener(or whatever), not a vandal. - Sinneed (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above anon IP has also blanked the Whois template from their talk page, which I have reverted. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...and did it again, and I encouraged the anon editor to create an account, after the edit warring block expires, so the editor won't see that banner. - Sinneed (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may provide an outside opinion,

If I may provide an outside opinion—which is by no means aimed at anyone in particular—it is that Izzedine and NeutralHomer, far from being requested to make amends or to refrain from frictional contact with one another, could possibly be seeing only a thread full of possibly even well-meaning editors (I say "possibly" because I have only read this thread twice and do not fully know each editor's intentions) degenerating virtually into name-calling and diff link warring. Is this an example for other editors? How are new editors, who may be unfamiliar with Wikiquette, supposed to do when they see things like this?

I don't mean to be outspoken—it just saddens me when I see the efforts of an encyclopædia built by years of experience and expertise by thousands if not millions of people, users and otherwise, diverted into resolving disputes that are often petty and waste time that could be used to build the encyclopædia's article space and improve the world's access to human knowledge. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:14 16 September, 2009 (UTC)

So it's just me then, I guess?

From the limited feedback here, and despite what this a quick search of the ANI archives would suggest:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Neutralhomer_abuse_of_rollback.2C_again
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Violation_of_topic_ban:_Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive313#User:Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#NeutralHomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#Sockpuppetry_of_Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive351#Incivility_block_on_Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Neutralhomer_removing_WP:CfR_tags_from_categories
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive267#Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive107#Continued_violations_of_WP:NPA_by_User:Neutralhomer
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive314#Abuse_of_WP:TW_by_Neutralhomer_.28in_Hal_Lindsey.29

it would appear that I am the problem, not Neutralhomer, so I'm letting this drop. I'll do my best to avoid interacting with him. Thanks for the lesson. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

86.178.34.152

Someone is trying to stop me using 86.178.34.152. Note that I use endless I.P.'s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.202.116 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 September 2009

I cannot see any active blocks or autoblocks of that IP address. How about get a unique username for yourself and have a whole whack of benefits, including true anonymity?! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on Welcome to 18

Resolved

 – Blocked. Evil saltine (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous IP has twice left a "cease and desist" remark on the Welcome to 18 article. The latest reason being that "Green Griffin owns this film. A cease and desist is declared. The film was never released and the posting is in violation of our copyright". I have no idea who Green Griffin is and, far as I can tell, the article isn't inflicting on any copyright. The film was released in 1986 (I remember watching it), but it hasn't seen a DVD release so perhaps that's what the IP is talking about. Pinkadelica^♣ 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 3 months (there doesn't seem to be anyone else using it). Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks! Pinkadelica^♣ 14:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDB has as it's primary user comment "Pretty stupid, even for an 80s teen movie" and yet the IP is upset about what's on Wikipedia? Manning (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing link

What is going on with the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report all the names are redlinks? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic it is better now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever had edited Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report had forgotten to put "User:" in front of the names, so they were taken to be (non-existent) articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I guess that's not it, as earlier versions don't have it and are OK. It looks like someone's messinge with the format and hasn't got it fixed yet or else doesn't know it's broken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now it's fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And now it's not fixed. There's something screwy about this, or my name isn't Larrimore. And it isn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not fixed here, its red again [48] are the pages being renamed, or redirected? Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats the problem, they are named crat instead of admin. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC) So we have this Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/IMatthew 3 when it should be Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IMatthew_3 Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is (a) you are looking at and talking about the wrong page (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report hasn't been edited since April 2009. The relevant page is User:X!/RfX Report‎.) and (b) you are here instead of at User talk:X!/Archives/11/2009#RfX Reporter which is the place to actually get something done about the problem. If there's a problem with a 'bot, talk to the 'bot's owner first. Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I should have known that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Resolved

 – Users blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opensource4ever/Archive. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have attracted my own WikiHound. User:Opensource4ever's account was created two days ago, and his only edits have been on otherwise unconnected pages edited by me, on which he has reverted my edits, including twice restoring copyvio material (despite a request on his talk page to discuss edits), and his latest edit is to insert the word "banana" in Cavalié Mercer, a clear case of vandalism. I am reluctant to engage further with this person or to revert his latest edits, as I fear that will just provoke further stalking. I assume that the user is a sockpuppet. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Opensource4ever is basically a vandalism-only account that defends and inserts copyvio. User hasn't posted for four three hours, and has received the appropriate notifications on the user and article talk pages from multiple users/administrators, but if it shows up again with the same song and dance, I would request an indefinite block. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Opensource4ever (talk · contribs) is continuing to re-add copyrighted content to articles (as well as blanking cited prose from within articles) here, with no evidence that the copyright holder has permitted the use of it here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Within minutes of my reverting Opensource4ever's edit, and posting a copyright warning to his userpage, a new account for Themuffinmaniscool (talk · contribs) was created, restoring the copyright violation, and re-removing the cited material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 making disruptive moves.

The above user, User:Sarah777 has been making a series of disruptive moves without consensus. She started at M1 motorway, moving it to various pages without understanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which resulted in me starting a WP:RM discussion on her behalf, which has now closed in opposition of the move. Now she has moved on to M2 motorway moving it to M2 motorway (United Kingdom) with no consensus, again blatantly ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I request that some action be taken against this user, and that an administrator move the article back pending a proper RM discussion. She has also tried a similar edit war at M50 motorway, this time with redirects.

Her conduct in discussions on these topics both on article talk pages and on her own talk page has been far from civil and constructive, and instead turned in many cases to attacking "British Editors" Jeni ^(talk) 23:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also just for the record she has been making changes to disam pages at M1 and M1 motorway (disambiguation) changing M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland) to M1 motorway (Ireland), despite the fact Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says not to pipe on disam pages. It also is complicated because there are two M1s in Ireland, and she is aware that there is ongoing debate about how to deal with matters relating to saying Ireland / Republic of Ireland in articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, a project set up following an Arbcom ruling. Her changes to the status quo whilst such things are being debated are most unhelpful although not a violation of the rules (i dont think). BritishWatcher (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah is quite entitled to edit the roads articles. I have never seen you edit any roads articles. Tfz 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I made an alteration to M1 before she did, that is why i spotted the change happening earlier, id already put it on my watchlist. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah has edited 10000s of road articles. Tfz 23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not give her the right to go around moving articles without consensus or following procedure, especially when an identical move request was being strongly rejected over at M1 motorway. Or messing around with dab pages despite the points i mentioned before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion other than a personal attack? I've never seen you edit any roads articles either (and given I'm heavily involved in the UK roads articles I think I'd notice) Jeni ^(talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack are you talking about? Tfz 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have never seen you edit any roads articles" - not exactly assuming good faith now is it? Jeni ^(talk) 23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to add perspective, I think that is good faith. Maybe you are making a personal attack, but I won't accuse you. Tfz 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Before this descends further into snipes and bickering, let me say I fail to see what positive role administrators could have in this situation. Content disputes belong at WP:DR, civility inquiries at WP:WQA. If you feel this is a longstanding pattern of unhelpful conduct on the part of the editor, a Request for Comment might be productive. I'm not sure there's anything needing to be hit over the head with a blunt object, but if such a need emerges, come back here.  Skomorokh  23:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

She has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her AntiBritish POV pushing but she makes such comments on talk pages across wikipedia. Theres certainly a pattern! lol. However if admins are unable to get involved in this, we should just restore everything to before Sarah started making the changes and oppose the changes on talk pages if she seeks to make them again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is an issue with a user who refuses to gain consensus, who has been bought up here multiple times, has been at arbcom. I'd say this is certainly an administrator issue, as administrator action needs to be taken. I have had to start *another* RM discussion on her behalf because she seems to think she is above gaining consensus. Jeni ^(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an issue of wp:idontlikeit, you should calm things and gain consensus. You should talk first on the user talk page. Tfz 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really - it's a content dispute. Follow BritishWatcher's suggestion; WP:BRD, people. If there are civility problems (and I've yet to see any diffs) then this isn't the place to deal with them. See the menu titled "Please select the closest request from the following categories." when you edit? That links you to places to go for these problems, none of which are AN/I. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No incivility. We either have standards in regard to naming conventions or we don't. Seeking "consensus" merely leads to the British editors imposing their parochial pov; pointless exercise. We need to adhere to some naming conventions. While I have (reluctantly) backed off the M1; the notion that the M2 and every other British instance is the "primary" use, when a dozen countries (including minor states like Russia!) use 'M' designation for motorways, is pure and manifest chauvinistic pov. There really is no argument about this and "votes" are utterly pointless given the ratio of British to Irish editors on Wiki. WP:NPOV is a policy or it is a joke. Simple as that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how Sarah sees gaining consensus as a pointless exercise the perhaps this is a behavior issue that admins do need to take a look at. Chillum 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a closer reading of Sarah's statement is not an objection to "gaining consensus" per se, but the use of votes to do so.

Regrettably, imo, voting is used to settle issues, this is described a "gaining consensus", a description which I consider to be a misnomer.

There are far more UK editors than Irish. Therefore to use votes to settle an issue is a pointless exercise - it is a foregone conclusion.

It is unfortunate when the search for a logical or correct solution is ignored; when seeking to understand other arguments and views is abandoned, in favor of a majority POV masquerading as consensus ClemMcGann (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussions are not votes. They are not judged on strength of numbers, but strength of argument. Any admin that does a bare headcount without weighing up the arguments is not doing their job. Similarly, closing a debate in favour of a weaker argument supported by a majority is wrong. In the case of the M1, the argument that prevailed was that the pageview statistics showed a clear primary topic, the opposing view was that this was "British POV", which was unsubstantiated. I suspect the reason this was brought to the attention of administrators was nothing to do with the actual articles concerned, but that when User:Sarah777 didn't get her way with the M1 group, she proceeded to move the M50 articles to mirror the scenario, and that having been brought to task over both of these, she continued this pattern of disruptive behaviour. It's been said before that we expect both good contributions and good behaviour, and that excelling in one does not excuse users from the other. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest bringing the issue up in the most neutral way possible on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard to get outside input. This does indeed appear to be a content dispute over naming. Surely there are experienced editors who have worked through similar issues and know the proper way to determine whether something is a primary name or needs to be disambiguated with other subjects of the same name. Good luck. I also support blocking Chillum. I didn't like his comment. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CoM. I am glad you don't have the block button, people would have to run around undoing your actions. Chillum 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Advocating for a block isn't the same as instituting one. I am very cautious and judicious and would be deferential to consensus in all matters. I trust I will have your full support at my next RfA. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have the good judgment to be an admin. Though, that is not really on topic here. You are always welcome to start a conversation on my talk page. Chillum 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sockpuppetry accusations

Resolved

 – Taxa is indef'd

At Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User:Taxa editor User:Malcolm XIV is accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet, in an unpleasent way, violating AGF. The accussed editor User:Taxa is under vague suspicion relating to some vaguely similar edits or a blocked user, but I personally don't see anything more than a aura of suspicion, and some vaguely 'soapboxy' questions on the reference desk - which isn't currently anything like a major problem.

It's not clear why the editor is accusing the other user of being a sockpuppet without using WP:SPI.

I would appreciate if an admin could look at this (possibly doing a SPI if that will help resolve the problem), and also explain how to behave (or cool off) to User:Malcolm XIV.

Thanks83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I take objection to the suggestion that I have been "unpleasent" or "bullying". All I have done is state the facts, calmly and level-headedly. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User:Taxa. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reference_Desk_vandalism

Here's a paper trail: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] . See in his latest guise that User:Taxa is again being antisemitic: [57] He is also making endless disruptive edits and soapboxing [58], which is not the purpose of the Ref Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesusandashley's "supposed biography article"

Resolved

 – article and editor removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He slapped on a notice saying that "If you try to edit this page and the information does not match with the information we provided, you will be in trouble with the FBI, police assoiciates. They will charge you a fee of $25,000.00 and you will be sent to court-

Thank you."

If this isn't enough for this section, then it might still be noteworthy at WP:BLPN. A notice should be made saying that if you want to make stuff about yourself to leave it at their user page. Again, might be also noteworthy for WP:BLPN. ConCompS (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page in question Jesus Jimenez.Shinerunner (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified user about this discussion. Shinerunner (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the editor under WP:Legal, and the article has been deleted by another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

166.127.1.225

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 months for vandalism. Next time, just go right to administrator intervention against vandalism. MuZemike 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I must request that IP address 166.127.1.225 be blocked. He has been editing for months and all of these edits are obvious vandalism. His contributions can be found here. Thank you for your time and consideration. --15lsoucy (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Лъчезар

I'm not sure what to do about the comment left by this user here: Talk:Igor_Panarin#The_main_author_of_this_article_and_the_article_whose_contents_you_deleted_received_a_last_warning_before_his_banning_or_blocking. It should probably be removed, but it's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy and will probably lead to further problematic behaviour. The editor doesn't seem to understand wikipedia (calling the view that American's visited the moon "[my] pet theory" - I'm not American by the way!) Anyway, I find his comment a bit disturbing, and inappropriate - and it does actually leave me worried for him. Maybe leaving wikipedia would be good for him, but I'm involve and not an admin. Fresh eyes, advice, opinions, etc might help or find a solution. Cheers, Verbal chat 12:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That Bulgarian writer with the unpronouncable Cyrillic name is a conspiracy theorist, and essentially booted himself off the Apollo moon hoax article since consensus was against him. He's mostly flown under the radar with this pet article of his about this Igor Panarin who thinks the U.S. will go the way of Yugoslavia next year. Now that the article is getting some scrutiny, he's not happy about it. The connection between those articles is something he kept saying on the Apollo hoax page, that somehow this impending collapse would reveal "the truth" about Apollo - a comment that's the hallmark of someone who does not understand wikipedia's role. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just deleted that section before coming here. It was pretty clearly not in line with the talk page guidelines, but if someone else wants to deal with it in a different way, no worries. As far as I can tell, this post was just a reaction to discussion consenseing away from their favoured version, so no further action should be needed. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I just copied the deleted comment to his own user page. It's clearly inappropriate from the article talk page, but I don't see that sort of screed being inappropriate at all for his own talk page. Copying it there might actually calm the situation some as well (or not, but we'll see).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, that username is pronounceable. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a few edits, it appears that there are two distinct POVs--it can be seen either as one side insisting on keeping material that serves to promote the platform of the group while removing less creditable information, or as one side another trying to remove explanatory material and insert material unduly critical of the group. Most of the material on either side is sourced to Canadian newspapers, respectable RSs, but of different political orientations. The question is balance, and judging that would take more familiarity with the topic than I am interested in acquiring, but a priori based on dozens of similar situations here, it is possible that neither side is altogether espousing a NPOV. I didn't check about sockpuppettry, but from the talk p. it seems that one ed using an ip address is complaining that other editors are using both a name and ip addresses. I have protected the article for 4 days so that this can be resolved, but I invite anyone prepared to resolve it to remove the protection earlier than that.. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the user who has requested this is involved in an edit war at the abovementioned page with user:Quebecois1837. There has been significant edit warring in this article (50 changes in the last 33 hours), and I've placed an RPP on this article as well as issued a warning to both parties involved. I'm not an admin, just trying to make your lives easier. Frmatt (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

well, I've just done that protection, without trying to judge the merits DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(possibly OT) - I spent some time on this one back in March, but marked it up as hopeless soon after the talk page sprouted: "No personal attacks please? I didn't do personnal attack and I speak the language I want! Phil" and '"At least get it right", I get it right, you are arrogant, a federalist, no other word needed... Phil'

The subject meets wp:NOTE but POV of its self-proclaimed-supporters ranged from We're a great organization peacefully pursuing freedom. to We are terrorists and @#$% proud of it. Phear meh!...and I dropped it off my watchlist as a bad bet. - Sinneed (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Am doing some work on it here Frmatt (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebecois1837 was another sock of User:Philbox17, This was confirmed via checkuser tools. I have blocked him. --Versageek 04:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton

Rodgarton (talk · contribs)

This user, a single purpose account promoting Parapsychology, engages in egregious abuse of sources. He came to my attention when I was looking at a long section he added to Parapsychology, a featured article, which contained many surprising claims. When I checked the sources, I discovered a pattern of consistently stating things that went far beyond what the source justified.

The clearest example is probably one where he said two completely different things in different articles, with the same source. One article contained information that completely blew the claim he made in the other out of the water - and he edited the one that showed the other claim false first.,

26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change

Previous

Rodgarton's edit

The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. [...]

The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. . However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates. This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem).

The claim he makes there is probably false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, and lists numerous examples that certainly sound comprehensive, including Pearson's. His cite for the claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, he went on to make a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology, which directly conflicts with this. [Emphasis mine]:

Parapsychology, 9 August. [59]

“ [...] A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been noted as the first meta-analysis in the history of science; [...] ”

The source for that is: Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association (pp. 1-13). Vienna University. I'm afraid I don't have access to obscure conference papers, but the title's addition of "comprehensive" would cast doubt on whether even that paper makes the claim he used it for.

The large table near the top of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1 has full details of a section I analysed in full, and (since he edited it to add such discussion) various responses by him. Some of his points are false, some of his have a grain of truth but are overstated, and others may be true, but cannot be backed by the sources he claims for it, for instance, he uses primary sources to make claims for the historical importance of themselves. I would encourage other people to check other things he has created for accuracy to sources, and see if the results match.

This user has other problems, for instance, his civility issues and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT make him pretty much impossible to talk to. He has also been revert-warring all attempts to fix the articles he created, by me or others. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Step one should be a temporary page ban from the article itself, I would say. The novel synthesis issues and the revert warring make that plain to me. Does anyone disagree? Guy (Help!) 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd probably encourage a topic ban, not just the one article. Check his recent history, in which he reverts all attempts to clean up several articles he made. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that he tends to make personal attacks on editors who disagree with him, calling us "pseudo-skeptics" and making statements assuming bad faith.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully and openly invite reviewers of the above missives to review the edits and discussion of the cited articles. There will be found relatively little from these complainants apart from rapid-fire put-downs, and mostly statements of opinion given up in Edit Summary. Conversely, I have continually opened and invited discussion of all and any substantive issues they would raise; this includes discussion of (autonomous and un-discussed edits of) articles on Displacement (parapsychology), Joseph Banks Rhine, Rene Warcollier, Pavel Stepanek and Joseph Gaither Pratt. I would also invite reviewers to give close attention to the continued efforts by the above editors, acting in a league (cf. the close times between even just the above edits) to eradicate a source of information from WP that conflicts with the position they characteristically advocate. I have continually sought to discuss the issues, without reference to any individual, and always referring to these complainants in the third person, while being obliged by them to address their opinions, offered to us as self-evident fact, of personal reliability. I should think that such a personally targeted campaign, of which the above is but the latest issue, should be beneath the respect of WP editors. I continue to evince a keen intention to discuss the substantive issues, whenever the above complainants offer a point of fact rather than ad hominem slight. --Rodgarton 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, is there a reason why your signature doesn't link to either your userpage or talk page? Syrthiss (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of Rodgarton's NPOV issues: [60]. The only edits not by him have been to add a POV tag, which he reverted. [ETA: It's been edited since then, so I've changed the link to before the editing. --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served}] It's pretty much a straight out POV-push, no criticism whatsoever appears, though he does use fringe sources to pre-emptively attack Martin Gardner, without stating Gardner's criticisms.

On the talk page, he writes:

“ The tagger offers the adjectival slight of "fringe sources," "fringe journal," and so on, as sole justification for her/his slight against the information as "biased." There is no point of discussion offered in such adjectives; we can not reasonably be invited to simply juggle adjectives about the sources of knowledge in the encyclopedic representation of knowledge. [...] ”

In other words, he rejects WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and sees no problem with writing an article entirely from the perspective of the proponents of a fringe theory. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He just broke WP:3RR at the parapsychology displacement article. Will put up a report in 15 minutes, got things to do at the moment.Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's at 5 there, 4 at Joseph Banks Rhine, and the displacement one came after I gave him a polite warning about the Joseph Banks Rhine problem. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well just to dot the T's and cross the I's I'll give him a second warning. But I can't edit the article any more today so if other interested eyes could take a look, perhaps contribute on talk that would be a good thing.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NM, he's already been blocked.Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Rodgarton's archaic style of prose and inability to comprehend WP policies could indicate that English isn't his primary language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively it could simply mean he thinks using a thesaurus will make him sound more informed. I would, however, prefer not to speculate.Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like he's someone who is not aware of this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

outdent) Still wonder why this user will not use four tildes when signing for easy(ier) navigation. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user 24 hours for edit warring, but given the above issues, I think a longer duration may be in order. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we move this to WP:AN, to give us a bit more time to sort through before it's archived? We probably shouldn't do anything until Rodgarton can defend himself. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 23:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my proposal for a temporary topical ban; the issues need in the first instance to be kept out of mainspace. If he continues to make problems through talk page interactions then some other sanctions may be necessary, but I would think a topic ban of some sort would gain consensus based on what I've seen of his editing history. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Guy, if you imposed a topic ban of any sort, there would be no objections from me (or anyone else for that matter). That said, I agree with Juliancolton - a longer block (a week?) would be more useful as a temporary measure to minimise the overall disruption he's caused/causing, and it also works to give the community some time to consider where to go from here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining the most pervasive and permanent of bans will not surprise me, and I can welcome it; just, please, thereupon, cull all my contributed content; WP is not fit to host it. I have, in any case, long resigned from contributing any substantive new content on WP, and have, without contest, allowed several sections of information I contributed to be culled from the articles in which they were offered. I have elsewhere expressed the evident futility of representing, in WP, academic research on so-called "psi phenomena." WP editors seem to prefer offering a Readers' Digest type of authority on the research, while ornamenting it with ad hominem slights, trivialization, marginalization, and so on, as gleaned from the popular reviews by career-debunkers of the field. Fans of the latter pulp too easily abuse - apparently with administrators’ license - the policies and procedures of WP, such as by teaming up to make multiple redirects from, and to routinely cull, anything that might seem to objectively offer a positive interpretation of the research. For the information which is in dispute here and which is cited against me in this campaign is precisely of that quality; I will discuss particular items below, but would here note that it is the culling of information of this type that is the objective of the above complaints; not "goodwill" nor the policy of assumed good faith nor the fair treatment of so-called "fringe" issues behind which these campaigners hide. The reasons given for these culls are rationalisations after the fact, as is obvious from the fact that they are only given when pressed; and that no discussion of the substantive points I raise in the defence of the information are ever addressed; they are simply ignored, or responded to with non-sequiteurs, adjectival and emotive magnification of opinionated claims, ad hominem slights; in fact, the full repertoire of crooked thinking represented in Sagan's well-known "baloney-detection kit". The latest offering of the latter we see in the above comments that I fail to understand English, or that I write from a thesaurus. While members of the editors' club will be amused by these jokes, they are plainly silly, and demonstrate the poor level at which the issues my contributions raise are discussed. I mistook WP as a site for the representation of academic information in an academically responsible manner. Finding only an infantile level of discussion, and a low, coffee-table criterion of authority, I have, at some points, offered to engage at that level; I no longer see value in even these exchanges with the perpetrators of such silliness.

A few further points on the specific issues raised in the above complaints.

+ re development of meta-analysis in early psi research: It is not a claim I make that is offered for dispute, but a thesis authored by a widely published authority on meta-analysis, H. Bösch, on the origin of meta-analysis. The complainants are here offering original opinion in place of the researched opinion of a real-life authority. In any case, I some time ago made clear I would not seek to restore the information I offered, so its leading representation in this missive as some kind of evidence of unreliability and unco-operativeness can not be seriously taken. Also, that information was subsequently restored by another editor (doubtlessly again culled by the above campaigners), so its citation as evidence of disruption by myself is just blindly repeated and unexamined opinion.

+ re contributions of psi research to other research disciplines; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1. This is another of the sections I have allowed to be obliterated, without any effort at its restoration by myself at all. Still, it is cited as evidence of disruptiveness. Here, the culler is one who seems to believe that s/he has discovered some gross unreliability in my representation and citation of two papers, and that this has merited the entire blanking of the information. I have shown how my representation of these articles, and this information, is consistent with (and even more softly stated than) its representation by others; and yet the culler is permitted to freely repeat her/his scurrilous story - based, in any case, only upon her/his personal interpretation of the information in those articles; and this opinion is apparently further blankly followed, without examination, to claim my "disruption" on WP.

+ re replication of J. B. Rhine's findings by other researchers at other institutions: this information is readily found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources, such as [Mauskopf and McVaugh (1980). The elusive science: Origins of experimental psychical research. Baltimore, ML, US: Johns Hopkins University Press]; I have provided references to original papers of just a few of these studies, and to a review article published in the J. Communication. Still, the information is repeatedly culled by the present campaigners as a whole - with specious arguments, if any, for doing so. How can this be supported without question? Evidently it conflicts with the commonly peddled pseudo-skeptical myth that "there has never been an independent replication of any of Rhine's findings," and similar. For that reason alone, it seems, the information is repeatedly culled, and its restoration on WP is blankly drubbed as "disruption".

+ re the displacement effect: This article has long ago been the subject of an Afd deletion debate; the result of the debate, in which I did not at all participate, was "keep". It seems this article has recently come to the attention of the campaigners responsible for the above-mentioned culls, and they have sought to delete it indirectly, by redirection to the parapsychology article, and blanking of the article itself. Presumably this is because the article on an ostensible psi phenomenon contains references to its discussion in mainstream journals, by mainstream psychologists and statisticians. I would have thought that the independent notability of the article had already been demonstrated by the failed AfD request. When pressed to justify redirection, we are only told by the above campaigners that it "SHOULD" be so; i.e., we are given blank assertion without any basis for debate. Plainly, embedding this information in the parapsychology article would be like demanding that an article on operant learning or any other psychological process should be embedded within the article on psychology. Still, my attempts to simply restore this information are here dubbed as "disruption". Compare this decision and description to the fact of information that I provided within the parapsychology article on objective surveys of academic opinion on parapsychology: that was actually shunted off to an obscure article of its own, presumably because it might be seen as reflecting too positively on the field, and in preference to subjective picks of qualitative opinion by WP editors themselves. There is no consistency in these decisions at culling and redirection apart from the motivation to obliterate anything that smells of academic respectability for psi research.

+ other articles or sections of articles that I have authored have also come under the attack of the present campaigners. The article on Joseph Gaither Pratt has been repeatedly tagged for one or another reason; as I plainly argue the insupportability of the tag, another is attempted. The same occurs for the article on Warcollier. I should point out that I was responsible for the information within the parapsychology article on the definition of psi by Thouless and Wiesner, and Rhine's adoption of the term; this should also now be culled, let us say, on the basis that it only cites primary sources, or that it has been authored by me, and so merits immediate description as "disruption".

+ re drubbing of references to the J. of Parapsychology as "fringe" – a major point of attack offered by the above campaigners; but see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#Citing_the_Journal_of_Parapsychology

Generally, it is charged that I exist on WP only with the interest of promoting psi research. That would be quite a poor reason to disparage an editor, even if it were true, given that there are no doubt many personal, extra-encyclopedic objectives that WP editors work through. What is true of my objective is that I have sought to supplement what appears to be mostly populist and unrepresentative information with information that is more authoritative and academic, and more objectively limited. I would not be at all familiar with this information if I were not myself a skeptical reader of it; my skepticism has taken me much further into the literature than I had originally envisaged, and were I simply a promoter of psi, or some kind of fanatical "believer," I would not have bothered to read so deeply in the field, and to find out what academics in various disciplines have made of the field. I have not been content to read only the pseudo-skeptical and populist "scriptures" authored by Hansel, Alcock, and so on (pseudo-skeptical, because they denigrate, deny and campaign against scientific enquiry; and reviews of their work have repeatedly found them to be unreliable). Rather than spoon-feed readers of WP with personal samplings from these poor critiques, I thought it would be useful to represent well-credentialed academic information on this research for readers of WP to calmly assess for themselves. So I have cited information not only in the journals of the field, but mainstream ones including Nature, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of the Am. Statistical Association, J. of Philosophy. These of my contributions have included what might be seen as negative estimations of the research; e.g., I originally authored the article on the apparently fraudulent Samuel Soal; I included Soal's critique of the studies of Warcollier; I added information to the article on precognition on fraudulence in the research domain; I included information on the problem of statistical artefact in demonstration of the displacement effect; I included description, as much as seemed academically defensible, of critiques in the article on Pavel Stepanek; I added information on the critique of popular claims of retrocognition.

Naturally, there will be contention as to how this information is represented; that is the nature of reading academic sources; it is all interpretation. The challengers of my interpretations and representations could well have elected to improve the representation of this information in virtue of their own interpretations and their experience with the encyclopaedic form. Instead, they have been motivated to cull it all, and to use my offer of the information as a pretext for a giggling campaign of denigration and slander; to blankly reject all such information.

I would offer in summary that the editors of WP, as represented in the current missive, maintain an infantile version of a pre-1980s approach to assaying psi research, showing themselves to be simple disciples of long ago peer-discredited and pulp pseudo-skeptical scripture. In chiming in with the phrases of "distortion," and so on, and showing no evidence of independent examination of the more or less serious and trivial opinions raised in this notice, the administrators of WP risk betraying themselves to be similarly limited and abjectly motivated.

BTW, although a swansong this might necessarily be, such is not my own intention. In order to help my culling stalkers in their campaign, let me note that, should I be permitted, I will probably and shortly add to the article on Warcollier, given there some expressed requirement for further sources, and that I will also seek to contribute on some topics more strictly related to my abiding psychological research interests in signal detection and visual recognition, semantic memory, and the relative consciousness of perception.

Oh - as to the silly slight about linking via the signature, such is what is offered when one uses the "Your signature" button in the toolbar above the edit textarea. Please offer a more serious effort at denigration if you wish to stoke my fanciful prose. --Rodgarton 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of eliciting your "fanciful prose" I wanted to point out that the request that you use four tildes to produce a linked signature line was not a "slight". Rather it was a politely phrased request that you adhere to the normal courtesies the rest of the Wikipedia community generally follow. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(delayed by edit conflict) An article not mentioned so far is Precognition. There are the same issues of clear agenda-pushing (privileging fringe sources, even pre-prints, over mainstream scientific sources) and incivility. That article is now actively misleading about its topic (the definition of precognition in the first sentence clashes with that in the sources, but Rodgarton claims that his interpretation of one source wins out). Since he's reverted the addition of sourced mainstream material,[61] I can see that trying to fix the damage, while he and I are pretty much the only ones editing the article, is going to be lead into an edit war. I've discussed at great length with him on Talk, but he just throws up great walls of incoherent text and shows little interest in following WP policy (e.g. repeatedly arguing that Wikipedia is a source for itself [62]). It sounds like this is a repeating pattern of behavior across multiple articles in a single topic (and the Parapsychology FAR).

The above comment by Rodgarton is yet another example of how his descriptions of his behaviour differ wildly from his actual behaviour. He describes himself dispassionately adding encyclopedic facts while his biased opponents use bad faith, non-sequiturs and personal attacks, but as already mentioned in this discussion, it's not hard to verify that it's the other way round. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need saying, but Rodgarton's above claim of a "swansong" isn't credible. He has previously said goodbye to the Parapsychology article in his customary style, writing "I will better expend my energies communicating this travesty rather than contributing to this twisted forum. ... Sufficient for Wikipedia, but not to the real world, to which I return, pleased to see you and other WP editors picking self-congratulatingly through the debris thereof." [63] [64] but that was back in early August. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How telling that the only response to my critique of these flawed missives involves raising "an article not mentioned so far" . The campaigners have to shift the debate in order to maintain it, rather than to focus on the substantive issues of debate; as I have already noted as their tactic, and as we are granted by MartinPoulter with another example. Also, even in raising this "not mentioned so far" issue, we are only treated to further ad hominem slight: the bulk of the complaint concerns how "he describes himself ..." and the "claims that his interpretation wins out," and how "his behaviour differ [sic] wildly [!] from his actual behaviour," and so on, together with bald misinterpretation of my final paragraph. Moreover, I have myself already raised the very article MartinPoulter claims is "not mentioned so far" - perhaps s/he needs to actually read what s/he is instinctively attacking. Then let her/his points be raised in the context of the article in question itself. My above response to the above missives remains to be addressed in any even superficial detail. --Rodgarton 15:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} As a friendly suggestion, perhaps if you were to respond concisely and in clear language your words would not be open to misinterpretation. Also when attempting to insert [sic] into a quote in order to suggest the presence of a grammatical error it is best not to modify the framing of the quote in order to make the grammar appeared flawed... especially when the source text is available directly above. It doesn't harm MartinPoulter at all but it does tend to affect how others may see you.Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet more focus on triviality, and no attention to even one substantive issue. Even the trivia is quickly settled: [sic] does not necessarily connote grammatical error; it warns that the quoter has not misquoted what might be passingly interpreted as a grammatical error. If the complainants must get emotive, I pray they will do so on something worth commenting upon; we all get rather sleepy when meriting such trivial and insubstantial responses with a reply. --Rodgarton 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that one of the major concerns we have brought up with you and then here about you is your tendency to play fast and loose with WP:CIVIL your framing of a quote in a manner designed to make it seem grammatically incorrect, including placing [sic] at the point of the artificial error is, in fact, relevant. You routinely attempt to suggest that the opinions of others hold less merit than your own, for instance calling me a pseudo-skeptic because I doubt the veracity of para-psychological research which has suffered from a well documented history of flawed design, credulous investigators and outright frauds.

Another example is when you try to suggest that others are "slighting" you when they request you sign your posts with four tildes for ease of linking. Then there are examples such as here where you declare your opinion regarding the assumed bad faith of editors who make edits you disagree with.

And let's not forget about this where you called me irrational. And, on the same talk page, here where you call an editor you don't name "specious" for putting a POV tag on an article which you admit to be biased to a specific POV in the same comment.

WP:CIVIL exists for a reason. I am beginning to suspect you may not understand why these examples (which are not by any means an exhaustive list) could be seen as violating that policy. Regardless of WP:CIVIL repeat attempts to marginalize the opinions of other editors does not strengthen your arguments and only leads to discussions such as this one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment demonstrates the failure to distinguish between a characterisation of an argument and an attack on a person. What I have dubbed "irrational" and "specious" etc., as above, characterises, in each case, the quality of argument; it says nothing about the communicator. This is an elementary point of psychological development; the complainant might wish to consult Jean Piaget on child psychology before s/he again advertises this cognitive failure. Oh, here is the effect of four tildes: Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC). Here is the effect of the "Your signature" button: --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC). Surely this covers enough trivial points, and the complainants can offer by now a substantive point of debate. --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that paragraph of my comment, precognition had not been mentioned. Note, Rodgarton, that my comment appeared after yours because of edit conflict. Your comment about the article suggests that you've improved it. My comment argues that you've damaged it and that you are using a pattern of behaviour to block improvements, similar to your behaviour that has been complained about in other contexts. I hope the admins take more serious action than just the 24hr ban, since I don't think any number or warnings are enough to get you to follow the policies of WP. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion reigns for expression in place of substantive argument! Please note that I have not even attended to the page in question - precognition - at least over several weeks. You are free to trash it as you will, and need not fear, as I have made clear, any attempt by me to maintain its responsible and informed representation of information. --Rodgarton 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, folks, you have a week off, I have blocked Rodgarton because his energetic pursuit of his POV is causing trouble in mainspace and using up too much of everybody's time in talk space. Please work out what sort of restriction might work, and help him if you can to understand what he needs to change. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion A relatively long-term topic ban to parapsychology related articles and a strong suggestion he seek tutoring in order to learn how to properly comport himself in talk page discussion would be what I would suggest. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I can agree, though it'd need to be interpreted broadly, as he has a certain tendency to making articles into a WP:COATRACK, e.g. meta-analysis and his attempts to make extensive claims for parapsychology there. Let me quote the claim made there:

“ However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates.[3] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). ”

For such a ridiculously specific claim as the text in bold carves out - and I, for one, don't see how that excludes, say, Pearson's study of Typhoid in 1904 - that is a ridiculous amount of undue weight. It's all the more awful in context: It was the only meta-analysis to have any description whatsoever of what it studied. Here's the whole paragraph with this inclusion:

“ The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis.[1][2] However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates.[3] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). Although meta-analysis is widely used in epidemiology and evidence-based medicine today, a meta-analysis of a medical treatment was not published until 1955. In the 1970s, more sophisticated analytical techniques were introduced in educational research, starting with the work of Gene V. Glass, Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter. The online Oxford English Dictionary lists the first usage of the term in the statistical sense as 1976 by Glass.[4] The statistical theory surrounding meta-analysis was greatly advanced by the work of Nambury S. Raju, Larry V. Hedges, Harris Cooper, Ingram Olkin, John E. Hunter, Jacob Cohen, Thomas C. Chalmers, and Frank L. Schmidt. ”

So, yeah, I think were going to need a fairly broad-based topic ban to effectively keep him from causing problems. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree He may cause trouble on pages that are tangentially related to parapsychology, such as pages on statistical tools and pages on the various flavours of psychic.Simonm223 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody disagree? Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking requested

I found a little mistake in the Elvis Presley article. However, it has a padlock on it so I can't fix it. So I did some hunting and found that webmaster, Tiptoety, put the lock on it. However, his page also has a lock on it so I can't notify and ask him.

Please remove these locks or tell me where there's a subscription page so I can upgrade my membership to a paid membership and presumably have the key to these padlocks. This page is also hard to find so Wikipedia is not the most user friendly. Lake Forest (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pay to be able to edit these articles. Your account just needs to be autoconfirmed (you need at least 10 edits, and your account needs to be older than 10 days). Although some pages are locked against all but our admins, who are elected via community consensus. If you want to become autoconfirmed before 10 edits and 4 days, you can request it at this page, so long as you provide a good reason (contact me if you need help with that). Or, to get someone who is already autoconfimred to edit, you can go to the talk page of the article (get to this by going to the article, and click the "discussion" tab along the top), and create a new section (by selecting the "new section" tab). And into this section add this code:

{{Editsemiprotected}} <enter details of the edit wanted here>

Hope that helps. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have added you manually to the "autoconfirmed" usergroup that Kingpin mentioned, so you should be free to edit the Elvis Presley (or any other semi-protected) article. And just a quick side note because you mentioned paid subscriptions, there has never been nor will there ever be a subscription necessary to edit a Wikipedia article. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

...anyone else added Elvis's article to their watchlist recently? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building, everyone knows that. But his article (and his article's watchlist) will rock on for a very long time. ++Lar: t/c 07:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Shadowrun Wiki Links Dispute

I was directed here by a helpful moderator, Leuko, who could not address my issue with another user's (MJBurrage) insinuative comments that he/other contributors were the deciding factors on how many and what links would be added to the wikipage there. The grievance with these types of actions, and the ethics behind them, prompted this post.

The heart of the matter is whether or not other resource sites outside of the single dubiously "non-official" external link should be allowed and why. This site's (Dumpshock, owned by a Shadowrun game developer) operation by paid employees of the game studio itself suggest ethical and conflict of interest issues of their own in turning the wikipage into one large, in-house advertisement. It has sparked a heated debate there, and has quickly become the largest discussion posting on the thread. With only two contributory voices (MJBurrage and Canterbury Tail) trying to tell a slew of supporters that 'community consensus' is needed, when consensus is obviously residing with a camp outside of their viewpoint.

I recognize that I may have a conflict of interest (as a representative) in the matters of getting a specific site link (#S-Run Community) added, but the support for that link has been very strong and near-unanimous. This link was also allowed to reside there without hindrance in the past as a resource offering information (Gameplay Logs, Campaign Presentations, exclusive movie content, etc.) until a loss of hosting caused it to be taken down. Now that the site is being rebuilt to its former specifications, there is suddenly an issue with its re-addition -- as well as the addition of any other site to the external links area. As a representative of the aforementioned site, I will not be attempting the link it to avoid conflicts of interest; however, the support for its addition and the criteria it meets speak for itself as far as 'community consensus' is concerned.

For reference to the development of this debate, the Talk histories of users 'Solorunner', 'MJBurrage', 'Canterbury Tail'; and moderators 'Leuko' and 'Vancouver Outlaw' within the past 72 hours. Reference Sections for the Discussion page itself include numbers '13 and 21+Appendices'.

Thank you for your time in monitoring/addressing these issues.

Solorunner (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've notified User:MJBurrage of this discussion, which seems to be about whether Solorunner can include a link to some fan site at Shadowrun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All I did was ask some rhetorical questions on the Shadowrun talk page, to point out why we have notability policies. In a later comment I explicitly linked to those policies—W:EL and W:RS—when I realized that Solorunner had chosen to interpret said questions as declarations.

I am sorry that Solorunner feels that anyone explaining why S-Run might not be encyclopedic, is somehow making a personal attack. I even suggested a course of action that could make such a link applicable to the article; write a referenced section on on-line play of the Shadowrun RPG. If one of the independent sources used mentions S-Run than a link would probably be appropriate. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Solorunner runs the website in question, so there's an obvious COI issue as well. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor(s) refusing to get the point.

On List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes (yes, shut up; I go where the problems take me and no article doesn't deserve attention simply because of what it is) two IPs (209.6.87.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.67.248.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); though I have a hunch they're the same person) keep changing the numbering style from season format (1**, 2**, 3**, etcetera), which the page was originally at, to just a continual list (The first season is in season format, the second season just continues on from there. I've explained twice how season numbering format works and 'they' are just completely ignoring me. Now I'm moderately sure I'm not doing anything wrong here; I'm simply reverting the page to it's original format. I'm technically considering this vandalism, since I've explained how the format is supposed to be and I'm being ignored.

Given the situation, will I get in trouble for continually reverting it; or is this considered an exception to 3RR? On the other hand, can they be reported for 3RR? HalfShadow 16:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted it again. IPs are making no attempt to communicate at all. HalfShadow 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep reporting them to AIV - I blocked the one I saw there - and give an earlier ip contribtions as evidence of systematic disruption. Otherwise, go report it at SPI and see if a CU will comment on the consequences of a rangeblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle and the List of Hustler Honeys article

For more than two years, since the day the article was first created, the List of Hustler Honeys falsely and without sourcing identified a notable entertainer as the May 2005 holder of this title, and linked to her article. The entertainer in question is a Colombian television performer with no discernible involvement in the pornographic/erotica industry, who is also moderately prominent in the US for appearing in Telemundo productions. This is a clear BLP violation, and subject to immediate removal. I have removed this claim several times. User:Delicious carbuncle consistently reinserts the name, claiming that removing the link cures the BLP violation because it "may be a different [name omitted by me]" and "Same name different person".User:Delicious carbuncle has made no effort to provide any sourcing. Instead he/she has used a string of increasingly combative edit summaries, including today a summary that was no more than an uncivil personal insult: "Stop being a dick."
This should be a simple matter. There is no question that the original version of the article was a BLP violation. You can't evade the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP by arguing "Hey, there's no proof it's not another person with the same name" -- especially since the article's original author linked to the notable entertainer's page, and therefore claimed she was the person pictured in the magazine. Whether or not the name is linked doesn't affect BLP sourcing requirements.
I am therefore requesting that User:Delicious carbuncle be admonished for incivility, and be warned that repeatedly inserting unsourced content casting a named, notable person in an unfavorable light is a violation of WP:BLP which can result in loss of editing privileges. BLP requires us to edit "conservatively," and that the "burden of evidence" for material regarding living persons "rests with the person who adds or restores material." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your other concerns, there apparently may indeed be a Brazilian model by the same name who would seem to potentially be the individual the article was originally referring to, but I have no way to reliably source that, and will be haunted, for some time, by the Google search required to ascertain that information. This may be related to the blurb (on the effectively unused) talk page that indicates someone went through and linked every name on the list without regard to disambiguation issues. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Even without disambiguation issues, whoever it is deserves the same protection whether they are famous or not. If someone puts "Sinneed" in there, as utterly non-notable as can be, it would require proper sourcing to meet wp:BLP. I don't understand why even one name is listed there without at least 2 sources, or at least one saying the individual was not a living person (a stage name protecting the identity of an actual person, for example), and one (two if a real person? If we have a citation to Hustler is that enough?) saying she was a "Honey" that month and year. This is clearly controversial information about persons we have no reason to believe are not actual living people, to whom the protections of BLP would apply. If I am missing something, and someone feels very generous, I would love to be educated. :) The article appears to me to be entirely a gigantic BLP violation.- Sinneed 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) - expand - - Sinneed 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Hullabaloo Wolfowitz didn't start a discussion at either the article's talk page, or at the BLP noticeboard. I don't believe I have anything constructive to contribute to this discussion at this point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Haggar IP

I just caught an IP doing Haggar vandalism [65]. I've blocked it but I don't know how to go about checking for open proxies or if there is anything else that should be followed up. SpinningSpark 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an open proxy as far as I can discern; there are many copycat vandals that happen to use the same words. I'm assuming this is just a bored kid somewhere, so I think the action you've taken already is all that's necessary - in fact, a month's block is probably more than is really warranted. With the exception of the word "HAGGER" that we've come to associate with problem users, this is simple, ordinary vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on List of Presidents of Madagascar

Resolved

As a devout Wikipedian, and according to Golbez's advice, i think it's my duty to report vandalism on List of Presidents of Madagascar from IP adress 192.18.43.225 (this is its talk page). Almost every day, it displays next message on List of Presidents - "Since 17 March 2009, Madagascar has no official elected President. A putschist, Andry Rajoelina, paid the Army and holds a dictatorial self-proclaimed regime". I am sure that some action must be taken to stop this vandalism in the future. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference WP:AIV is the place for reporting vandalism. Thanks anyhow.--Patton123 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. However, given the nature of the edits, I have semi-protected the page. Black Kite 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How is continuous addition of problematic information not vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page copied from MyWikiBiz ?

See Osmund Lewry a page copied from there. According to this page, the author retains all rights to content posted on MyWikiBiz, and Thekohser (talk · contribs) has stated that the page is not GFDL. Can this page be accepted? Triplestop x3 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See also WR thread Triplestop x3 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The original page is here, its in the "Directory" space, the "Directory" space is explicitly not licensed with a compatible license (looks to be a version of "all rights reserved to MyWikiBiz"). Since MyWikiBiz is Thekohser's site, presumably that means the copyright is owned by him and he's free to reissue it GFDL? Nathan ^T 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If as Thekohser says ([66]), the content is posted on Wikipedia at the request of the author, then this needs to be authorized through WP:OTRS. As it stands now, the content has to go. Evil saltine (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be acceptable to contact http://www.mywikibiz.com/User:Ockham , the author of the content on MyWikiBiz. Evil saltine (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tis true, my fine lad - but yon link shows they writer gave thems permission to post here, as well. I tell ye no lie, I thinks the content be used in Wikipedia under ars own license (and a pretty one it is, to be sure) being donated. Yaaaarrrrr!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then MyWikiBiz would need to be contacted to show that they gave permission. Evil saltine (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yon Cap'n of the good ship MyWikiBiz goes by the name Thekohser, and he be the fellow as written that permission be granted. Does thee suppose another tale be told if the ship were hailed directly? Yar...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll e-mail permissions-en to see if that would be adequate. Evil saltine (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon the intrusion but this seems like a cute little attempt at a breaching experiment. This could be resolved rather rapidly if thekosher decided not to be so coy about things and simply state who wrote the original article and under what license is it distributed. As far as I'm concerned if that doesn't happen in the next 48 hours or so I have no problem speedying it as a copyvio. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thekohser claims to may have permission to relicense it per [67]. Evil saltine (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I, along with Greg, received an email from the original author asking to repost the article. Although I declined to do so, I'd say that email constitutes permission to release under Wikipedia's current license (CC-BY-SA 3.0, not GFDL) because the original author is fully aware of Wikipedia's license requirements. Thatcher 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It would be really helpful if you could forward said e-mail to permissions-en at wikimedia.org so this can be formalized through OTRS. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think OTRS is needed since the article did not come from Kohs' web site, rather it came from User_talk:Petrus_Damianus and Kohs copied it first to MyWikiBiz before posting it in main space. Thatcher 01:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your September 2009 on Wikipedia's User_talk space, and raise you one February 2009 on MyWikiBiz's Directory space. -- Thekohser 02:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. In that case, however, the original author on MyWikiBiz [68] needs to release the text under a compatible software license. He could do that by contacting the WMF permissions email address, or by posting a note on some page on MyWikiBiz and then we can link to it here. Right now it looks like Petrus Damianus plagiarized the copyright-protected work of Ockham. I know someone who claims to be both Petrus Damianus and Ockham, but to prove it, Ockham has to post some kind of confirmation on MyWikiBiz; either confirmation of his real name, or confirmation that he releases the article under GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0. Thatcher 03:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed released under GFDL. Thatcher 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page likely created by/for PD

Columba Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was created by the banned user Peter Damian [69]. User:Lar has said that he would "take responsibility" for it [70]. I would like more input on whether this is acceptable. G5 states that the article must be "created by a banned user in violation of his or her ban, with no substantial edits by others", however should a banned user be able to add an article through offsite coordination like this? This looks like a reasonable page, but given PD's comments on destroying wikipedia I am having trouble assuming good faith as this seems like a campaign to prove some sort of point [71]. Triplestop x3 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

PS thank you for the compliment Peter Damian (if you are reading this), I am sure I have 10x the brain you ever had. Triplestop x3 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're just making yourself look more foolish when you do that. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the hard part of G5. PD knows this. So he's going to sock and/or proxy to get "good" articles into wikipedia in order to show us all how wrong we were about banning him for being disputatious and unpleasant. Burn. with. fire. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While a reasonable article has been produced as a result, this is still pure trolling. I won't pretend to understand Peter's ultimate goal here, but certainly the medium-term intention seems to be to demonstrate that banning him was counterproductive to Wikipedia's overall goal. It's an odd form of it, I'll grant you that, but this is still disruptive sockpuppetry to prove a point. I would personally have no issue with G5ing this. ~ mazca ^talk 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be instructive to review all of the banning policy, (but in particular: Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. ... I've done exactly that) and all of the discussion in this section of the talk: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reinstating_edits_of_banned_users.3F. The article is no longer G5-able. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Triplestop is referring to Columba Ryan when he says I took responsibility. And I did, for that one. I have nothing to do with Osmund Lewry. Peter Damian no doubt would like to see this article deleted as it would further his campaign. My typical approach to Peter's actions is to thwart his unreasonable actions. But if he's willing to write good articles (which Columba Ryan has every possibility of being), let him. Deleting it is what he wants. Or drama, whichever. Don't play that game. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with what Lar said, especially the last few lines. NW (Talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a lose lose situation. Banned users need to stay away, however if we delete it then it adds to his trolling campaign. But I think his use of the name "Previously Banned User" sums up his intent pretty nicely. Triplestop x3 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So if it's a good article, and someone else takes responsibility, chuckle to yourself and let it slide. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the policy page, the page can be speedy deleted on sight. So since you are taking responsibility for this I would like to see you making substantial edits. Triplestop x3 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might advise Lar, someone who has been editing Wikipedia for as many years as you have months (on this account, amyhoo), what further edits you might wish to see. Perhaps which pastime the subject were interested in, or if they have been rendered as an avatar in a Xbox game...?Sometimes, taking responsibility for an article when it was created by or on behalf of a banned editor (and you have checked the chronology to ensure it was created by PD while he was banned from WP, and not when he wasn't, I suppose per AGF) is simply to say, "This satisfies the requirements for a WP article as is, and I therefore take responsibility for it." Unless you can provide the policy or guideline that notes an adopted article must be substantially edited by the adoptee I think you may reconsider your strident posturing (and language). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." This approach would please everyone would it not? And I am sorry opinions from us worthless peons don't matter. Triplestop x3 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably noteworthy to... the edit where I confirmed Brandon's findings at the relevant SPI report (after blocking PD's latest sock) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ NW. There is really no option here other than avoiding playing his games. Part of the reason he is banned is because he insisted on treating other people like this, placing them in seemingly implacable binds in order to fulfill his views about wikipedia. It's petty and fanatical and we are better off just going without it. If that means wikipedia has 1 less article on 13th century theologians so be it. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Except NW was agreeing with me :) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I read his agreement as "yes we suffer a crappy tradeoff in this situation, but the last few lines (ie the decision) aren't correct". :) I don't really think that we have an easy answer available. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree with what Lar and Skomorokh said. If Peter Damian wants to do everything he can to get good content on to Wikipedia, we can ignore him and chuckle at his efforts, thereby exterminating drama and adding content to the encyclopedia. If he wants to start attacking editors, we can block him. Simple as that. It may not go along with WP:BAN, but that's why we have this. NW (Talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this approach; we should approach the matter from the point of view of being an encyclopaedia first, a community second. If looking the other way while banned editors contribute productively (before immediately blocking if they start any trouble) and having mildly annoyed adminsitrators is the price we have to pay for a better eneyclopaedia, then so be it. The problem with situations like the above is that we defenders of the wiki are buying into and playing up to the moral framework of the banned.  Skomorokh  22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But that (whether or not we play into his moral framework) is largely unimportant. And frankly, if we are going to do that, let's unban PD right now. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought it is best to keep this page. Thank you for your contribution Peter Damian however you are still banned and you are not getting what you want. Triplestop x3 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, I think Damian should be unblocked. You have to understand his particular form of disruption. He wants to prove (it seems to me) that Wikipedia's policies are defective and are geared to preventing useful additions to the encyclopedia—the reason we are all supposedly here.

1. He was blocked for 3RR on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). He was edit warring with an IP that refused to discuss edits on the talk page, and deliberately noting in his edit summaries that he was exceeding 3RR. He was blocked, but the IP was not blocked until 24 hours later after an outcry on the noticeboard. What he thinks he proved is that the blocking policy is enforced in a non-sensical and capricious way. But what he failed to do is use the processes that are already in place to deal with this kind of problem (such as WP:RFPP).
2. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to tag an alleged sockpuppet of FT2, exposing what he thinks is hypocrisy that treats FT2 differently than Geogre. What he failed to do was use the process already in place for dealing with user conduct problems (laying out a case at WP:RFC/U).
3. He now uses sockpuppets to create articles, then identifies himself hoping someone will delete the content, or as in this case creates content on another site and asks someone to copy it across. What he wants to prove is that good content will be deleted for political reasons, putting politics ahead of the stated goal of writing an encyclopedia. What he fails to do is simply edit quietly as the sockpuppet, since if he did not call attention to himself by disruptive conduct, no one would object to his creating content.

I think that a more rational approach to Damian is to encourage him to follow the dispute resolution processes already in place, whether it involves article content or user conduct. (They may not be perfect, but they are not going to get any better by deliberately ingnoring and undermining them.) Whenever he feels the need to climb the Reichstag and ignore the appropriate process in favor of being deliberately disruptive, he should be blocked for some standard length of time (maybe 5-7 days) and then just ignore further demonstrations by him. He could remain unblocked forever or spend the next 5 years blocked for 120 out of every 121 hours, it would be his choice.

It is important to recognize that unlike some other banned users, for whom I definitely would not advocate this approach, Damian can not cause significant disruption unless he has the unwitting help of other editors and admins. Just stop playing the game by his rules. Thatcher 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember he was banned for being unbeleivably difficult and unpleasant and we just rationalized it by listing those specific proscribed acts. I would support an unban if someone would give me reason to believe that he wouldn't just come back here, act like a jerk to anyone who wasn't a classicist and then get upset when we ask him not to act like a jerk. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

His current indef ban follows from tagging FT2 as a sockpuppet user, after his unban in 2008 included a condition that he not interact or discuss FT2. I think this original condition was too broad, that he should have been allowed to use the appropriate dispute resolution channels as long as he did not go outside those channels (harassment, using socks himself, etc). For example, he was threatened with blocking or actually blocked (I forget which) for making AfD nominations of articles FT2 had contributed to years before. I never meant for the prohibition on harassing FT2 to be interpreted that broadly. As I said, I think the best way to handle him when he disrupts to make a point is to give a standard length block, without drama, and to ignore any attempts to raise more drama. Think of him, if you must, as a striker. By himself, he can only make sparks, someone else must provide the fuel if he is to get a fire going. Thatcher 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tagging page

This is completely inappropriate. Whoever is doing that should stop now. It is one thing to have such a view, it is another to create a secondary account for the purpose of pushing such a view. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's just some drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons....and blocked. Thatcher 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Was it confirmed? Because, I must say, if it was Peter then he is really scrapping the bottom of that barrel for names. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. it's not Damian. It's someone from a different country, actually, who has a couple dozen sockpuppets and seems to be up to no good in various ways, such as [72]. Thatcher 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Gesh, Thatcher. When you say "drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons", you have to know that it applies to many, many people here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be clear from the context that I meant "A drama whore who is not Peter Damian" :) Thatcher 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds, maybe? Killiondude (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

113.252.174.136

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and disruption. MuZemike 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

113.252.174.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is spamming references to a specific book or article to multiple Wikipedia articles. I have to take off now, so, could some one else take care of this? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Given a 24-hour vacation, courtesy of yours truly. MuZemike 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ban of RMHED lifted

I'm going to place the lifting of the ban on RMHED under the category of controversial incidents. There is a diversity of views on RMHED, on his ban, on the ArbCom, and on the ArbCom lifting the ban. I started a little poll to get a true idea of whether or not people agree or disagree with the lifting of the ban. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First Flight High School

Resolved

Can someone keep an eye on the idiocy taking place on First Flight High School? – iridescent 23:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

reverted to your version, and fully protected for 3 days. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

False charge of sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – I think this is under control now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A series of harassment sock accounts, aimed at me, have duped User:Nimur, with whom I have had pointed discussions about the ref desks, into thinking that I am responsible for those socks. I have warned Nimur to stop making these false charges, but he won't, so here I am. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is purely a distraction from the main problem: Horseplay at the Reference Desk. Bugs has been repeatedly warned to stop the disruptive play at the desk. More often than knot (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And your appearance twenty whole minutes ago lends a tremendous amount of credence to your case. </sarcasm> J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"More often than knot" came on board immediately after "More honestly" was indeffed. He's a troll who's trying to get both me and Nimur into trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs has too much self-respect to do anything as pathetic as socking. But may I respectfully suggest that he limit himself to one RefDesk comment per day across sections where he does not actually know the answer to the question? I enjoy his jokes but it's clear that some people don't. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen worse comments at the ref desks than the ones I've made. But I will work to adhere to your recommendation. With the caveat that sometimes a question requires more questions back, or some "guesswork", to clarify what the reader is asking for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that it is really necessary, Knot is checkuser- Confirmed as Honestly. NawlinWiki blocked just before I attempted to. Ranges are too large to block, unfortunately. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Knot" is now indef'd also. There have been several harassing socks recently with vaguely similar names. I don't keep a list, and WP:DENY suggests I shouldn't make too big of a thing of it. But I want Nimur to cease and desist from making these false sockpuppetry charges against me. Meanwhile, I have been doing better than I was at refraining from mocking silly questions on the ref desks, and I pledge to continue to do better. By the way, the broad range of the block suggests a particular sockmaster, which I would just as soon not state publicly due to WP:DENY. I'll send you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As a point of reference, I declined the block request at AIV and reminded Nimur about WP:POINT. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple socks of TheStrayCat

Resolved

 – Quite a sockfarm. 30 socks + master bagged and tagged at SPI case. Nothing more to do here. Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty obvious case - TheStrayCat (talk · contribs), IzDaNocky (talk · contribs), DudeBrownie (talk · contribs), Katesparrow (talk · contribs) and Rocket to Jupiter (talk · contribs) have been used, one after the other, to perform the exact same type of edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Add RugratsFan2 (talk · contribs) to the list... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And now Anti-Sockpuppet (talk · contribs), which is practially an admission of guilt... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

...Wikis4everybody (talk · contribs)... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. None of these accounts you are listing are performing the same edits as TheStrayCat. They are merely new accounts that are editing pages regarding animated films. TheStrayCat however matches the MO of a vandal who tacked on "animated" or "cartoon" to television series and films that were animated, or were merely animated in part. Stop listing them all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim they were the same edits, I wrote that they are the same type of edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

However, they are all accounts utilized to edit articles regarding actual animated films.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The main efforts of IzDaNocky (talk · contribs) and DudeBrownie (talk · contribs) thus far seems to be reverting TheStrayCat (talk · contribs). Could be an attention-seeker doing vandalism edits on one hand and "heroically" repairing them on the other. If so, then this is someone with WAY too much free time. Manning (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the timing of it all that caught my attention. I haven't checked account creation times, but I'd bet money that the puppet accounts were created right after the last edit of the previous account. Classic serial sockpuppetry tactic - create an account, make a few edits, move on to the next account. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All the suspect accounts listed there seem to be blocked.- Sinneed 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but because Ryulong directed me to stop listing new socks, there are a few more that haven't been blocked. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations seems to be the place to list them?- Sinneed 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be if IP users were able to create new reports. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My ignorance is vast, and I thank you for lightening a bit of it. I fear I have edited anon only when I suddenly found myself logged out in the middle of a session. My apologies if I seemed callous, I assure you it was ignorance only.- Sinneed 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheStrayCat is up; I added a CU request. Please submit additional evidence/add socks as necessary. Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war and Peronal Attacks.

User talk:MickMacNee has been counseled on making personal attack and he continues to make them. He is also in violation of 3rr Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I count five reverts (so far) by Hell In A Bucket to the same page, which surely breaches the three-revert rule as well. It smells strongly of censorship to me, given the high number of personal attacks that are flung about on that talk page without being reverted. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked, Mick has. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ec, Micks action of posting what looks to me like an uncivil comment about another user and then repeatedly reinserting it after it has been removed by other users is a bit much and not needed at all.Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Vandallism or personal attacks aren't considered violations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's useful to know. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing it six times isn't clever, though. Report it here or at WP:AN3 before you break the 3RR line next time, please. Black Kite 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No arguements there. I did however base it off WP:EW#WHATISNT 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that WP:NOTVAND clearly says that personal attacks aren't vandalism. Confusing, isn't it? Black Kite 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee has been blocked for 2weeks by User Cirt. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at User talk:MickMacNee#Policies_to_read., where there appears to be a consensus for shortening the two-week block, as the course of action most likely to reduce drama. Note that the editor against whom the personal attacks were directed is Tfz (talk · contribs), who also supports lifting the block.

I suggest shortening the block to 48 hours. Are there any objections to that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

None, So long as the attacks stop.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External links - Shadowrun

I'd just like to get some other eyes on a topic if I may. The topic is about external links in the Shadowrun article. It started a couple of days ago when the administrator of an online fansite and community came and added his site to the article, which was then removed. This continued on and off for a series of edits with a couple of other editors removing the link. Subsequently it has gone to the talk page. Unfortunately it has now gone to the point where the owner of the site appears to be soliciting their site members to come to Wikipedia to point out why their site should be included, which is muddying the waters a little. In my mind the link, as it stands, doesn't seem eligible for inclusion under the WP:EL guidelines, namely the not to include numbers 4, 6 and 11, plus the conflict of interest guidelines and and sites requiring registration. Anyway the conversation is all here under Talk:Shadowrun#Fansites, so if someone else could take a look if they have a spare 20 minutes and provide some feedback either way it would be appreciated. I don't mind either way, however it seems to be getting more involved that a simple EL should have become, so some neutral oversight would be appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See #Shadowrun_Wiki_Links_Dispute above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unblock requests?

Resolved

 – Question answered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I would like for someone to explain to me exactly what the rule is. It has been my understanding from what admins say, and supported by what the rules appear to say, that removal of declined unblock notices is forbidden while you're still blocked. Is that correct, or not? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• that is correct (see the start of the second paragraph). Protonk (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This started with a minor edit war involving User:Prodego and another editor over removals of various warnings from a blocked IP address's talk page (User talk:68.52.42.38). We've got Prodego saying a user can remove anything he wants "as long as he's not being disruptive". I interpret that rule that removal of denied unblock request is automatically assumed to be disruptive, "gaming the system", and thus is not allowed at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Baseball Bugs is asking this after I said - in response to a theoretical question - that it is ok to remove anything from your talk page, so long as it isn't disruptive to do so. For example, if you were to vanish, or you were to not request unblocking again, it would not be a problem to remove an unblock notice from your talk page. However, Baseball Bugs insists that even in cases such as these, removing the template is totally forbidden, and has spent the last 4 hours trying to convince me I am wrong. He has now started this thread on ANI because he disagrees with my response to this theoretical question. I'm not sure I see the point of this. In addition my so called "edit war", consisted of one edit. Prodego ^talk 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The point is to find out the right answer, so that we're both clear on the rules. And I did say a "minor" edit war. Maybe "edit skirmish" is more like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This would likely be a situation where WP:IAR could come into play. Yes, blocked editors aren't supposed to remove declined requests while still blocked, but it would be a silly thing to get into an edit war over unless they're removing them while continuing to add new requests. --Onorem♠Dil 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, that IP did not have a unblock request on their talk page, in fact, that IP wasn't blocked. What I did there was restore an edit in which the (static) IP removed warnings from its own talk page. Removing warnings is uncontroversially allowed. This entire section is based on something entirely theoretical. Prodego ^talk 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't have any issues with Prodego's handling of the talk page. I had an issue with has blanket statement that a user can remove anything they want from their talk page. At the time, I was not aware Prodego was an admin, and I'm seeing 3 different opinions from 3 different admins here so far. Regardless, it seems that the rule itself is clear but that some flexibility via IAR could come into it. Obviously, blocked users will react in a variety of ways and handling them has to be tailored to fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I'm all for hypotheticals, but Prodego's answer was accurate. Plus, an unblocking admin would still review the block log and contributions of the blocked user. This particular scenario would not be a problem to any admin who is doing their due dilligence. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll let you and Protonk slug it out. :) However, I still insist that his original blanket statement that a user can delete anything on his talk page, is not correct. And I'm getting tired of this expired equine by now. Thank you all for expanding my understanding of all this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING and a new RFC

Moved to Wikipedia talk:OUTING § WP:OUTING and a new RFC

This discussion, which resolved around whether or not WP:OUTING applied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody has been moved to a more appropriate venue by User:Ikip. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“ "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." ” Over the past few years I have seen WP:OUTING being unevenly applied. For example, a certain editor I talked with a few months ago, no one can mention his old name. In other cases, editors regularly out other editors with no repercussions. Take for example [73] posted today. A Nobody has repeatedly asked editors to stop calling him by his previous user name. There was some real world harassment when he used this name, which DGG is aware of, and which I am sure that A Nobody can share with other admins on request. Protonk, one of the 3 authors of this RFC wrote: "The WP:Right to vanish thing isn't too important. It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue." [74] I requested that the creators of this RFC to remove this section.[75] Protonk, responded, saying "Why we chose not to is explained in the RfC. I'm prepared to have a discussion about this, but the cat is out of the proverbial bag."[76] I asked Protonk to give me the "the cat is out of the proverbial bag." policy. i.e. you can out someone when everyone knows their old name. I think in the previous case, like many cases here, this editor has powerful friends, like an arbcom member to enforce his OUTING concerns, A Nobody doesn't so the outing continues. I just removed this section, and I would like editors comments on this.[77] Ikip (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I have reverted. OUTING applies to real-world consequences, not a change of an online handle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, that may need to be clarified. How can this be dealt with: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." I have posted a notice about this on WP:OUTING and have contacted two arbcoms with Oversight ability who have special knowledge about these two cases I mention above. Ikip (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC) "An editor who has requested a change in username"—did A Nobody request a username change (keeping all the old edits under the new name), or is it just a new account? Evil saltine (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Are we planning on notifying affected parties? Protonk (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) It seems silly to suggest that "outing" a user's previous handle is WP:OUTING, particularly when 1) the previous username contains no personal information, 2) it's common knowledge and 3) the user retains so many - I'll go for individual as a polite way of saying it - character traits that anyone vaguely familiar with the old account would be able to identify the new one. Ironholds (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I think the need to have a discussion about agreed norms concerning outing is clear, as illustrated by the recent disagreement surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) and related pages.  Skomorokh  03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC) One point I should make. Once the RfC is closed, it can be courtesy blanked. As I noted on the RfC and the RfC talk page the reason the old username is used is to eliminate confusion and offer a clear delineation of actions. Once it is no longer needed then the rationale for showing it disappears. I am also willing to {{hat}} it if there is consensus to do so on the RfC talk page. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC) The explanation is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Description and the response to the original concerns are Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#WP:OUTING there. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Block for NPA violation by Ched

I bring this matter to the attention of my esteemed colleagues so that the party I've blocked has fair audience. I have blocked Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and notified the editor here. While calling another editor a nitwit is hardly the most egregious of things, I believe that this is totally unacceptable. For those of you not familiar with the term "rider of the short bus", it is slang for calling a person mentally retarded. (see here). There are two reasons that I bring this before my peers: 1.) It is always possible that I'm unaware of something that may have a bearing on the situation, and 2.) I will be out of town for some period today, and away from the keyboard for periods of time. As always, an administrator that feels any modifications to my actions would be of benefit to the project, is free to make them at their own discretion. I'll hold no judgment on any admin acting in good faith for the betterment of the 'pedia. I'll also make note of this post on the editor's talk page. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I would have sent both of them to the corner for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• No cause for concern - your actions seem fully justified and reasonable. I'll be around for a few hours so I'll keep an eye on it. Manning (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've unblocked Calton to participate in this discussion, and notified User:JohnHistory of the thread after input from a couple respected editors that may feel I was not being fair to all sides. I believe the block was good, but since another admin. has questioned it on Calton's talk page, and there is a concern here, then I respect the views of the community and have no desire to apply my actions unfairly. I've notified both users of this thread, and hope the community can assist in this matter. Either way, this disruption and these personal attacks must be brought to a halt. Thank you for your support Manning, and thank you for keeping an eye on things while I must be away. I'll check back in as soon as possible. — Ched :  ?  11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely unacceptable comments, block is appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Viridae; but I don't see any reason why he should've been unblocked when transclusion templates exist. In any case, this long term problem needs to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several long-term problems here. The first is, of course, the ease with which Calton reaches heatedness in an argument. One of the participants on User talk:JohnHistory was ObserverNY (talk · contribs), who appears only a few sections above on this very page. So that's a second long-term problem. Then there's the subject matter, which is United States politics, the extreme partisanship and battlegrounding which some U.S. editors present, with regard to which, is a third long-term problem. Then there's the classic thinking that everyone holding a contradictory position is one person. That's a long-term problem outside of Wikipedia, and a long-standing one on Usenet, and a fourth long-term problem here. Then there's repeated "would you personally do this, Calton?" badgering and baiting. (Just look at the length of User talk:Calton#Okay then let's debate it.) This brings the count of long-term problems, all accumulating and compounding here in this incident, to six. There's far from one long-term problem to be addressed, here.

    And that's not even counting the fact that this all came from Talk:Van Jones, so the Obama-related-articles ArbCom sanctions are probably here in the mix somewhere, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My only recollection of dealings with Calton was regarding the NeutralHomer incident from a couple of days ago - at that point, he seemed to clearly misunderstand the nature of mental illness, and felt it to be "fair game". I sadly am not surprised by this action. Unfortunately, a good block. Passion is good - incivility towards invisible disabilities is not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What ARE you talking about? My point -- my ONLY point -- was saying and giving evidence that Neutralhomer was using his Asperger's as an excuse for bad behavior -- despite his claims to the contrary -- and someone else's suggestion of therapy of a self-disclosed condition he himself claims is a barrier to proper editing behavior is not a personal attack. Short form: discussing a topic one raises oneself is not off-limits.

Hell's bell's, I did not -- and would not -- use the phrase "mental illness" as you did to describe the condition, so I'd say YOUR confusion of Asperger's with "mental illness" is a much more problematic misunderstanding. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. Ched 173.88.220.161 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You did right. Better to be safe. He can always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also, any administrator that feels there is evidence or consensus to conclude the matter in one fashion or another is free to act in the manner they feel best for the 'pedia. I'll not pass judgment, or be upset no matter the result. Ched. 173.88.220.161 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Entirely proper block.  Sandstein  20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Entirely ludicrous -- and context-free -- block I'd call it, given, for example, that the blocking admin's bogus rationale: I'm harassing JohnHistory? Who, exactly was that who was posting the thousands of words of ludicrously off-topic baiting that he was explicitly requested, numerous times, to stop clogging my talk page with? (Hint: not me.) He came to my talk page looking for an entirely unwanted argument and badgering -- note that his second message was -- what? -- half-an-hour later with demands I answer him immediately? He would not stop. I made ONE off-hand comment on a User Talk page and I get harassed in return. Why the blocking admin let the harasser get away with it might be due to the admin's explicit support of the harasser and his cohorts' points of view.

I did not and do not have the slightest interest in arguing politics, ESPECIALLY in a way that is utterly irrelevant to building an encyclopedia -- hey, wasn't that the point of this project? -- which, since I have not and do participate in the writing of articles on said subjects, might provide a clue to even the most careless reader why JohnHistory's mistaking of my User Talk page for a Free Republic thread was wildly inappropriate, especially when he was told so explicitly and he refused to stop. Cherry-picking words and completely ignoring context are particularly bad rationales for the use of admin tools.

Uncle G makes several good points -- and Ncmvocalist utterly misses it -- though based on the reports coming through here, the problem with "extreme partisanship" seems almost all one-sided. I would also quibble with his characterization of what I would call my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. As far as I'm concerned, the long-term solution would be to discourage an increase in the number of fools, but that doesn't appear to be a priority around here: about more, see Uncle G's post above.

Now, if things are true to form, some of the regulars will scan my text looking for the contrition code words and, finding none, will call for immediate blocking because I "don't get it". I'd suggest they read the actual words and points and compare them to the actual context first. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, as you took the better part of the weekend and stepped away from the WP editing, I'm content to consider the matter closed. You've been here long enough to know that personal attacks are not acceptable. I'm not interested in any of the "mommy, he did it first" crap here. To paraphrase your own words: "To recap in words [anyone] should have no trouble understanding" Suggesting that an editor has mental deficiencies (riding the short bus) is a personal attack. Don't do it again. — Ched :  ?  13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks

Can you all tone down his language and possible misuse of multiple dynamic IPs (173.*.*.*) and maybe others? I think, now, I recognize it when I see it. Also, he's been called on his language before. -MBHiii (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• To accuse someone of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. You should provide some diffs, and evidence to support your claims. Lychosis ^T/C 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, User:The Squicks has been notified of this thread. Lychosis ^T/C 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no capability to make such an accusation, only to see a pattern, one that could also be produced by the Admin User:Ched Davis, say, who seems to use 173.*.*.* IPs following Squicks and reverting in his favor. I don't have the technical tools to make such investigations, but I can request those who do look into it. Squicks has accused me of being "sexually obsessed", as I recall, for trying to document and write about the original, rude, British meaning of "Yankee doodle." Such accusation, in the context of an edit dispute among people who are not friends, I consider, and most people I know, would consider libelous. That he sees me saying so as threat of a lawsuit is his own overreaction. Social norms reflected in law, without necessarily resorting to it, are often good guides. -MBHiii (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's a good guide for you: When coming to WP:AN/I complaining that editors are logging in and out to edit war, try not doing it yourself at the very same time. It's pretty clear, from even a quick perusal of the edit histories concerned, that you are
      • 74.162.148.126 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Teabagging,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.129.139 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Yankee Doodle and on Talk:Yankee Doodle,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war over an external link to a Youtube video at health care reform in the United States,
      • 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Doodle,
      • all three of 74.162.147.56 (talk · contribs), 74.162.147.36 (talk · contribs), and 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) in the Obama-related edit war at Teabagger,
      • and a whole load of others besides.
    • And the edit wars that you are participating in on the user talk pages of many of these accounts, such as on User talk:74.162.151.64 and User talk:74.162.129.139 for examples, are descending into the absurd. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It is my understanding that using IPs is no violation, except when used to avoid policies. I have no proof for whether the apparent pattern of IPs supporting Squicks is that, but you may, if you care to look into it. Thanks for calling him about his language, again, if you did. MBHiii (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is yet more that of Squicks that needs correcting:

Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly replacing a blue link with a red one. Calling an official DHHS document (an "Order" in fact, directing policy change) merely "personal opinions of A government offical" (as if not reviewed and authorized as official).

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

Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly deleting a hidden note to other editors on a key point.

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

Repeated failure to abide by consensus. Inappropriate vulgarity.

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

-MBHiii (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In all of those circumstances, you made edits that blatantly distorted the sources and then you accused any opposition to that distortion as "vandalism". You then started a persistent edit war to put your distortions into the articles, refusing to talk anything out. This is a particular pattern of you, given that this is exactly what you did at 'doodle' and 'yankee doodle' and 'tea party protest' and everywhere else you have edited.

Everything that you have me of- and I mean everything that have written above- was done by you first. I must admit that it is a shrewd move, attributing your actions to someone else to cover up your tracks, but it's not going to fly here. Other editors have noticed. The Squicks (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mbii claims that a website blog statement labeled The Satirical Post (no, I'm not making this up, he really claims this) is a source for the statement "Teabagger' is now widely used to mean a participant in the Tea Party protests, a series of protests against the expansion of government spending in the USA in 2009 by opponents of the protesters and by protesters themselves."

He also took out an 'NPOV' tag when the issues were not resolved. His argument was "The dispute is resolved by our refusal to waste time with you", which is hilarious coming from someone expressing such touchy skin and feelings of hurt on this page.

Of course, all of his comments in the healthcare related articles (e.g. "Squicks needs to be banned", "reverting a determined vandal", etc) came when he was using multiple sock-puppets to get around editor consensus against his additions (which is completely against WP policy but- as you can see- he sees as a personal matter of pride having socks). This makes his thin skin now to be even more hilarious.

Don't forget, this is the editor who created the page for 'Bushcronium'. If you have never heard of it, Mbii made these claims=

Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantitative concentration level. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass."

The Squicks (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was new to WP, then, and didn't know there was no place for satire, but Squicks is an old, honored, and sometimes insightful editor, which makes all this a puzzle, explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor. -MBHiii (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Icing on the cake is his libel threat. I enthusitically support going to court with him and having him explain his personal theory that the term 'Yankee Doodle' = 'Americans masturbate too much" to a typical Texas Jury (and how, by daring to question him on that, I have committed libel). The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know where he got the quote, ridiculous. The IP thing is old and I've addressed above. The Satirical Post points to something I've seen and heard, first hand, teabaggers publicly calling themselves Teabaggers at rallies; it just needs more references. -MBHiii (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So you've seen something firsthand. And you claim that that is enough to put that material in an article?

I'm also wondering exactly where you got the idea for 'Bushcronium' from. What reliable sources was that from? The Squicks (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, you have to agree that for you to call me a vandal over and over again for what was you going against other editorial consensuses, and then for you to make a 180 and claim hurt feelings after your unsourced additions to various article are reverted is funny. Isn't it? The Squicks (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Recall I moved this disputed key point of mine into a hidden note to other editors, to seek sources, which Squicks deleted anyway. He didn't want even them to see it? -MBHiii (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, things haven't changed for you. You're still doing exactly the same things that you did when you first started-- adding content not represented by reliable sources, using sock-puppets, edit-warring, calling other people names, and so on.

When I read that you wrote "explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor", I laughed. I recall that you once made an edit with the edit summary= The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with neither.

Which is an interesting political view (I suppose Barack Obama would agree, as would others here) but I can't believe that you used that summary as a justification for your editing! And then you accuse me of having "ideological fervor"... The Squicks (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's quoted directly from his user page, with two words switched. -MBHiii (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you two need to call it a wikiday and go take a break for a day. You're clearly at each others throats, and outside opinions will have to decide what to do here. In the meantime, you are both only making it worse for yourselves by carrying out your quarrel here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii has been using socks to harass editors and evade 3RR before. Two recently indefinite blocked Mbhiii IP's are 74.162.150.109 and 65.246.126.130. Jmcnamera (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole situation is extraordinarily stupid. User:Mbhiii, I warned you specifically about the use of the revert feature, or manually reverting people's edits. I am not seeing any attempt to engage this editor (or others for the most part) on talk pages when in a dispute. You seem to enjoy dancing around the edge of WP:3RR and in my opinion you've stepped over the line more than a few times, ironically in the very page histories you have posted here to "report" another editor. I've tried to assume good faith in this situation but that has been exhausted; there will be no more flirting with the line because there ought not be a line for you anymore. Same goes for User:The Squicks. You are both engaging in the same kind of tendentious and incivil edit-warring that is absolutely unacceptable. Next time I catch either of you serially reverting one another, calling each other a vandal (when there is clearly no vandalism going on - please read WP:VANDAL before you sling accusations) or engaging in any of this sort of behavior again, I will block you without any further warning. This behavior has been going on far too long. If you cannot learn to edit in a cooperative and collegial manner, then try disengaging from each other and finding something less contentious to edit. Shereth 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External link "Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika/At Thy will, South Africa"

Resolved

 – Update: spamlist amended/issue resolved (for now) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a host of IPs going 'round, adding a video by the Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation to all South Africa-related articles, particularly South Africa under apartheid. The video, tellingly, starts out by talking about "the civilizing light of Europe" that was brought to the dark continent and continues in a similar tone. I just weeded out most of them (I hope all of them), see my contribs.

Despite the fact that a discussion-string was started at the said page, the IPs are unwilling to engage in a conversation, switch to a different address and re-add the link (even putting it sometimes at the top of articles, or very close to the top). I'm at a loss. I don't think I can request semi-protection for 37 articles at a time... Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist the link? The website seems to be hosted on the John Birch Society and we can debate its overall later another time. From a search at Special:LinkSearch, there's quite a few more uses (the election pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be a good solution. I'd be interested in a centralized discussion regarding the video's merits, but running around undoing stuff isn't my cup of tea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really work on centralized discussion really. If the video is a reliable source then it can be used anywhere it's considered relevant. If it's not, it's not appropriate anywhere. If they're just spamming anywhere and everywhere, then they'll all be removed. If there's a remote attempt at some discussion, then it's worth having. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added it for proposed blacklisting. I hope I did this right, never done this before. If somebody finds the time, please check it to see if it's ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Added to the blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#At_Thy_will_South_Africa_.2F_Ons_vir_jou_Suid-Afrika--Hu12 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin

Resolved

 – No administrative action possible or needed. Please take the chit chat elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 09:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For reasons I can not fathom, User:KillerChihuahua appears to be on a crusade against me. The issue started at Oroonoko, which I came across while looking through novel FAs. I noticed it had a lot of unsourced material, which is not acceptable in an FA, so I tagged it for refimprove. The tag was removed by User:Outriggr with a summary of "this n that"[78] so I readded with a fuller explanation of why[79]. Outrigger again removed[80] with a note of "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else." so I added again, wiht another explanation and posted a note to the talk page giving even further details.[81][82]. I also posted notes to the Book and Novel projects about the problem. This was on September 14th. On the 16th, KillerChihuahua suddenly pops in and removes the tag again[83] with a summary of "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to acheive FA; overkill at least". As noted, I had already explained the concerns on the talk page, which he was clearly aware of as he requested I be more specific.[84] I again reiterated the lack of citations, which he responded to in a hostile fashion saying the tagging was a last resort and claiming I was uncivil and "template happy". I refuted the claim that templating is a "last resort" and went into further detail, specifying which sections and paragraphs were not cited. He was still not "happy" and continued to demand I be even more specific in an increasingly hostile and belligerent fashion and continues to deny that I have explained my concerns.[85][86] I finally got sick of being so attacked for noting a problem with the article, and as it seemed no one actually wanted to address the actual problem - lack of citations, instead of attack me for saying so, I went ahead and started the FAR. On the 20th, SlimVirgin joined in the discussion, asking if I would be fixing the article myself and offering to "help" me do it[87] I declined to answer, so he posted to my talk page to reiterate the question.[88] I explained that I would not be responding there anymore after the hostile responses from KC, and that I had already started the FAR and would let the community discuss dealing with it.[89] SlimVirgin then tried to claim that I was engaging in "drive-by" tagging and that I was obligated to fix the article because I tagged it for having issues and because I started the WP:FAR on it, and repeating KC's claim that I was somehow spraying "graffitti" on the article because I tagged it. After a lengthy exchange,[90] I tired of the argument and removed it from my talk page. SlimVirgin then copied it to the talk page of the article, despite it having nothing to do with the article, so I removed my comments.[91] KC restored them, claiming I was trying to "change history"[92] and left me a level 3 warning for vandalism![93] He also modified my FAR to remove my notes indicating that I had attempted to have the article worked on before the FAR, claiming it was a personal attack[94] while leaving a real personal attack alone[95], not surprisingly this attack was also left by a third administrator User:GiacomoReturned. When another editor noted and removed it, KC deliberately restored it[96] saying "please discuss this with G.". This has been a seriously upsetting experience and is not the sort of behavior I'd expect from any administrator, much less three. I violated no policies, no guidelines, and did nothing wrong except apparently dare to note that an old FA from 2005 no longer meets the featured article criteria and trying to prod someone to work on it. None of these administrators are listed as being in either the Books nor Novels project, neither had edited the article before this except SlimVirgin who apparently did one edit to it in 2005. So I'm baffled and confused as to why this seemingly coordinated attack has begun and with such an insane level of hostility and viciousness. To have so much attention, I can't help questioning what off-wiki activities might be behind it all. In either case, would like some neutral admins to review this situation and, hopefully, provide some assistance to stop this harassment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Too much to review quickly, but just to point out that User:GiacomoReturned is not an admin Well... Black Kite 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) ...and having looked at the article, that looks wildly undersourced for an FA, though I am not an expert on the subject matter. Black Kite 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) No, it isn't undersourced. Perhaps you only looked for footnotes, Black Kite? There are other, by no means inferior or less complete, methods of sourcing; I won't bore everybody here with one of the dullest subjects in the universe, but I've explained it in [this post here]. Note especially my quotation from Outriggr. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Struck that part, misread his user page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Too long, didn't really read, but also didn't see anything that has anything to do with administration. Seems more like a content dispute. Perhaps if the complaint was concise and to the point...--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sometimes complex issues take more than a soundbite to describe. I think if you take the time to read it you'll understand why Collectonian thinks this is an issue appropriate for AN/I. I took the time and I get it. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't make it much more concise without leaving out the appropriate support and history, which is usually asked for when doing AN/Is, especially regarding an admin. Short version, though, is I feel the two admins noted are harrassing and making personal attacks against me for pointing out a FA level article no longer meets the FA criteria and tagging it for needing more references, and KC, in particular, is being openly hostile, left a completely inappropriate level 3 vandalism warning on my page for removing my own comments copied elsewhere, and tried to refactor the FAR to remove my remarks claiming it is a personal attack while blatantly allowing an editor's personal attack in response to the FAR to remain. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Bit difficult in this case I think, because it's convoluted. I have to say that though that KillerChihuahua's vandalism warning strikes me as inappropriate, and restoring this one of Giano's comments whilst removing Collectonian's (which wasn't even a personal attack) strikes me as frankly ludicrous. Admin action needed though? Unsure. Black Kite 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I take lying about me as a personal attack. I was named. This is unacceptable. I stated in my edit summary FA is the wrong venue to raise complaints about an individual editor and to resolve issues with those editors. C chose to restore the falsehood and ignore my attempts to discuss with her. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) See below. Black Kite 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I think some clarification on when it's appropriate to up and move conversations would be helpful. It appears SlimVirgin asked Collectonian a question on his talk, and then after 5 or 6 vack and forths, moved it elsewhere. We are subject to review for our words whereever they are, of course. But is it acceptable practice to move conversations out of userspace that way, after they've been archived? ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) This is common behavior toward the nominator if any article affiliated with Geogre (talk · contribs) is nominated for FAR. I have personally experienced it and thought you were brave to nominate it. I have learned from experience that nothing is to be done about the resulting abuse except ignore it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Mattisse, even apart from the fact that Geogre left the project in July, so one would have thought it might be time for you to stop spitting venom at him, that is exactly the kind of remark ArbCom and your mentors have tried to get you to stop making. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Quick note, I do not have time to respond to this fully: This is not about the article, which so far as I know no one has stated could not be improved - I in fact asked several times for a list of issues, and C informed me it was 'not her job'; I contest the assertion that C answered queries about concerns in any meaningful fashion; the brief ew over copied content involved a question I asked of C, SV and C had a discussion, then C removed the entirety. I believe (not being SV I am guessing of course) that as it was entirely about the article, the tagging, etc, SV felt it was pertinent and copied to article talk; C removed only her comments leaving my question and SV's posts rendered meaningless. I view this as falling under refactoring others comments in effect if not in specific; I support the solution tendered by another editor; I stand by my warning as appropriate - had C removed the entire section that would have been one thing, but rendering others' comments nonsensical and meaningless is a hostile act - and the entire situation has been from the start hostility by C and refusal to respond in any civil fashion to questions and concerns. I will reply in more detail when I can; thanks in advance for your patience. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I do need something explained to me: Where is it declared in any policy or guideline page, that, if a person requests further sourcing on an article, it is incumbent upon them to do the sourcing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Nowhere, because that's not the case, and no one has suggested it is. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Can you just clear something up? This edit - which is why I made the comment I did above. Excuse me if I'm being stupid. Black Kite 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Slim Virgin seems to disagree with you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I don't like to see any kind of drive-by tagging, and particularly not of a featured article. If you tag an article as POV, you should first make an effort to make it neutral; if as uncited, first look for some references; if as OR, try removing the OR first, and so on. Otherwise, we end up with a class of editors who go around adding tags but leaving the job of improving things to others; and if no one does the work, the tags might sit there pointlessly for months or even years. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Your personal preferences have no bearing here. It is not incumbent upon Collectonian to source something that is not properly sourced, it is the resonsibility of the people edit warring to remove Collectonian's tag. Either leave the tag where it is, or source the article. It's that simple. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I personally find tagging of this sort very frustrating. Editors who don't think the tags are justified have the options of either (1) wasting time adding sources they don't see a need for, or (2) leaving an FA in a disfigured state. I am inclined to see it as disruptive for a single editor to fight to maintain tags when no other editor supports them. Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (ec; reply to Mattisse) The reason for that, Matisse, is that Geogre's articles are among Wikipedia's best. That doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't be improved. Nor does it mean that inline citations wouldn't be welcome. But when we have Augustan literature removed as an FA, for example, while numerous articles about video games remain starred, some editors feel that signals a problem with the project. Therefore, when yet another of Geogre's articles is tagged and listed at FAR, it can't help but be a little depressing—especially when the FAR was added only because some editors asked that the article not be defaced with a tag. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I completely agree with you about the bias towards pop culture in FAs; though sadly this reflects our demographic. I made the comment that I did above though, because I looked at this article and thought "if this was at FAC now, would it pass?". And I don't think it would - fine article as it is - with that little sourcing for many of the paragraphs. So I don't think one can attack Collectonian too much for thinking the same thing. Black Kite 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) But then surely the thing to do is stick around to help improve it. Or else move on. Tagging it helps no one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs I would generally agree. However, I must admit that I have found in the past (in cases of FAs abusing non-free images) that in some cases, tagging is sometimes the only way to get people's attention. So each case needs to be taken on its merits. Black Kite 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The FAR was added because the article does not meet FAC. The tagging was an attempt to give a chance to improve before the FAR, but the response showed there would be none done. As for Geogre articles being "among the best", I have no idea who he is but if this article is any indication, I'd have to disagree with you that they are among the best at this time. And I have no bias in what I will FAR, I have FARed pop culture articles as well, and agree with you that there are many that should not be starred. That, however, is not a valid reason to attack someone for noting this article, whoever wrote it, needs fixing and being hostile towards a good faith effort to note so, call attention to it, and taking appropriate steps when those efforts are rebuked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Are you saying that some subjects are more worthy of FA status than others, or that some editors' articles are more worthy of FA status than others'? I'm not clear here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Wow. I hadn't even looked at the article when I made my comments above, as my comments were based upon behavior and claims by certain admins, but not upon the content that the disagreement was about. I go and look at the article, and lo and behold, this article is almost completely bereft of inline citations. What the hell is the disagreement about? This poorly sourced articles needs sourcing, period. Is is not incumbent upon Collectonian to do the sourcing, it is incumbent upon those who disagree with him to prove that the article is properly sourced. It is not. Collectonian was perfectly correct in behaving the way she did. KC and SlimVirgin are completely out of line here, and referring to Collectonian's complaints as vandalism is far more a damning comment upon them, and not upon Collectonian. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC) FWIW, I looked at the article and completely agree with Collectonian. As it stands, the article is a well-written essay. I'm not sure what KC and SlimVirgin are complaining about as it'd be easier to point out the parts that are sourced, rather than the ones that aren't. It's pretty obvious to any experienced editor, never mind those who work on GA's and FA's. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Would it not have been better to add a few more sources than to tag the article for lacking them? That's a much less troublesome way to improve an FA. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) First, a clarification. By sourced, I mean having inline citations. As to your question, the tagger doesn't always have access to the books used as references. Oroonoko relies heavily on scholarly works. If I, for example, place a fact tag beside a statement then I'm hoping that an editor who has access to the reference work will replace it with an inline citation. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I am not sure if I will succeed, but I will try to make a constructive comment here. It seems to me that this article is about three things: User:Geogre, FAs, and tags. I have never worked with Geogre and can't make any comment about him/her. About FAs and tags, I do have three things to say. First, I personally am against FA. I started out here when Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit at any time, which had the correlary that all articles are works in progress. I remember when FA was first proposed; Wikipedia had reached a point where we knew we had some articles that stood up to the best online encyclopedias and felt that we should put our best work forward. I appreciate the reasoning here, I just don't agree, I would rather we always present a shaggy face to the world as a project that is always becoming something else. But, boy!, am I in a minority! And it seems to me that IF we are going to have FA, the purpose being to say to the wider world "this article is good enough to rely on, it holds up well next to other encyclopedias" then it makes perfect sense that it have a higher degree of immunity to all those pesky tags that frankly make the article look ugly and unfinished. "Unfinished? Why, our articles are never finished, this is a constant work in progress" you say. And I agree which is why I do not like FA. But we do have FA so let's take it seriously. We can continue talking about the article's defects on the talk page and discuss how to improve it and even edit it, but let's try to maintain a presentable look to non-Wikipedians which is a major purpose of FA. Second, Wikipedia is a place where our standards for ourselves are constantly being scaled up. Articles that were considered great in 2002 were crap in 2004; articles that were considered stellar in 2004 were crap in 2006. Public scrutiny compels higher and higher standards, and the more we work on it the higher our own expectations grow. So, no offense to anyone who brought an article up to FA status, don't be surprised if sometime later people who are reading the article for the first time cannot believe it ever got FA. I am trying to explain an inevitable phenomena, not to criticize anyone. Final point: I hat those tags as much as I hate FA. Collectonian, I applaud your pointing out problems with the article on the talk page. I do not think you are going to care about what I have to say next so let's agree I am speaking in general, and not addressing you or anyone personally. When I first came to Wikipedia, I read articles that interested me. When I saw weaknesses and i knew how to fix thenm, I made changes. Over time I saw articles that I knew needed work and i didn't know what to do, and that meant my taking time to read books and articles and I made edits (and this was before V and RS and a lot of what I wrote then was unattributed which of course means that today it either has tags or citations). I often came into conflict with other editors and began editing talk pages as much as articles. But I never added a tag. Now, I understand the reason we have tags. Oftentimes someone (like me) did research and added content at a time when we neve required citations or references. Now that we like citations, who better to provide them (for content I added) than me? Someone else adding a cite tag can be a hasty request to me to add citations. I get the point, I really do. When we were in a time of transition from no cites to all cites, such tags were valuable prompts or ways of telegraphing a request. But we have long passed that transition. And now we have an encyclopedia with lots of article filled with these ugly tags, and NO ONE working to add the cites. C'mon, this just makes Wikipedia ugly. What is the value of these tags anymore? To signal the work on the article is not yet complete? Well, now we go back to my original point: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit anytime, so all articles are in progress. We do not need all these tags which cummulatively makes an article ugly just to signal this fact. It should be made clearly on the main page. Apparently we have no shortage of people coming by to add tags. What we have a real shortage of are people who will do research to improve articles. We are dying for editors who can do research to improve articles. There was a time when Wikipedia grew largely because it attracted people who either knew something they could add, or were willing to research something that they could add. I miss those days. The number of editors has grown exponentially, and yet where are those editors who, like I did when I first came here, saw something missing, did a little research, and added it? My point is simple: THIS is the real problem afflicting Wikipedia right now: not articles lacking citations, but a project lacking people willing to do research when they see it needs doing. Maybe this is what KC and SV were responding to, i do not want to speak for them. But it is clear to me what the graver problem is. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Statement 2: I didn't ask for C to add sourcing. Read the talk page. I asked what the complaints were, so they could be addressed. C refused to clarify; how are we supposed to "fix" an article if she won't say what is wrong? This is absurd. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Addendum/What is the issue here: I will try to summarize. C edit warred against at least two editors to tag the article while refusing to say what she thougth needed to be done to fix it, being so hostile and rude one (who tried to improve the article when removing the tag) left in misery; the other is myself: I have asked numerous times, saying "I'm trying to help" etc, for what C sees as the specific issues. C was so nasty that if I were not sick as a dog and barely editing at all I would have already started an Rfc on her. She has been uniformly hostile and rude, and refused to answer simple questions which were only asked so her concerns can be addressed. She has now placed the article on FAR, lying and saying no one was interested in improving the article, even though I made it clear I would do my best if she'd just let me know what she wanted. She failed utterly to AGF and since she never listed her concerns until she put the article on FAR then her assertion that she'd given anyone a chance to even discuss her concerns is, to say the least, implausible. I am now going back to bed. I will try to get back on tomorrow and will address any specific issues then; but for now, allow me to state that I'm not asserting the article lacks inline sourcing. I have never made that assertion, and anyone talking about the article here is missing that C is accusing me of 'admin abuse' and also SV, whom she accuses of collaborating with me (which those of you who have seen mine and SVs interactions over the past year or so will find laughable at best.) Regardless, she's clearly claiming I'm in a Super Sekret Kabal to harass her, and all I ever wanted was for her to list what she thought was wrong with the damn article, preferably without insulting me or other editors, or acting like a total shit to anyone. I got neither of those wishes. Good night, and apologies for any terseness in this post. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) In response to Slrubensein, about the tags, when reading articles I personally find fact tags pretty helpful as a warning. I know they may or may not be of use in editing... They often get ignored; but I have seen editors who care about a topic work to provide citations to replace fact tags. As a reader, fact tags tell me that someone who probably knew something about the topic felt that a statement was contentious or unreliable, and when I'm genuinely interested in finding information on the topic, that helps me know which information to question. Of course there are drive-by taggers who don't know much about the topic, but then, editors who know better would probably remove it -- therefore if the fact tag remains, I know it's probably there for a somewhat good reason. Equazcion (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Fact tags can be helpful, because they tell you what exactly needs to be checked. But this was a tag slapped on the entire article, with no effort made to say what needed sources, no offer of help to find them, and indeed a direct request to help being rebuffed, accompanied by edit warring to restore the tag when two editors removed it. That kind of tagging isn't helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC) As has already been noted, I DID say what needed sources before KC got involved[97] and before you got involved.[98]. Instead, the only responses were "be more specific", as if you'd prefer I slap a fact tag on every last unsourced sentence in the article (the large bulk of the article), which would then result, I'm sure, in being reverted again. The fact is, the article has enough unsourced statements that the article tag is far more practical than individual fact tags. And as KC now claims I didn't explain until the FAR, it would seem that he has no problems with my FAR details which is...the same points I'd pointed out before and that he either kept ignoring or kept claiming was not specific enough. I made more than enough effort to explain, numerous times, and was attacked every time. It is not my job to help you or anyone else to find sources for the article, which I have never edited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Wow, my post near the beginning of this thread[99] must have been invisible. People simply go on saying the article needs footnotes—is unsourced because it doesn't have footnotes. It would really be helpful if they read the whole thread first. Or, another suggestion: please go straight to the FAR of the article, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1. I believe people are more likely there to have read the article before posting, because, as Tznkai points out, ANI isn't really for content disputes. I suspect many people aren't psychologically prepared for a tl;dr thread about footnotes (that dullest of subjects) when they dip into an ANI thread such as this one. And I'm extremely sorry that I've now made it longer and duller still! Bishonen | talk 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Bish, this article needs footnotes (inline citations) if it's going to remain a FA (inline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria). I think this is what Collectonian was pointing out. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Inline citations are indeed mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria where appropriate. Where appropriate =/= every paragraph, sentence, clause, etc. and it's unfortunate -- perhaps even a bit tragic -- that we as a community lost sight of that, that we lost our ability to stop and think about what our guidelines are and why we have them. --JayHenry (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Wow is right. I'll admit that I haven't read much of this tl;dr thread, but I have to say that I am truly shocked to see this here. I've known KC for a while, and I have never known her to be unwilling to discuss, explain, or work to an acceptable solution. I have to ask - was there an attempt to talk this through with KC (and/or Slim), if so could you point me to it, because I haven't found it or clicked the right link yet. — Ched :  ?  02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Jay, exactly right. But what do we do about it? I've tried to raise the issue at the FA and FAR talk pages. I've tied to make it clear on WP:V and its talk page that not every edit needs a citation. But the reality is that inline citations are demanded on FA for the most trivial and obvious of points. As a result, submitting an article for FA nowadays is a truly miserable experience, and some of our best FAs are being delisted, or threatened with delisting, because of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I count about six sentences in the opening two paragraphs that I would tag as needing a cite. And to be honest, if this was a new article, I would point the creator to WP:NOR and WP:V and remove large chunks of text if nothing was done. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) The article has cleqrly sourcing problems and doesn't meet current FA criteria. Furthermore, I fail to see the "personal attacks" removed here by KillerChihuahua[100], and can't help but notice that the clear and obvious personal attack by Giano made minutes before in the same discussion[101] is not removed. I think it is best if people like KillerChihuahua and Giano took a step back from this article and discussion, it looks as if they aren't approaching this in a neutral manner at all. Fram (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC) KillerChihuahua isn't an admin? That is a real problem here that needs fixing. Unless it breaches animal cruelty laws. Verbal chat 08:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd page move by admin - support for reversion sought

Hi - got an odd one. Admin User:Proteus renamed a page without discussion or consensus at Tom Denning, Baron Denning. One of the regulars at that page is a bit upset as a result.

What makes it odd is that the admin had never edited that article before as far as I can tell. Also there was an extensive discussion where consensus for the pre-move name was achieved seven months ago. Talk:Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning#Changes_and_move.

Attempts have been made to contact the admin involved but he's been offline for four days. Hence User:Ironholds contacted me and asked me to revert. I don't see any problem, but thought I'd run it past the community before taking action. Manning (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the talk page, or anything in the history, to imply any upset with the move. If a discussion is needed it should be taking place on the article talk page. Also it seems that the argument being used against the move on Proteus's talk page really has nothing to do with the move as the article was named in that style previously anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that there was a clear consensus for the previous name and this was changed without any discussion is substantial. Manning (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. If there is consensus, then move it back. At this point we have yes an undiscussed move, but also only one regular editor speaking against it. Doesn't seem like intervention is needed at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While there is nothing on the talkpage noting upset at the move, there are two examples on the talkpage noting the consensus for the pre move title. The one from 2005 might be considered deprecated if not for the one noted by Manning from earlier this year, which confirmed it. Notwithstanding lack of a link to the upset, the admin clearly was unaware of consensus and the move should be reverted. Another discussion may then be restarted by the admin over what policy they believe backs their action - in other words, I think this is a matter of WP:BRD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just putting in my 2 cents. I don't think the consensus was particularly pronounced, but fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the input from both of you. Cheers Manning (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a major issue, since BRD happens all the time. As ever, when I commnt here, it is just my 2cents also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Block for NPA violation by Ched

I bring this matter to the attention of my esteemed colleagues so that the party I've blocked has fair audience. I have blocked Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and notified the editor here. While calling another editor a nitwit is hardly the most egregious of things, I believe that this is totally unacceptable. For those of you not familiar with the term "rider of the short bus", it is slang for calling a person mentally retarded. (see here). There are two reasons that I bring this before my peers: 1.) It is always possible that I'm unaware of something that may have a bearing on the situation, and 2.) I will be out of town for some period today, and away from the keyboard for periods of time. As always, an administrator that feels any modifications to my actions would be of benefit to the project, is free to make them at their own discretion. I'll hold no judgment on any admin acting in good faith for the betterment of the 'pedia. I'll also make note of this post on the editor's talk page. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I would have sent both of them to the corner for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• No cause for concern - your actions seem fully justified and reasonable. I'll be around for a few hours so I'll keep an eye on it. Manning (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've unblocked Calton to participate in this discussion, and notified User:JohnHistory of the thread after input from a couple respected editors that may feel I was not being fair to all sides. I believe the block was good, but since another admin. has questioned it on Calton's talk page, and there is a concern here, then I respect the views of the community and have no desire to apply my actions unfairly. I've notified both users of this thread, and hope the community can assist in this matter. Either way, this disruption and these personal attacks must be brought to a halt. Thank you for your support Manning, and thank you for keeping an eye on things while I must be away. I'll check back in as soon as possible. — Ched :  ?  11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely unacceptable comments, block is appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Viridae; but I don't see any reason why he should've been unblocked when transclusion templates exist. In any case, this long term problem needs to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several long-term problems here. The first is, of course, the ease with which Calton reaches heatedness in an argument. One of the participants on User talk:JohnHistory was ObserverNY (talk · contribs), who appears only a few sections above on this very page. So that's a second long-term problem. Then there's the subject matter, which is United States politics, the extreme partisanship and battlegrounding which some U.S. editors present, with regard to which, is a third long-term problem. Then there's the classic thinking that everyone holding a contradictory position is one person. That's a long-term problem outside of Wikipedia, and a long-standing one on Usenet, and a fourth long-term problem here. Then there's repeated "would you personally do this, Calton?" badgering and baiting. (Just look at the length of User talk:Calton#Okay then let's debate it.) This brings the count of long-term problems, all accumulating and compounding here in this incident, to six. There's far from one long-term problem to be addressed, here.

    And that's not even counting the fact that this all came from Talk:Van Jones, so the Obama-related-articles ArbCom sanctions are probably here in the mix somewhere, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My only recollection of dealings with Calton was regarding the NeutralHomer incident from a couple of days ago - at that point, he seemed to clearly misunderstand the nature of mental illness, and felt it to be "fair game". I sadly am not surprised by this action. Unfortunately, a good block. Passion is good - incivility towards invisible disabilities is not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What ARE you talking about? My point -- my ONLY point -- was saying and giving evidence that Neutralhomer was using his Asperger's as an excuse for bad behavior -- despite his claims to the contrary -- and someone else's suggestion of therapy of a self-disclosed condition he himself claims is a barrier to proper editing behavior is not a personal attack. Short form: discussing a topic one raises oneself is not off-limits.

Hell's bell's, I did not -- and would not -- use the phrase "mental illness" as you did to describe the condition, so I'd say YOUR confusion of Asperger's with "mental illness" is a much more problematic misunderstanding. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. Ched 173.88.220.161 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You did right. Better to be safe. He can always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also, any administrator that feels there is evidence or consensus to conclude the matter in one fashion or another is free to act in the manner they feel best for the 'pedia. I'll not pass judgment, or be upset no matter the result. Ched. 173.88.220.161 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Entirely proper block.  Sandstein  20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Entirely ludicrous -- and context-free -- block I'd call it, given, for example, that the blocking admin's bogus rationale: I'm harassing JohnHistory? Who, exactly was that who was posting the thousands of words of ludicrously off-topic baiting that he was explicitly requested, numerous times, to stop clogging my talk page with? (Hint: not me.) He came to my talk page looking for an entirely unwanted argument and badgering -- note that his second message was -- what? -- half-an-hour later with demands I answer him immediately? He would not stop. I made ONE off-hand comment on a User Talk page and I get harassed in return. Why the blocking admin let the harasser get away with it might be due to the admin's explicit support of the harasser and his cohorts' points of view.

I did not and do not have the slightest interest in arguing politics, ESPECIALLY in a way that is utterly irrelevant to building an encyclopedia -- hey, wasn't that the point of this project? -- which, since I have not and do participate in the writing of articles on said subjects, might provide a clue to even the most careless reader why JohnHistory's mistaking of my User Talk page for a Free Republic thread was wildly inappropriate, especially when he was told so explicitly and he refused to stop. Cherry-picking words and completely ignoring context are particularly bad rationales for the use of admin tools.

Uncle G makes several good points -- and Ncmvocalist utterly misses it -- though based on the reports coming through here, the problem with "extreme partisanship" seems almost all one-sided. I would also quibble with his characterization of what I would call my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. As far as I'm concerned, the long-term solution would be to discourage an increase in the number of fools, but that doesn't appear to be a priority around here: about more, see Uncle G's post above.

Now, if things are true to form, some of the regulars will scan my text looking for the contrition code words and, finding none, will call for immediate blocking because I "don't get it". I'd suggest they read the actual words and points and compare them to the actual context first. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, as you took the better part of the weekend and stepped away from the WP editing, I'm content to consider the matter closed. You've been here long enough to know that personal attacks are not acceptable. I'm not interested in any of the "mommy, he did it first" crap here. To paraphrase your own words: "To recap in words [anyone] should have no trouble understanding" Suggesting that an editor has mental deficiencies (riding the short bus) is a personal attack. Don't do it again. — Ched :  ?  13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional oversight of admins?

I assume the fact that no one addressed these edits before they were archived as an unintentional oversight. (???)

Some users have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally delete several images that consist entirely of text and/or simple geometric shapes. I request that they all be restored as improper speedy deletions.

File:ASUinterlock.gif

File:AzSt.gif

File:Colorado.gif restored

File:Akron.gif

File:Tulane shield web.png *note that this one was deleted after someone changed the file tag. Needs to be fixed.

File:UT&Tmark.png restored

While I view these as clear PD images, it doesn't mean they can't have a valid use and a FUR even if someone decides they aren't PD. No notice was given as far as I can tell and speedy deletion wasn't appropriate here. Request these images be restored and, if the orignal deleter decides, place them back up for deletion via normal channels. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:DRV? They aren't clear PD images to me, and so they had an improper license, a valid speedy criteria. If you want them restored, you can ask the deleting admin and then go onto DRV. I don't see what else should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What specifically about them isn't PD? They consist entirely of typeface (some might have simple geometric shapes too). All of those are not eligible for copyright. While they all clearly have trademark protections, they are PD images, not copyrights. What am I missing here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if they aren't clear, you nominate for deletion and notify the uploader, not just delete them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Several of these images have been restored. Thank you. If anyone feels the restorations are in error, please feel free to nominate them for deletion: WP:FFD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Working with the deleting admins now to at least move the discussion to WP:FFD if not full restoration. Seems like a simple mistake, easy to fix. I'll place the results here for the record. This section can be archived and I'll add the results to the archive under WP:IAR if no one has a problem with that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External link "Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika/At Thy will, South Africa"

Resolved

 – Update: spamlist amended/issue resolved (for now) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a host of IPs going 'round, adding a video by the Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation to all South Africa-related articles, particularly South Africa under apartheid. The video, tellingly, starts out by talking about "the civilizing light of Europe" that was brought to the dark continent and continues in a similar tone. I just weeded out most of them (I hope all of them), see my contribs.

Despite the fact that a discussion-string was started at the said page, the IPs are unwilling to engage in a conversation, switch to a different address and re-add the link (even putting it sometimes at the top of articles, or very close to the top). I'm at a loss. I don't think I can request semi-protection for 37 articles at a time... Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist the link? The website seems to be hosted on the John Birch Society and we can debate its overall later another time. From a search at Special:LinkSearch, there's quite a few more uses (the election pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be a good solution. I'd be interested in a centralized discussion regarding the video's merits, but running around undoing stuff isn't my cup of tea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really work on centralized discussion really. If the video is a reliable source then it can be used anywhere it's considered relevant. If it's not, it's not appropriate anywhere. If they're just spamming anywhere and everywhere, then they'll all be removed. If there's a remote attempt at some discussion, then it's worth having. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added it for proposed blacklisting. I hope I did this right, never done this before. If somebody finds the time, please check it to see if it's ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Added to the blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#At_Thy_will_South_Africa_.2F_Ons_vir_jou_Suid-Afrika--Hu12 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin

Resolved

 – No administrative action possible or needed. Please take the chit chat elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 09:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For reasons I can not fathom, User:KillerChihuahua appears to be on a crusade against me. The issue started at Oroonoko, which I came across while looking through novel FAs. I noticed it had a lot of unsourced material, which is not acceptable in an FA, so I tagged it for refimprove. The tag was removed by User:Outriggr with a summary of "this n that"[102] so I readded with a fuller explanation of why[103]. Outrigger again removed[104] with a note of "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else." so I added again, wiht another explanation and posted a note to the talk page giving even further details.[105][106]. I also posted notes to the Book and Novel projects about the problem. This was on September 14th. On the 16th, KillerChihuahua suddenly pops in and removes the tag again[107] with a summary of "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to acheive FA; overkill at least". As noted, I had already explained the concerns on the talk page, which he was clearly aware of as he requested I be more specific.[108] I again reiterated the lack of citations, which he responded to in a hostile fashion saying the tagging was a last resort and claiming I was uncivil and "template happy". I refuted the claim that templating is a "last resort" and went into further detail, specifying which sections and paragraphs were not cited. He was still not "happy" and continued to demand I be even more specific in an increasingly hostile and belligerent fashion and continues to deny that I have explained my concerns.[109][110] I finally got sick of being so attacked for noting a problem with the article, and as it seemed no one actually wanted to address the actual problem - lack of citations, instead of attack me for saying so, I went ahead and started the FAR. On the 20th, SlimVirgin joined in the discussion, asking if I would be fixing the article myself and offering to "help" me do it[111] I declined to answer, so he posted to my talk page to reiterate the question.[112] I explained that I would not be responding there anymore after the hostile responses from KC, and that I had already started the FAR and would let the community discuss dealing with it.[113] SlimVirgin then tried to claim that I was engaging in "drive-by" tagging and that I was obligated to fix the article because I tagged it for having issues and because I started the WP:FAR on it, and repeating KC's claim that I was somehow spraying "graffitti" on the article because I tagged it. After a lengthy exchange,[114] I tired of the argument and removed it from my talk page. SlimVirgin then copied it to the talk page of the article, despite it having nothing to do with the article, so I removed my comments.[115] KC restored them, claiming I was trying to "change history"[116] and left me a level 3 warning for vandalism![117] He also modified my FAR to remove my notes indicating that I had attempted to have the article worked on before the FAR, claiming it was a personal attack[118] while leaving a real personal attack alone[119], not surprisingly this attack was also left by a third administrator User:GiacomoReturned. When another editor noted and removed it, KC deliberately restored it[120] saying "please discuss this with G.". This has been a seriously upsetting experience and is not the sort of behavior I'd expect from any administrator, much less three. I violated no policies, no guidelines, and did nothing wrong except apparently dare to note that an old FA from 2005 no longer meets the featured article criteria and trying to prod someone to work on it. None of these administrators are listed as being in either the Books nor Novels project, neither had edited the article before this except SlimVirgin who apparently did one edit to it in 2005. So I'm baffled and confused as to why this seemingly coordinated attack has begun and with such an insane level of hostility and viciousness. To have so much attention, I can't help questioning what off-wiki activities might be behind it all. In either case, would like some neutral admins to review this situation and, hopefully, provide some assistance to stop this harassment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Too much to review quickly, but just to point out that User:GiacomoReturned is not an admin Well... Black Kite 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) ...and having looked at the article, that looks wildly undersourced for an FA, though I am not an expert on the subject matter. Black Kite 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) No, it isn't undersourced. Perhaps you only looked for footnotes, Black Kite? There are other, by no means inferior or less complete, methods of sourcing; I won't bore everybody here with one of the dullest subjects in the universe, but I've explained it in [this post here]. Note especially my quotation from Outriggr. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Struck that part, misread his user page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Too long, didn't really read, but also didn't see anything that has anything to do with administration. Seems more like a content dispute. Perhaps if the complaint was concise and to the point...--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sometimes complex issues take more than a soundbite to describe. I think if you take the time to read it you'll understand why Collectonian thinks this is an issue appropriate for AN/I. I took the time and I get it. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't make it much more concise without leaving out the appropriate support and history, which is usually asked for when doing AN/Is, especially regarding an admin. Short version, though, is I feel the two admins noted are harrassing and making personal attacks against me for pointing out a FA level article no longer meets the FA criteria and tagging it for needing more references, and KC, in particular, is being openly hostile, left a completely inappropriate level 3 vandalism warning on my page for removing my own comments copied elsewhere, and tried to refactor the FAR to remove my remarks claiming it is a personal attack while blatantly allowing an editor's personal attack in response to the FAR to remain. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Bit difficult in this case I think, because it's convoluted. I have to say that though that KillerChihuahua's vandalism warning strikes me as inappropriate, and restoring this one of Giano's comments whilst removing Collectonian's (which wasn't even a personal attack) strikes me as frankly ludicrous. Admin action needed though? Unsure. Black Kite 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I take lying about me as a personal attack. I was named. This is unacceptable. I stated in my edit summary FA is the wrong venue to raise complaints about an individual editor and to resolve issues with those editors. C chose to restore the falsehood and ignore my attempts to discuss with her. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) See below. Black Kite 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I think some clarification on when it's appropriate to up and move conversations would be helpful. It appears SlimVirgin asked Collectonian a question on his talk, and then after 5 or 6 vack and forths, moved it elsewhere. We are subject to review for our words whereever they are, of course. But is it acceptable practice to move conversations out of userspace that way, after they've been archived? ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) This is common behavior toward the nominator if any article affiliated with Geogre (talk · contribs) is nominated for FAR. I have personally experienced it and thought you were brave to nominate it. I have learned from experience that nothing is to be done about the resulting abuse except ignore it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Mattisse, even apart from the fact that Geogre left the project in July, so one would have thought it might be time for you to stop spitting venom at him, that is exactly the kind of remark ArbCom and your mentors have tried to get you to stop making. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Quick note, I do not have time to respond to this fully: This is not about the article, which so far as I know no one has stated could not be improved - I in fact asked several times for a list of issues, and C informed me it was 'not her job'; I contest the assertion that C answered queries about concerns in any meaningful fashion; the brief ew over copied content involved a question I asked of C, SV and C had a discussion, then C removed the entirety. I believe (not being SV I am guessing of course) that as it was entirely about the article, the tagging, etc, SV felt it was pertinent and copied to article talk; C removed only her comments leaving my question and SV's posts rendered meaningless. I view this as falling under refactoring others comments in effect if not in specific; I support the solution tendered by another editor; I stand by my warning as appropriate - had C removed the entire section that would have been one thing, but rendering others' comments nonsensical and meaningless is a hostile act - and the entire situation has been from the start hostility by C and refusal to respond in any civil fashion to questions and concerns. I will reply in more detail when I can; thanks in advance for your patience. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I do need something explained to me: Where is it declared in any policy or guideline page, that, if a person requests further sourcing on an article, it is incumbent upon them to do the sourcing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Nowhere, because that's not the case, and no one has suggested it is. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Can you just clear something up? This edit - which is why I made the comment I did above. Excuse me if I'm being stupid. Black Kite 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Slim Virgin seems to disagree with you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I don't like to see any kind of drive-by tagging, and particularly not of a featured article. If you tag an article as POV, you should first make an effort to make it neutral; if as uncited, first look for some references; if as OR, try removing the OR first, and so on. Otherwise, we end up with a class of editors who go around adding tags but leaving the job of improving things to others; and if no one does the work, the tags might sit there pointlessly for months or even years. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Your personal preferences have no bearing here. It is not incumbent upon Collectonian to source something that is not properly sourced, it is the resonsibility of the people edit warring to remove Collectonian's tag. Either leave the tag where it is, or source the article. It's that simple. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I personally find tagging of this sort very frustrating. Editors who don't think the tags are justified have the options of either (1) wasting time adding sources they don't see a need for, or (2) leaving an FA in a disfigured state. I am inclined to see it as disruptive for a single editor to fight to maintain tags when no other editor supports them. Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (ec; reply to Mattisse) The reason for that, Matisse, is that Geogre's articles are among Wikipedia's best. That doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't be improved. Nor does it mean that inline citations wouldn't be welcome. But when we have Augustan literature removed as an FA, for example, while numerous articles about video games remain starred, some editors feel that signals a problem with the project. Therefore, when yet another of Geogre's articles is tagged and listed at FAR, it can't help but be a little depressing—especially when the FAR was added only because some editors asked that the article not be defaced with a tag. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I completely agree with you about the bias towards pop culture in FAs; though sadly this reflects our demographic. I made the comment that I did above though, because I looked at this article and thought "if this was at FAC now, would it pass?". And I don't think it would - fine article as it is - with that little sourcing for many of the paragraphs. So I don't think one can attack Collectonian too much for thinking the same thing. Black Kite 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) But then surely the thing to do is stick around to help improve it. Or else move on. Tagging it helps no one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs I would generally agree. However, I must admit that I have found in the past (in cases of FAs abusing non-free images) that in some cases, tagging is sometimes the only way to get people's attention. So each case needs to be taken on its merits. Black Kite 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The FAR was added because the article does not meet FAC. The tagging was an attempt to give a chance to improve before the FAR, but the response showed there would be none done. As for Geogre articles being "among the best", I have no idea who he is but if this article is any indication, I'd have to disagree with you that they are among the best at this time. And I have no bias in what I will FAR, I have FARed pop culture articles as well, and agree with you that there are many that should not be starred. That, however, is not a valid reason to attack someone for noting this article, whoever wrote it, needs fixing and being hostile towards a good faith effort to note so, call attention to it, and taking appropriate steps when those efforts are rebuked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Are you saying that some subjects are more worthy of FA status than others, or that some editors' articles are more worthy of FA status than others'? I'm not clear here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Wow. I hadn't even looked at the article when I made my comments above, as my comments were based upon behavior and claims by certain admins, but not upon the content that the disagreement was about. I go and look at the article, and lo and behold, this article is almost completely bereft of inline citations. What the hell is the disagreement about? This poorly sourced articles needs sourcing, period. Is is not incumbent upon Collectonian to do the sourcing, it is incumbent upon those who disagree with him to prove that the article is properly sourced. It is not. Collectonian was perfectly correct in behaving the way she did. KC and SlimVirgin are completely out of line here, and referring to Collectonian's complaints as vandalism is far more a damning comment upon them, and not upon Collectonian. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC) FWIW, I looked at the article and completely agree with Collectonian. As it stands, the article is a well-written essay. I'm not sure what KC and SlimVirgin are complaining about as it'd be easier to point out the parts that are sourced, rather than the ones that aren't. It's pretty obvious to any experienced editor, never mind those who work on GA's and FA's. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Would it not have been better to add a few more sources than to tag the article for lacking them? That's a much less troublesome way to improve an FA. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) First, a clarification. By sourced, I mean having inline citations. As to your question, the tagger doesn't always have access to the books used as references. Oroonoko relies heavily on scholarly works. If I, for example, place a fact tag beside a statement then I'm hoping that an editor who has access to the reference work will replace it with an inline citation. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I am not sure if I will succeed, but I will try to make a constructive comment here. It seems to me that this article is about three things: User:Geogre, FAs, and tags. I have never worked with Geogre and can't make any comment about him/her. About FAs and tags, I do have three things to say. First, I personally am against FA. I started out here when Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit at any time, which had the correlary that all articles are works in progress. I remember when FA was first proposed; Wikipedia had reached a point where we knew we had some articles that stood up to the best online encyclopedias and felt that we should put our best work forward. I appreciate the reasoning here, I just don't agree, I would rather we always present a shaggy face to the world as a project that is always becoming something else. But, boy!, am I in a minority! And it seems to me that IF we are going to have FA, the purpose being to say to the wider world "this article is good enough to rely on, it holds up well next to other encyclopedias" then it makes perfect sense that it have a higher degree of immunity to all those pesky tags that frankly make the article look ugly and unfinished. "Unfinished? Why, our articles are never finished, this is a constant work in progress" you say. And I agree which is why I do not like FA. But we do have FA so let's take it seriously. We can continue talking about the article's defects on the talk page and discuss how to improve it and even edit it, but let's try to maintain a presentable look to non-Wikipedians which is a major purpose of FA. Second, Wikipedia is a place where our standards for ourselves are constantly being scaled up. Articles that were considered great in 2002 were crap in 2004; articles that were considered stellar in 2004 were crap in 2006. Public scrutiny compels higher and higher standards, and the more we work on it the higher our own expectations grow. So, no offense to anyone who brought an article up to FA status, don't be surprised if sometime later people who are reading the article for the first time cannot believe it ever got FA. I am trying to explain an inevitable phenomena, not to criticize anyone. Final point: I hat those tags as much as I hate FA. Collectonian, I applaud your pointing out problems with the article on the talk page. I do not think you are going to care about what I have to say next so let's agree I am speaking in general, and not addressing you or anyone personally. When I first came to Wikipedia, I read articles that interested me. When I saw weaknesses and i knew how to fix thenm, I made changes. Over time I saw articles that I knew needed work and i didn't know what to do, and that meant my taking time to read books and articles and I made edits (and this was before V and RS and a lot of what I wrote then was unattributed which of course means that today it either has tags or citations). I often came into conflict with other editors and began editing talk pages as much as articles. But I never added a tag. Now, I understand the reason we have tags. Oftentimes someone (like me) did research and added content at a time when we neve required citations or references. Now that we like citations, who better to provide them (for content I added) than me? Someone else adding a cite tag can be a hasty request to me to add citations. I get the point, I really do. When we were in a time of transition from no cites to all cites, such tags were valuable prompts or ways of telegraphing a request. But we have long passed that transition. And now we have an encyclopedia with lots of article filled with these ugly tags, and NO ONE working to add the cites. C'mon, this just makes Wikipedia ugly. What is the value of these tags anymore? To signal the work on the article is not yet complete? Well, now we go back to my original point: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit anytime, so all articles are in progress. We do not need all these tags which cummulatively makes an article ugly just to signal this fact. It should be made clearly on the main page. Apparently we have no shortage of people coming by to add tags. What we have a real shortage of are people who will do research to improve articles. We are dying for editors who can do research to improve articles. There was a time when Wikipedia grew largely because it attracted people who either knew something they could add, or were willing to research something that they could add. I miss those days. The number of editors has grown exponentially, and yet where are those editors who, like I did when I first came here, saw something missing, did a little research, and added it? My point is simple: THIS is the real problem afflicting Wikipedia right now: not articles lacking citations, but a project lacking people willing to do research when they see it needs doing. Maybe this is what KC and SV were responding to, i do not want to speak for them. But it is clear to me what the graver problem is. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Statement 2: I didn't ask for C to add sourcing. Read the talk page. I asked what the complaints were, so they could be addressed. C refused to clarify; how are we supposed to "fix" an article if she won't say what is wrong? This is absurd. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Addendum/What is the issue here: I will try to summarize. C edit warred against at least two editors to tag the article while refusing to say what she thougth needed to be done to fix it, being so hostile and rude one (who tried to improve the article when removing the tag) left in misery; the other is myself: I have asked numerous times, saying "I'm trying to help" etc, for what C sees as the specific issues. C was so nasty that if I were not sick as a dog and barely editing at all I would have already started an Rfc on her. She has been uniformly hostile and rude, and refused to answer simple questions which were only asked so her concerns can be addressed. She has now placed the article on FAR, lying and saying no one was interested in improving the article, even though I made it clear I would do my best if she'd just let me know what she wanted. She failed utterly to AGF and since she never listed her concerns until she put the article on FAR then her assertion that she'd given anyone a chance to even discuss her concerns is, to say the least, implausible. I am now going back to bed. I will try to get back on tomorrow and will address any specific issues then; but for now, allow me to state that I'm not asserting the article lacks inline sourcing. I have never made that assertion, and anyone talking about the article here is missing that C is accusing me of 'admin abuse' and also SV, whom she accuses of collaborating with me (which those of you who have seen mine and SVs interactions over the past year or so will find laughable at best.) Regardless, she's clearly claiming I'm in a Super Sekret Kabal to harass her, and all I ever wanted was for her to list what she thought was wrong with the damn article, preferably without insulting me or other editors, or acting like a total shit to anyone. I got neither of those wishes. Good night, and apologies for any terseness in this post. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) In response to Slrubensein, about the tags, when reading articles I personally find fact tags pretty helpful as a warning. I know they may or may not be of use in editing... They often get ignored; but I have seen editors who care about a topic work to provide citations to replace fact tags. As a reader, fact tags tell me that someone who probably knew something about the topic felt that a statement was contentious or unreliable, and when I'm genuinely interested in finding information on the topic, that helps me know which information to question. Of course there are drive-by taggers who don't know much about the topic, but then, editors who know better would probably remove it -- therefore if the fact tag remains, I know it's probably there for a somewhat good reason. Equazcion (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Fact tags can be helpful, because they tell you what exactly needs to be checked. But this was a tag slapped on the entire article, with no effort made to say what needed sources, no offer of help to find them, and indeed a direct request to help being rebuffed, accompanied by edit warring to restore the tag when two editors removed it. That kind of tagging isn't helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC) As has already been noted, I DID say what needed sources before KC got involved[121] and before you got involved.[122]. Instead, the only responses were "be more specific", as if you'd prefer I slap a fact tag on every last unsourced sentence in the article (the large bulk of the article), which would then result, I'm sure, in being reverted again. The fact is, the article has enough unsourced statements that the article tag is far more practical than individual fact tags. And as KC now claims I didn't explain until the FAR, it would seem that he has no problems with my FAR details which is...the same points I'd pointed out before and that he either kept ignoring or kept claiming was not specific enough. I made more than enough effort to explain, numerous times, and was attacked every time. It is not my job to help you or anyone else to find sources for the article, which I have never edited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Wow, my post near the beginning of this thread[123] must have been invisible. People simply go on saying the article needs footnotes—is unsourced because it doesn't have footnotes. It would really be helpful if they read the whole thread first. Or, another suggestion: please go straight to the FAR of the article, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1. I believe people are more likely there to have read the article before posting, because, as Tznkai points out, ANI isn't really for content disputes. I suspect many people aren't psychologically prepared for a tl;dr thread about footnotes (that dullest of subjects) when they dip into an ANI thread such as this one. And I'm extremely sorry that I've now made it longer and duller still! Bishonen | talk 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Bish, this article needs footnotes (inline citations) if it's going to remain a FA (inline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria). I think this is what Collectonian was pointing out. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Inline citations are indeed mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria where appropriate. Where appropriate =/= every paragraph, sentence, clause, etc. and it's unfortunate -- perhaps even a bit tragic -- that we as a community lost sight of that, that we lost our ability to stop and think about what our guidelines are and why we have them. --JayHenry (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Wow is right. I'll admit that I haven't read much of this tl;dr thread, but I have to say that I am truly shocked to see this here. I've known KC for a while, and I have never known her to be unwilling to discuss, explain, or work to an acceptable solution. I have to ask - was there an attempt to talk this through with KC (and/or Slim), if so could you point me to it, because I haven't found it or clicked the right link yet. — Ched :  ?  02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Jay, exactly right. But what do we do about it? I've tried to raise the issue at the FA and FAR talk pages. I've tied to make it clear on WP:V and its talk page that not every edit needs a citation. But the reality is that inline citations are demanded on FA for the most trivial and obvious of points. As a result, submitting an article for FA nowadays is a truly miserable experience, and some of our best FAs are being delisted, or threatened with delisting, because of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I count about six sentences in the opening two paragraphs that I would tag as needing a cite. And to be honest, if this was a new article, I would point the creator to WP:NOR and WP:V and remove large chunks of text if nothing was done. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) The article has cleqrly sourcing problems and doesn't meet current FA criteria. Furthermore, I fail to see the "personal attacks" removed here by KillerChihuahua[124], and can't help but notice that the clear and obvious personal attack by Giano made minutes before in the same discussion[125] is not removed. I think it is best if people like KillerChihuahua and Giano took a step back from this article and discussion, it looks as if they aren't approaching this in a neutral manner at all. Fram (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC) KillerChihuahua isn't an admin? That is a real problem here that needs fixing. Unless it breaches animal cruelty laws. Verbal chat 08:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd page move by admin - support for reversion sought

Hi - got an odd one. Admin User:Proteus renamed a page without discussion or consensus at Tom Denning, Baron Denning. One of the regulars at that page is a bit upset as a result.

What makes it odd is that the admin had never edited that article before as far as I can tell. Also there was an extensive discussion where consensus for the pre-move name was achieved seven months ago. Talk:Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning#Changes_and_move.

Attempts have been made to contact the admin involved but he's been offline for four days. Hence User:Ironholds contacted me and asked me to revert. I don't see any problem, but thought I'd run it past the community before taking action. Manning (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the talk page, or anything in the history, to imply any upset with the move. If a discussion is needed it should be taking place on the article talk page. Also it seems that the argument being used against the move on Proteus's talk page really has nothing to do with the move as the article was named in that style previously anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that there was a clear consensus for the previous name and this was changed without any discussion is substantial. Manning (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. If there is consensus, then move it back. At this point we have yes an undiscussed move, but also only one regular editor speaking against it. Doesn't seem like intervention is needed at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While there is nothing on the talkpage noting upset at the move, there are two examples on the talkpage noting the consensus for the pre move title. The one from 2005 might be considered deprecated if not for the one noted by Manning from earlier this year, which confirmed it. Notwithstanding lack of a link to the upset, the admin clearly was unaware of consensus and the move should be reverted. Another discussion may then be restarted by the admin over what policy they believe backs their action - in other words, I think this is a matter of WP:BRD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just putting in my 2 cents. I don't think the consensus was particularly pronounced, but fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the input from both of you. Cheers Manning (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a major issue, since BRD happens all the time. As ever, when I commnt here, it is just my 2cents also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation of page apparently broke citations

Resolved

I have no idea what the deal is with all of the <ref> tags at envelope (mathematics), but instead of being footnotes, they now all link to the newly created page Help talk:Cite messages. Could someone please fix this? I am willing to bet large sums of money that this article is not the only one affected by the problem. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that page looks fine for me, but Fighting in ice hockey is displaying the behaviour you describe on my browser. Resolute 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an urgent problem. Many of the articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Help_talk:Cite_messages&limit=500 appear to be affected! Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just tried something with the envelope article – can you try looking at it now and see if it made a difference, as it did to me. – B.hotep •talk• 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That fixed the one (just a null edit?). Now there are many more to fix, though:

• Lacrosse
• Slang
• Servius Tullius
• Narwhal
• Kurdistan Workers' Party

And so on. About half of all articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Help_talk:Cite_messages&limit=500 . Is anyone up to processing these as well? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure as to what the problem was, because I'm not seeing anything wrong on any of those pages. Perhaps it was a temporary glitch, and you just need to clear your cache? Odd. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My fault. I was centralizing some talk pages and goofed by redirecting MediaWiki:Cite references link suffix to that talk page. I found it and deleted it pretty quickly, but I knew it was going to be noticed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha! You got away with it as far as some people running indeterminate browsers/settings are concerned! ;) Resolved (I think) – B.hotep •talk• 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was going to be noticed, so I am prepared for my trout slapping. The job queue is not that large, so it should clear itself up without any "fixing". If you still see it, purging is resolving the problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive and extremely uncivil editor

Resolved

 – Blocked for one week by MastCell. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure I’m in the right place, but I’d like to report a very disruptive and uncivil user. User Die4Dixie has violated several Wikipedia policies within 24hrs. Everything started with him deleting some sources and disputing whether Augusto Pinochet was a fascist dictator or not. Several sources were presented to back up that claim (9 in fact). Within a few hours another user (Frank Pais) besides me joined the discussion on the talk page. Sometime later (within the same day) Die4Dixie left this message (in Spanish) on Frank Pais’s talk page: De hecho, estoy harto de tus pendejadas. Lástima que la gloriosa operación no fuera más exitosa. Si fuera el caso, no tedríamos tener esta plática tan asquerosa. Y lástima que la madre te parió no se desapareciera. [126]

I’m a native Spanish speaker, and this is a rough translation (which can be corroborated by any other native speaker), and the sentence in brackets is mine, so that you get the context of the vicious attack.

In fact, I am very tired of your bullshit. It’s a pity that the glorious operation [to kill leftist in Latin America] was not more successful. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be having this revolting talk. And its pity that the mother gave birth to you did not disappeared.

Right after that, Die4dixie began canvassing for support [127], [128], [129]. Oddly enough, he now claims that he support the inclusion of the word fascist [130] but does so in a pointy way. He has added the Fascism portal into the article, when such an addition is not standard for a leader considered to be fascist. See, Mussolini or Hitler for that matter. I advised him that he might as well add Pinochet into the portal itself as there’s a section for “Persons”. He refuses to do so, discuss or otherwise seek consensus and instead engages in an edit war. [131], [132], [133]. All of this has happened with a 24hr timeframe. Please advice on what to with this very disruptive and uncivil editor. Thanks. Likeminas (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some might question your civility as well.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some might, but after a random sample of recent contributions, I'm not jumping in that direction. I seconded the 3RR warning on D4D's page, but they haven't edited for an hour.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bedford I'm not sure what you're refering to, but I can assure you I'm not even close to violating as many policies as Die4Dixie has. Likeminas (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan he gets away with such a vicious personal attack? Likeminas (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Likeminas has been a voice of reason during edits to the Pinochet article and elsewhere. His civility cannot be reasonably called into question. Dix4Dixie is another story altogether. His conduct has included personal attacks of a particularly vicious nature. Frank Pais (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only adequate reaction to a slur like the one cited by Likeminas is an indefinite block, to be lifted only if and when a credible apology is received.  Sandstein  16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tend to strongly agree. He should be blocked.Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, guys, it was Die4Dixie that stated the slur above, not Likeminas. Assuming that Sandstein and Simonm are speaking about the correct user, then I agree that a block is necessary and add my voice, for any admin trying to determine consensus here. GlassCobra 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can verify the translation of the comment as accurate, as well. Pretty egregious civility violation and a block looks warranted. Shereth 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein, GlassCobra, and Shereth. I have a pretty high bar for block-worthy personal attacks, but that comment was well over the line in any reasonable setting, much less in one that aspires to civility and collaboration. To Die4Dixie's credit, he did strike the comment; on the other hand, I don't know if that's sufficient for something so vile and hateful. More to the point, Die4Dixie has followed it up with continued edit-warring, now disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I've placed a 1-week block. I'm open to having it lifted if there's some evidence that Die4Dixie realizes how inappropriate his comment was. A commitment to stop edit-warring and pursue dispute resolution would be an added plus; there is a reasonable argument that Pinochet's policies should be described rather than labeled, and it may convince people if made reasonably, but these are absolutely the wrong means to pursue it. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I understood perfectly who we were talking about.Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rules violation in other language Wikipedia

Hi, is there a way to make an article in other language Wikipedia to comply with its (and English language too) WP:LIVE, WP:OR, and other WP:5 rules? I'm talking in particular about russian language Wikipedia, and there are editors who keep adding poorly sourced and unsourced material to articles, which also contain negative information about living persons thus breaking WP:LIVE. Administrators there are weak to respond for various reasons including they prefer not to get involved into "hot" topics and suggest a route of "mediation" instead of negative material removal. Thanks for advice. windyhead (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd discuss such an idea at the Russian encyclopedia. There's not much we can do here. Sorry.  GARDEN  20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody can suggest the place where I can get an advice. Russian wikipedia admins are pretty unresponsive, issues were discussed there numerous times. windyhead (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Different language wikipedias are independent of each other so there's nothing that can be done here. Also some of them will have different rules, so it's worth confirming that the rules that apply here also apply there. Valenciano (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are Biography of Living Person concerns, and Russian admins are not taking any notice, you might want to contact someone at the foundation. If Russian wikipedia is trashing the 5 pillars I'm sure someone would want to help you sort something out. but, as other people have said, Russian WP is independent of English WP and so you'll have to show dramatic diffs to get anyone here interested. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to ask on meta. windyhead (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect this page from editing by unconfirmed users?

WP:AN has had to be protected from unconfirmed users due to repeated vicious personal attacks. They're now coming here. Can somebody protect this page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like a range block is going to be required, despite the fallout, because whoever it is is address hopping, and making the attack edit on a wide range of articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? This needs to be addressed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, what just happened here? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• please explain what you are talking about. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • See vandalism on WP:AN which then spread to here. I've removed it. Semi'd ANI for a while to see if they get bored. Rangeblocks will be ineffective, it's AOL, far too wide a range. Black Kite 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • But the edits are being made to all kinds of articles, not just AN and ANI. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits such as this are being dropped all over Wikipedia. This page has been protected, but a range block needs to be looked into. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Which part of "it's too wide a range to block" was the difficult bit? Black Kite 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do you feel the need to be abusive? My concern is that there are too many of these edits, and just protecting these two pages isn't going to accomplish anything if they're editing things like Colorado with the same sort of edit. Have you decided that you've done your part by protecting these two pages, and now nothing more needs to be done? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not being abusive - I pointed out that a rangeblock was not feasible, and you carried on asking for one. There's nothing to be done about edits from a range that wide except treat them as one wuold normal vandalism. It's not that we wouldn't want to block a range that wide, the technical restrictions meant we can't block it (it's a /10 range, max block is a /16 range, it'd need hundreds of rangeblocks) Black Kite 23:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite is one of the very few admins who even understands how to do a rangeblock, let alone is actually willing to go and do one. I'm inclined to think he knows if it's too big of a range or not. Tempting though it may be, we probably shouldn't block half of America from editing Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• We might want to take that to a policy discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept that explanation. Thank you. Your previous snippy, snarky, nasty comment was not acceptable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We might want to think about whether it would be possible to set up short-term edit filters to handle situations like this. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible, if it continues long-term. More likely, as I said, they'll get bored of it eventually. FWIW, I looked at the IPs that have been used so far, and while they don't cover the whole range, they're still too far apart to usefully rangeblock, not to mention the collateral damage. Black Kite 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So instead of figuring out how to keep the guilty parties from editing, it's decided that preventing ALL IP's and new accounts is a better solution? Insert baby with the bathwater, overkill and all those other trite but true cliches here. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone contacted me about this (figuring this was an attack on me), you would have had your answer sooner. Basically, on a different wiki, a member who had it out for me on that wiki decided to come after me here. He is obviously using open proxies, so I don't know how to logically stop him if it happens again short of a range block. –túrian^patois 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. I apply range blocks from time to time and found them moderately effective, but dealing with collateral damage can be a real pain. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC) If the edits are from open proxies, as Turian suggests, doesn't Wikipedia:Open proxies apply? Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The edits that I checked were from a dynamic AOL IP. There may be others that I have not seen. Black Kite 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I offer an apology.

Resolved

 – IP evading block; blocked.  Sandstein  19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I offer an apology for this edit.

[134]

Sometimes AFD debates get heated, and people have episodes of uncontrollable rage. Looking back on it now, I don't believe that all the things I said in this edit are true. In the future I make a commitment for all those who edit from this IP address that we will try and control ourselves, and when we find ourselves becoming emotional in an ADF debate to just walk away from it. I understand now that it is wrong of me to edit when I am on the verge of a nervous break down from Wikistress, because at these times is is difficult for me to be WP:CIVIL. What I should have done would have been to recognize that I was becoming irrational and take a break from editing. I would add that by the principle WP:IAR, that the WP:RBI policy should not apply to this particular edit.

I believe I have the right to do this now since the block on this IP address has timed out.

Make edits not WikiDrama

Thanks for your time.

130.86.73.198 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that. But the IP who made that edit was blocked for block evasion by TeamQuaternion (talk · contribs), a sock of indef-blocked Hobojaks (talk · contribs). So instead of continuing to evade your block, please log in as Hobojaks and make an unblock request with that account, after reading WP:GAB. In the meantime, your IP is now blocked for block evasion.  Sandstein  19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 again

Resolved

 – It was a reasonable page move, and the disambig page has been moved appropriately. Nothing to see, move along... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Following on from the previous ANI thread a few days ago, where it was deemed that no administrative action was necessary, the user has continued to move M2 motorway to M2 motorway (Great Britain), despite a RM discussion being in progress. This is a blatant ignorance towards process, unless some sort of admin intervention occurs she will be allowed to continue in this disruptive point proving process. The RM discussion has been ongoing for only 3 days now, and there may be a consensus forming for a move, but there is certainly no consensus as to where to yet. This behaviour is highly disruptive and needs to be stopped. Jeni ^(talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i support a move in this case, the RM process is still ongoing and there was no reason for Sarah to take action by moving it herself. This is really becoming an annoyance when users move pages with out agreement, because its impossible for things to be moved back fully because other articles are created in their place. Meaning we have to get pages deleted or request an admin to clean up the mess.

Can move "privileges" not be taken away from certain editors who make such a mess? The other night M4 motorway and M3 motorway came under attack aswell, this is not an isolated case and its not just Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned editors that if they persistent in moving M# pages without a discussion that they will be blocked. Black Kite 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the user has resorted to removing speedy deletion templates on pages she has created herself. [135] [136] Jeni ^(talk) 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved the dab page to M2 motorway since it was in the wrong place. If there is consensus to move the page back because the discussion had not reached a conclusion, then feel free to revert me. Black Kite 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Sarah777 been informed of this discussion? Jack forbes (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is far from resolved, her continued disruption needs admin attention. Watch out M3 motorway, logic dates that is next on her list to disrupt ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

OK. Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Template:Politics of Madagascar

I forgot to mention yesterday, above mentioned IP adress (192.18.43.225) is also the source of vandalism on Template:Politics of Madagascar, and i think that some action must be taken to stop this vandalism also. --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

192.18.43.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in an edit war with you at Template:Politics of Madagascar. That's not really a vandalism issue, you two just disagree about the content of the template. I've protected the template to stop the edit war; in the meantime see WP:DR for advice on how to resolve the dispute.  Sandstein  21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bluecanary99

I would like to bring to attention the conduct of Bluecanary99 (talk · contribs). When the cancellation of the radio show Too Beautiful to Live was announced, they immediately started pruning references to it and nominating it for nomination. That's fine. However, their conduct became... off. They became extremely paranoid and/or exhibiting a martyr complex, i.e. everyone who disagrees with me is in some kind of cabal. This only got worse, and he or she created a WP:COIN thread, accusing User:Nathalmad of being Luke Burbank, without any evidence. After "harassment" (i.e. people questioning the very basis of his accusation), he begged and begged to be left alone, to which I finally acquiesced, hoping that it really was all over.

But though he promised to 'never edit any page defended' by our sekret cabal ever again, he started doing just that, but with the opposite intent. He is making strongly pointy edits, attempting to damn Luke Burbank with faint praise. The best example of this is [137], an edit that cannot be justified even by the most diehard TBTL fan, let alone someone who clearly has an agenda against the show.

Furthermore, I would like to point out this account was created a mere 27 hours after a previous account, User:Notabilitypatrol, gave up in their attempts to get unbanned for a long cycle of exhibiting a paranoid martyrdom complex while trying to get TBTL and Luke Burbank's articles deleted. Sound familiar? I have a strong feeling that NotabilityPatrol and Bluecanary99 are the same person, though I doubt the issues at play here justify a checkuser. But due to the lack of civility (They both also share a trend of accusing those who disagree with them of being sockpuppets or, in this case, a meatpuppet of the very subject they're trying to delete) and the recent WP:POINT edits, I wanted to bring this to the wider community. Since there's been no false death threat for them to bandy around like NotabilityPatrol did, I can't justify blocking them with current evidence (And, frankly, I'm surprised I didn't get chastised for that one), and I'm too involved, though I managed to get past that for NotabilityPatrol. But this really does need more eyes looking at it; Bluecanary99 clearly does not have the wiki's best interests in mind with their edits. --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference material:

• The TBTL AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Beautiful to Live (2nd nomination)
• The COIN entry: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_-_Editor_Not_Revealing_IRL_Identity.2C_Possibly_Editing_Articles_About_Himself
• The Wikiquette alert against Bluecanary: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Bluecanary99

Please note, I have pleaded with Golbez, Nathalmad and other members of this group to please leave me alone. I have pledged to them - repeatedly in many different forums - not to edit TBTL or Luke Burbank entries, nor to even view them, in the future and I have apologized for filing a COI against Golbez' colleague Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_-_Editor_Not_Revealing_IRL_Identity.2C_Possibly_Editing_Articles_About_Himself. (Note in this COIN I did the best I could do to draw admin attention to what was then a spiraling out-of-control situation by noting - prior to listing my evidence - an "Appeal for Higher Level Action", noting that - based on 4 hours spent reviewing the edit and talk logs of the first AfD a 'noise machine' would likely be started against me in retribution for the COIN, which did occur ... the only thing I feel guilty for is not understanding just what I would be put through or how fast it would happen. Now, it appears, I'm "in the thick of it.")

I know I got them upset by appealing for help with Arakunem - User_talk:Arakunem#COI_Complaint_Against_Nathalmad - mistakingly thinking he was a mod and could help me and that backfired. I have apologize for raising this issue many times as well.

When I made my initial edits I did not know these were "defended" pages and didn't know what I was getting into. I am not any of the various other users I have been variously accused of being in the last couple days - there are several HUNDRED accounts created "within 27 hours" of any editor ever being banned - I very much invite checkuser or anything else to confirm this; in fact, I would plead not to deny me this before stringing me up. I'm at a total loss of what to do. I just can't deal with the "noise machine" of transparently coordinated "flood complaining" by this group of editors anymore. As a single editor I don't have the time or ability to be in a constant state of defense. Since my apologies and repeated pledges not to edit - or even view - the offending pages have met with no luck I have a strong suspicion my time is up and, if an admin can't be found who'll agree to ban me, Golbez will just do it himself as he told me he would do on my Talk page and elsewhere at a time that suited him.

In my last moments here all I can do is apologize one final time to Golbez, Nathalmad and the others, reiterate my pledge not to make any future attempt to edit "Too Beautiful to Live" or "Luke Burbank" nor to view them, and hope for the best. Golbez, I plead with you, Nathalmad, etc. - again - to please accept my apology and pledge and let us move on. I want to be able to participate in wikipedia and I HONESTLY did not know these were defended pages when I nominated "Too Beautiful to Live" for deletion. I know I was warned by other contributors who were afraid of participating in the AfD discussion there and I should have paid heed.

Humbly Awaiting My Fate - Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you may notice the previous edit was of me doing the same. --Golbez (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems we made the notification edit in the same minute of each other. My apologies for not noticing it first. Basket of Puppies 01:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I became involved after replying to the above named COI report. Bluecanary later asked for help on my Talk page. My advice there was for him to completely disengage. His reply was that an offline "arrangement" had been reached whereby he would take some course of action in return for "guaranteeing his protection". These actions were apparently, judging by his contribs after the fact, to go through various articles and add or replace references to Luke Burbank and the show. I'm a bit concerned by accusations of stalking and phrases like "guaranteeing my protection", though I can't find any on-wiki evidence of such. My advice to Bluecanary still stands: Disengage completely. Just walk away from any and all these pages. You don't have to bargain for your "protection", just stay clear of these areas and ignore any "noise" that comes from them. For this board, if the SSP is not to be pursued, I would ask that we drop it here as well. This user seems to be in a full-on panic over this, and I think it best if all sides just disengage completely. Arakunem^Talk 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The panic, I can assure you, is false, a put-on to attempt to engender sympathy (yet does the opposite, since they spend paragraphs on begging to be left alone, then punch the lion again).

I just noticed something very, very interesting. In my time here, only two users have ever consistently misspelled my name as "Golbrez": NotabilityPatrol, and Bluecanary99. I consider this valid enough evidence to consider them the same person, which means Bluecanary99 is block-evading. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See, Arakunem. Anything ... anything will be found and used as justification for what Golbez decided the minute I filed the COI against Nathalmad: site ban. That's why I gave up on trying to defend myself. I'm going to be banned for an innocuous typo that other users have made but I'm guilty because I did it "consistently" ... even though no logs are provided showing the dozen or so times I did made this horrible typo. If it's not that, I'm sure another similarity or something can be found to justify a ban. Golbez, "The Lion", whatever you prefer I call you - just ban me. I already told you, Nathalmad and the others I give up and surrender. I don't care anymore. I just want it to be over. Please just stop it. Please. Bluecanary99 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest marking this as "resolved" were it not for BlueCanary99's unblock request. But it's extremely transparent that this is a sockpuppet of NotabilityPatrol. Both editors have some really odd quirks, such as copy-pasting the same reply over and over to a person after everything they say in a discussion. That combined with CU confirming that both editors geolocate to the same city is pretty solid. -- Atama頭 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Me, my huggle edits and this IP

Invovled parts:

Gsmgm (talk) and 88.112.189.85 (talk)

Problem:

On twentieth of september 2009 I using WP:Huggle did this edit [138] twenty minutes later 88.112.189.85 enters my talk and started arguing, his first post was by my standard quite offensive: Quote

Trigger happy guy, only after increasing revert/edit counts. See comment below "I don't know what program you're using, but it is clearly not functioning properly" The refered comment below is on my talk page my addition.

End quote

I therefore present him with a 4im for personal attack with explanation of my edit. 3 hours later he again tries to reason with me, albeit with aggressive edit summaries. An hour and five edits later my talk end up with a case of shouting [139]. The next day I present him with a formal apology which was left unanswered to yet. I started a self scrutiny of my huggle edits on the same day, the results can be found here my sandbox talk last section. Gsmgm (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the Administrator Incident Noticeboard - what exactly would you like an administrator to do? What action are you looking for? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will say that your explanation of your revert on 88.112.189.85's talk page does not strike me as satisfactory: "Your edit appeared in huggle as a removal of content and therefor under Wikipedia:Vandalism constituted vandalism". You're justifying your revert based on the fact that Huggle picked it up? A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that a self-calculated error rate of 18% is massive (that's almost 20%, or 1 in 5, incorrect reversions)? Everyone makes mistakes, but it does appear that you might be going a bit too fast. Slow down, and double check your reverts before making them, or you risk rollback being removed. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't understand the sentence where you seemed to gain satisfaction from it. And it's obvious in some of the reverts you simply haven't seen what the other editor is doing. In the one that started this, the editor had added an entire row to the table, not removed any content, in one of the others, the editor had corrected a spelling to include the necessary diacritics (the one you labelled death by wikipedia), in another which you dismissed as unsourced they had corrected an unsourced date of 1520 to an unsourced date of 1519 to make the subject's age match the text which said she was 15. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's not out of line, but I replaced the inappropriate warnings at User talk:88.112.189.85 with a welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV is Backlogged

Resolved

AIV is currently backlogged, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed it as well, but examples like these can go on the actual noticeboard. Someone needs to look at this. ConCompS (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand the last comment there, but the backlog has been dealt with. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this is for incidents, ConComps was likely suggesting that the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard would be more appropriate. Law _{type! snype?} 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Either way, we got it fixed. Manning (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I will put it on AN next time. Thanks for the speedy work on the backlog. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

uncivil editors/vandalism charges against me

Resolved

 – no continuing conduct issue. Content being discussed on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I edited Government of India, where a wrong info is found in the first sentence: "officially referred to as the Union Government". I corrected the sentence to "officially referred to as the Union of India" because the constitution of India says so, which is also my reference. The name is primarily in use in the Indian supreme court. Now two different editors charged me of vandalism! and i got 2 different warnings on my talk page. diff diff2 Please help. --91.130.91.48 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be acting in good faith, so describing your edits as vandalism would thus be improper. Because of this, I have put a notice on the talk pages of Student7 (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) reminding them that good faith edits shouldn't be termed "vandalism".

However, those editors may have other, valid reasons for reverting your edits. If I were you I'd query Talk:Government of India and ask why your edits were reverted before editing the article further. Gabbe (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe - Bilcat didn't seem to like your comment much and replied "Please go waste someone else's time". In addition to echoing your observations about it not being vandalism, I've reminded him to be civil in future. Manning (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the edits, and while I don't know about the facts, the edit appears to be good-faith to me. I also think, however, that this is a content dispute, and this is therefore the wrong venue. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that, as explained at the top of his talk page, BilCat has removed all comments regarding this issue. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With offensive edit summaries. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just glancing, but that looks like standard operating procedure for him. Dayewalker (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

- He deleted my comment with "noted and ignored; please go bother someone who is actually damaging WP" Manning (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts) Perhaps the fact that edit summary comments like "wtf" are ignored, whle my commetns are "offensive" bothers me just a bit. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were less incivil, there would be less cause for people to use such edit summaries as wtf. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the diffs before making such comments - they were maded before my eidts to that page. But the truth doesn't matter in a wtich hunt, does it? - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BilCat clearly shows the order in which the edits were made. Your incivil comments when removing content from your Talk page came after the wtf, and after people's explanation as to why your claims of vandalism were inaccurate. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I like most other admins examined the CONTENT of the revision. There is a BIG difference between saying "WTF" in a content revision (an expression of surprise that I have used myself on occasion) and accusing other editors of vandalism or harassment. There is no "witch hunt". Manning (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when was there a 'witch hunt'? Your comments were more aggressive than the IP's exclamation of surprise. It was pointed out to you, and you removed the comments with another aggressive edit summary. I suggest stepping back a bit, re-reading WP:CIVIL, and discussing the good-faith edit on the talk page. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that BilCat is itching for a fight. I removed the vandalism warning and he reverted it. diff. (Ignore the page revision I made immediately after that - I had screwed up and was about to fix it when I noticed BilCat's action.) Manning (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found another expression of incivility by user bilcat in a summary diff apparently targeting IP's in general. --91.130.91.48 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin harassment

Resolved

 – the only harassing going on is the report itself Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review User:Manning Bartlett actions against me, and other users involed in the above attack. If they would simply stop what they aqre doing to me, I'd have no issue here. This is harrasment, as they will not leave the issue alone. NAd yet they wnat me to not respond! Please, can someone not see what they ae doing. I am a GOOD editor, but I'm no more perfect than they are. Cut a fellow editor the same slack I was supposed to give an IP woth unclear reversions and no edit record. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I warmly invite review of all of my actions. Manning (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-good faith claim. Close this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've issued BilCat a level 4 warning for his repeated harrassment of the IP editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you wish to prove harassment or abuse, you will need to post diffs. → ROUX ₪ 23:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's one by user:Who then was a gentleman?, who obviously isn'! Most of them are on this page already. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And anotehr one by User:Who then was a gentleman?. Please, he is not helping this situation cool down. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that that final comment was left in direct response to a question to me, which Bil has seen fit to remove from his Talk page, leaving only my comment behind. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no the question ws not directed at you. You've been told not to respond on my page, yet you kept doing it. That is harassment. Btw, ythe reason your coment was laft was becasue you added it in between my edits, and I hadn't seen it! - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, your complaint was posted about me. I would be grateful if you could identify which posts of mine you regard as "harassment". Manning (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That one would count! - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm... I'm sorry - which one? I am not being facetious here, by the way. Manning (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? You're allowing Gentleman to say and do anything he want, and yet you still insist on going after me? SO obviously once a person has commited the unpardonalbe sin of "incivility", all incivl actions agains him are OK. All I ever said was to leave me alone and bother someone else? That's incivl? I guess I should have just reverted it with "wtf", as that has been accepted as OK. Don't worry, I'm not that stupid! You'd warn me for that, as I'm not an IP or an admin!- BilCat (talk)

Re your comment "Does it really matter?". It does. You have accused me of admin harassment. I am not disputing your accusation, I am simply asking you to explain which of my edits constitute harassment in your opinion. I think that is fair enough. Manning (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

After taking some time to cool off, as recommended by several users here, I return to find the dispute has been "resolved", and I've been accused of harassment. What's the diffs I have givien against another user who has also been harassing me have also been ignored. So what gives? Sounds like "Good cop, bad cop" to me! It's nice to see that those who claim I should be fair, and assume good faith refuse to return the favors to the "sinners" accused here. ANd people wonder why I never use ANI! I say again in case you've missed it: I have not been uncivil to anyone, though you may disagree with my choice of words or my edits. I stand by that, and I always will. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I edited the article Government of India a few hours back but didn't realize that it was subject to an ANI dispute. As I have knowledge of the underlying content issue let me make a couple of points:

1. The IP's edit which said the that the Government of India is officially known as the Union of India is incorrect, and based on (a good faith) misinterpretation of contitutional langauge. The government is known as the Union Government especially when it is contrasted with state governments, while the country itself is known as the Union of India. Thus Bill Cat et al, were correct in reverting the rroneous edit.
2. However the IPs edit was seemingly made in good faith, and thus should not have been labeled vandalism. I am guessing that this was either an oversight, or misunderstanding of wikipedia jargon.
3. The ANI report, multiple templated messages, and all the subsequent hot words and belligerent responses are really over the top for such a minor content dispute and labeling error. I believe that a few polite talk page message and archival of this thread could have worked much better. Caveat: I haven't examined the editing history in detail, so its possible that I missed such attempts, if they were made.

Anyway, lets archive this now since the conduct issue seems to have been settled. As for the content issue: if there is still a dispute, it can be discussed on the talk page.
PS: Can someone archive this thread ?Abecedare (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was absolutely floored when I found out that my original reply to anon had evolved into such a storm in a teacup. Gabbe (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometime ANI threads take on a life of their own, feeding on themselves for sustenance. I'll archive this beast before it resurrects. Abecedare (talk) 08:39, 22 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.

Vandalism continues on Pokémon manga articles

For background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Removal of demographic on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#User:TheFarix, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721/Archive. Editor as returned to using Dynamic IPs from AT&T in Springfield, Missouri claiming that the sourced information that he/she had previously called synthisis are now a personal attacks against some obscure forum users.[140][141][142][143] —Farix (t | c) 22:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the two largest Pokémon forums on the internet "obscure". --70.245.189.21 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"obscure forum users" does not seem to mean "users" on "obscure forums" but instead seems to mean "obscure users" who are on "forums". Could be wrong, English is an iffy language.- Sinneed 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the both the forum and its users are obscure. However it is absurd to claim that stating that a manga (comic) is targeted towards children (referred to as Kodomo) is some sort of personal attack. This is not the first time this editor has vandalized Pokémon manga articles. He/she has removed the exact same information from both this article and Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, which is currently semi-protected do to the vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been at this for awhile and has been blocked some half dozen times, at the last, under different IPs. He is also now vandalizing Church of Scientology and he has already jumped to a new IP, so blocking of User:70.245.189.21 may only be marginally helpful at this point. Requested RPP on the target article, again, as it seems to be the only way to deal with this particularly persistent vandal who is determined to deny reality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairx, so far you've posted on the content board, the NOR board, and you've posted here. Please be aware that could be considered forum shopping. I responded to you over at the NOR board, and for ease of reading, I'll summarize here.

The IP is removing the statement that the movie is a Kodomo. There's no source that says this, so the IP is correct. Any claim has to be backed up by a source. The "kodomo" claim isn't. (I'm an anime geek, and I'm familiar with that term, and I agree it's pretty obvious to anyone that watches the movie - BUT - I AM NOT a realiable source, so I can't put in what I know. :) )_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these articles are about a movie, but about two manga series that ran in a children's magazine. —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I caught that. My mistake - about it being a movie. The fact remains that there was no source that stated it was a Kodomo. The anon was right to remove it. _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the Japanese article lists Pokémon Pocket Monsters as a gag manga. None of the other ones seem to list whether they are "kodomo" or "shonen" or even "seinen".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper Request of Block of User ?

I'm a bit new here, and I've been reading as much as I can, but I'm not finding the info I need, so I thought I'd ask. If an editor has been abusive, threatening, and insulting on more than one occasion to an individual editor (myself) and already received a warning from other editors or admins; and there are over 20 prior editors who have commented on talk pages that they have also recieved the same type of threats, insults, abuse and ad hominem attacks, is that a situation when a block should be requested? If it is, what information is required to effectively request a user block...? Is the userblock request process documented somewhere? Thanks...
Howaboutyouthinkaboutit (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes, but we can't give a definite answer without knowing who the use is, and preferably a sample of a few of his/her abuse, threats, and insults (in the form of diffs). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you aren't talking about simple vandalism (which is reported at WP:AIV) or straightforward edit warring (which is reported at WP:3RRN) or sock puppetry, this is probably the forum where you should properly request a block. It is not as straightforward a procedure to do so here as it is at other locations. To do so, you would want to include a sufficient number of diffs of (a) the behavior and (b) the warnings. You don't need to document every instance, but I would focus on the particularly egregious and the most recent. The point is to clearly and succinctly present your case. If you file a report here, please be sure to notify the other contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Skopje edit war

An old silly national edit war at Skopje, over whether or not to mention its Albanian name in the lead, has re-ignited for the n-th time. Can somebody please deal out some WP:ARBMAC cluesticks, and perhaps keep a bit of a look on the suspicious new direct-plunge-into-edit-war account Pariah Lupus (talk · contribs) – obviously a sock of somebody, but I can't unfortunately say whose yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what I am being accused for here. I saw this [144] recent edit, I had a quick look in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and I thought it made sense for the alternative name to be there. What exactly is the problem? Pariah Lupus (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"I am not a sock-puppet of another recently involved, registered user." Hmm, okay, so I take it you are a reincarnation of some not-quite-so-totally-recently-but-less-than-an-awfully-long-time-ago active registered user? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pariah Lupus, at Talk:Skopje you will see thousands of words of debate on whether to include the Albanian name in the article. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you think you have a better argument than all of the ones used so far. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with including the Albanian name on the top. We have multiple other examples of other cities which have the name in different languages on top.Emto (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks

Can you all tone down his language and possible misuse of multiple dynamic IPs (173.*.*.*) and maybe others? I think, now, I recognize it when I see it. Also, he's been called on his language before. -MBHiii (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• To accuse someone of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. You should provide some diffs, and evidence to support your claims. Lychosis ^T/C 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, User:The Squicks has been notified of this thread. Lychosis ^T/C 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no capability to make such an accusation, only to see a pattern, one that could also be produced by the Admin User:Ched Davis, say, who seems to use 173.*.*.* IPs following Squicks and reverting in his favor. I don't have the technical tools to make such investigations, but I can request those who do look into it. Squicks has accused me of being "sexually obsessed", as I recall, for trying to document and write about the original, rude, British meaning of "Yankee doodle." Such accusation, in the context of an edit dispute among people who are not friends, I consider, and most people I know, would consider libelous. That he sees me saying so as threat of a lawsuit is his own overreaction. Social norms reflected in law, without necessarily resorting to it, are often good guides. -MBHiii (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's a good guide for you: When coming to WP:AN/I complaining that editors are logging in and out to edit war, try not doing it yourself at the very same time. It's pretty clear, from even a quick perusal of the edit histories concerned, that you are
      • 74.162.148.126 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Teabagging,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.129.139 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Yankee Doodle and on Talk:Yankee Doodle,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war over an external link to a Youtube video at health care reform in the United States,
      • 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Doodle,
      • all three of 74.162.147.56 (talk · contribs), 74.162.147.36 (talk · contribs), and 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) in the Obama-related edit war at Teabagger,
      • and a whole load of others besides.
    • And the edit wars that you are participating in on the user talk pages of many of these accounts, such as on User talk:74.162.151.64 and User talk:74.162.129.139 for examples, are descending into the absurd. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It is my understanding that using IPs is no violation, except when used to avoid policies. I have no proof for whether the apparent pattern of IPs supporting Squicks is that, but you may, if you care to look into it. Thanks for calling him about his language, again, if you did. MBHiii (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is yet more that of Squicks that needs correcting:

Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly replacing a blue link with a red one. Calling an official DHHS document (an "Order" in fact, directing policy change) merely "personal opinions of A government offical" (as if not reviewed and authorized as official).

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

Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly deleting a hidden note to other editors on a key point.

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

Repeated failure to abide by consensus. Inappropriate vulgarity.

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

-MBHiii (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In all of those circumstances, you made edits that blatantly distorted the sources and then you accused any opposition to that distortion as "vandalism". You then started a persistent edit war to put your distortions into the articles, refusing to talk anything out. This is a particular pattern of you, given that this is exactly what you did at 'doodle' and 'yankee doodle' and 'tea party protest' and everywhere else you have edited.

Everything that you have me of- and I mean everything that have written above- was done by you first. I must admit that it is a shrewd move, attributing your actions to someone else to cover up your tracks, but it's not going to fly here. Other editors have noticed. The Squicks (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mbii claims that a website blog statement labeled The Satirical Post (no, I'm not making this up, he really claims this) is a source for the statement "Teabagger' is now widely used to mean a participant in the Tea Party protests, a series of protests against the expansion of government spending in the USA in 2009 by opponents of the protesters and by protesters themselves."

He also took out an 'NPOV' tag when the issues were not resolved. His argument was "The dispute is resolved by our refusal to waste time with you", which is hilarious coming from someone expressing such touchy skin and feelings of hurt on this page.

Of course, all of his comments in the healthcare related articles (e.g. "Squicks needs to be banned", "reverting a determined vandal", etc) came when he was using multiple sock-puppets to get around editor consensus against his additions (which is completely against WP policy but- as you can see- he sees as a personal matter of pride having socks). This makes his thin skin now to be even more hilarious.

Don't forget, this is the editor who created the page for 'Bushcronium'. If you have never heard of it, Mbii made these claims=

Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantitative concentration level. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass."

The Squicks (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was new to WP, then, and didn't know there was no place for satire, but Squicks is an old, honored, and sometimes insightful editor, which makes all this a puzzle, explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor. -MBHiii (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Icing on the cake is his libel threat. I enthusitically support going to court with him and having him explain his personal theory that the term 'Yankee Doodle' = 'Americans masturbate too much" to a typical Texas Jury (and how, by daring to question him on that, I have committed libel). The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know where he got the quote, ridiculous. The IP thing is old and I've addressed above. The Satirical Post points to something I've seen and heard, first hand, teabaggers publicly calling themselves Teabaggers at rallies; it just needs more references. -MBHiii (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So you've seen something firsthand. And you claim that that is enough to put that material in an article?

I'm also wondering exactly where you got the idea for 'Bushcronium' from. What reliable sources was that from? The Squicks (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, you have to agree that for you to call me a vandal over and over again for what was you going against other editorial consensuses, and then for you to make a 180 and claim hurt feelings after your unsourced additions to various article are reverted is funny. Isn't it? The Squicks (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Recall I moved this disputed key point of mine into a hidden note to other editors, to seek sources, which Squicks deleted anyway. He didn't want even them to see it? -MBHiii (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, things haven't changed for you. You're still doing exactly the same things that you did when you first started-- adding content not represented by reliable sources, using sock-puppets, edit-warring, calling other people names, and so on.

When I read that you wrote "explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor", I laughed. I recall that you once made an edit with the edit summary= The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with neither.

Which is an interesting political view (I suppose Barack Obama would agree, as would others here) but I can't believe that you used that summary as a justification for your editing! And then you accuse me of having "ideological fervor"... The Squicks (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's quoted directly from his user page, with two words switched. -MBHiii (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you two need to call it a wikiday and go take a break for a day. You're clearly at each others throats, and outside opinions will have to decide what to do here. In the meantime, you are both only making it worse for yourselves by carrying out your quarrel here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii has been using socks to harass editors and evade 3RR before. Two recently indefinite blocked Mbhiii IP's are 74.162.150.109 and 65.246.126.130. Jmcnamera (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole situation is extraordinarily stupid. User:Mbhiii, I warned you specifically about the use of the revert feature, or manually reverting people's edits. I am not seeing any attempt to engage this editor (or others for the most part) on talk pages when in a dispute. You seem to enjoy dancing around the edge of WP:3RR and in my opinion you've stepped over the line more than a few times, ironically in the very page histories you have posted here to "report" another editor. I've tried to assume good faith in this situation but that has been exhausted; there will be no more flirting with the line because there ought not be a line for you anymore. Same goes for User:The Squicks. You are both engaging in the same kind of tendentious and incivil edit-warring that is absolutely unacceptable. Next time I catch either of you serially reverting one another, calling each other a vandal (when there is clearly no vandalism going on - please read WP:VANDAL before you sling accusations) or engaging in any of this sort of behavior again, I will block you without any further warning. This behavior has been going on far too long. If you cannot learn to edit in a cooperative and collegial manner, then try disengaging from each other and finding something less contentious to edit. Shereth 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to avoid confusion on this issue, what I am proposing here is essentially a WP:1RR restriction on User:Mbhiii and User:The Squicks with regards to one another's edits. Unless the community indicates to me that this is not an appropriate solution to the longstanting revert-wars they appear to be engaged in, I intend to enforce such a restriction. Shereth 14:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh  07:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

As mentioned and apparently deleted without response on this page, my account was unfairly blocked and inaccurately labeled an "SPA." Previous discussion on this page was prematurely interrupted by Tanthalas, who unilaterally imposed his own unblock conditions and unblocked and then re-blocked me, and stopped responding to my talk page comments after my unblock request (described by Jayron32 as a "compelling case for being unblocked") was clarified. Since he is now apparently on hiatus, I can't speak with him further. Mangojuice then unilaterally denied another unblock request and is now ignoring further comments I've made on my talk page that provide reasoning against the initial block. I'm again requesting that the discussion and consensus that was never achieved be attempted here in a fair and impartial manner. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the user's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that there was an understanding that this wasn't resolved, so I'd appreciate further input from those able to provide it. Agnapostate (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

accusations of sockpuppetry in Talk:Richard Lindzen

I have been accused of being the scibaby sockpuppet at the Talk:Richard Lindzen page by User:Raul654. I have tried to discuss the matter with the editor but he doesn't seem interested in discussing it. I would like to have an administrator remove the accusations from the talk page. I am concerned that this is tantamount to an accusation of computer crime. I am being told by two editors that this can't be removed under WP:NPA, to request a 'CU' on myself, and so forth. I would prefer if an administrator could just remove the remarks. I imagine if there is genuine concern that I am scibaby, someone would have already done a CU on me (but by all means check my account). The diffs I am concerned about are: here and here, I was a little unhappy with the first part of this (although I didn't regard it as an attack), and my response here as I was baited into revealing personal information about myself I'd rather not have. Please let me know if this is possible. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions that you "might be" and "are" tend to be slightly different. Regular accusations of sockpuppetry in order to discredit edits are improper, unless an SPI is filed. You cannot file an SPI to clear yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note on the talkpage re: sock accusations. I do have a concern about possible page protection by an involved admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "might be" case is fairly equal to the "is" case. Consider the following hypothetical remark in a talk page, "Editor X, I have reviewed your contribs and I think that you might be a paedophile." Can't we just remove the remarks? They have nothing to do with the actual subject, Richard Lindzen? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparing this to accusations paedophilia or computer crime isn't doing any good; keep a sense of proportion. This isn't an admin issue; if it is anything, it is a civility issue. You don't need an admin to remove the text. Note also that your edit [145] involved silently refactoring another users comment. Also I have been accused of is inaccurate; it's possible that was the language used. Furthermore (as I've already pointed out to you) that was explicitly based on contribs not CU, so CU might not help (though if I were you I'd still request a CU just to be on the safe side). No-one is baiting you to reveal any real-world info William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The diffs are almost a month old. Why are you bringing this up at ANI now? -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown at Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is currently indef-protected. The admin protecting it is the primary author and editor. Protection was done on the grounds of WP:HRT. The template currently has fewer than 500 transclusions, and doesn't appear to have ever been the subject of vandalism itself. Requests on the talk page have been declined, met with a rather long response from the protecting admin - as a result, a request on RFPP has been going stale, with the outside admin stating that the page should not be protected, but declining to action it. There has been no sign of an edit war, and there is no indication that one is about to begin.

Some further outside input would be greatly appreciated. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also came across this at RFPP, though I haven't commented there. User:Tedder has taken no direct action but has brought the issue on the template talk page; however, he seems to know that User:Ezhiki isn't around on the weekends. He has stated at the template talk page that he will not unprotect because it would be wheel warring; I disagree. User:Ezhiki's actions are of doubtful necessity and are an abuse of administrative tools where he is the creator of the template and one of the only editors. He also appears to have added the protection after User:Pigsonthewing made a bold move; indicating he's using the protection indicating he's using the protection to win a dispute over titling the template. It is perfectly appropriate for an uninvolved admin to take action here and unprotect, wheel warring is when an admin uses his tools to redo an action reverted by another admin. As the admin is apparently not around to discuss, I am unprotecting. However, this issue remains open and I think we need to look harder at this admin's use of his tools generally.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think semi-protection should be preserved, as this templates is still used on a few hundred pages. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that discussion needs to continue on the template's talk page as to whether Wikipedia:HRT applies to this template. I have no opinion on the matter. I unprotected because there was a request at RFPP, the protection appears to have been an abuse of tools by an involved admin and I posted here about it because there was the suggestion that unprotection would be wheel warring. Much of the current discussion there was emotional surrounding the abuse of tools and your point would probably be a good place to make a fresh start with that discussion. This discussion should be about the abuse of tools, this is not a place to discuss the overall merits of protection.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances under which the template was protected are unusual. There does not seem to have been what many might consider sufficient cause for full protection to be placed, so I can see how removing it, as even the admin who first declined to do so favored. Semi-protection is another matter independent of the circumstances, and could easily be requested at WP:RFPP. I'm not sure I would necessarily oppose such semi-protection, but that is another matter. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ezhiki typically abuses his tools. I normally love the guy, he is usually very level-headed, I am concerned in this instance though that he has purposefully locked the template from even me helping constructively edit it because of a perceived threat of deletion or edits removing things which he disgarees with like Farmborough did and that he has resorted to trolling the TFDs to prove a point even when he knows little about them like the Bangladesh template. If you check the actual history of the template to completely lock it fully is clearly inappropriate and seems to have been done out of fear rather than anything else. A semi-lock maybe but I don't think it will get much if any vandalism, the previous Russia city template never did. If at a later date it gets vandalism from ips then semi-lock it. His actions of late over templates and "settlements" have admittedly teed me off a little. Himalayan 13:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned that on 9 September he made two edits (to the template under discussion), one to reverse Pigsonthewing's move of the same day, the other to fully protect the template. This is clear use of tools to win a dispute and is most inappropriate. If it weren't for that, I probably would have let things lie the way Tedder had left them - i.e. wait until Ezhiki got back; but this is very disconcerting.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to see something quite inappropriate check out his excessive posts at the TFDs providing the same invalid argument each time to prove a point. He has voted to keep a template on Bangladesh I nominated too which is actually at present providing seriously false location information and is in interfering with the effort I made to make 64 district locator maps which they could not provide to clean them all up and correct them. He has obviously not actually stopped to examine the pros and cons of the templates and treat each one indiviually but has hounded all of them to prove his point over naming convention because of an earlier conflict on the Russian template with Pigs on the wing, check it out. That in my view is unacceptable behavior from an admin. He has never edited any articles on Bangladesh or the Solomon Islands and normally would not have done this. Himalayan 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now why I love taking wiki-weekends so much—it is always so nice to return to the sweet smell of napalm admin abuse accusations on Monday morning! So, should I sign my sentence somewhere now? :)

Anyway, joyful bantering aside, in case anyone is still interested in my take on the situation, here's what happened:

1. For the past couple of years, the infobox needs of articles on Russian cities/towns were taken care of by {{Infobox Russian city}}
2. The template worked OK for its purpose, yet had a score of annoying minor problems and inconsistencies. Also, it was only suitable for cities/towns, and not for other types of populated places in Russia.
3. After having collected numerous feedback about that template, I designed and implemented {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} on August 19 & 20, 2009.
4. After polishing out the most obvious bugs, I semi-protected the template on August 20.
5. While it was my belief even on August 20 that the template qualifies under WP:HRT, I did not choose to fully protect it at the time because there was a possibility someone other than me would find undetected bugs and fix them.
6. For the next two and a half weeks, I was observing the template for problems.
7. Those few minor problems which I've noticed, I fixed on September 8. Since in two and a half weeks no one else complained about anything, my intent was to fully protect the template (under WP:HRT) soon after.
8. On September 9, the template was moved to a new title ({{Infobox Russian settlement}}) by User:Pigsonthewing (Andy).
9. I do not question it was a good-faith move, but it also was uninformed and negligent.
   1. The uninformed portion was the fact that the term "settlement" in context of Russia is both a synonym of the term "inhabited locality" and a term referring to a type of an "inhabited locality" (as in "Russian inhabited localities include cities, towns, villages, settlements, urban-type settlements, etc..."). In articles about Russia, for reasons of clarity and unambiguity, we always use the term "settlement" in its latter sense. Using a precise term in its generic sense, if only in a template title, can be confusing to editors and ultimately leads to increased maintenance overhead within WP:RUSSIA (of which I am a member). Having seen how carelessly this template had been applied in articles in the past, I do believe that the clarity of the template's title is of utmost importance.
   2. The negligent portion was due to the fact that the move created several double-redirects, which remained unfixed for several hours. As a result, a number of high-profile (for WP:RUSSIA) articles displayed a double-redirect notice instead of the actual infobox.
10. I discovered the move upon logging in on September 9 and moved it back for the reasons explained in the edit summary.
11. Since it was my intent to fully protect the template that morning anyway, that is what I had done.
12. Was that action probably not a good judgement? In the hindsight, it was. Note, however, that the protection was imposed due to my interpretation of the WP:HRT, as well as to the fact that the previous negligent move clearly demonstrated the need for such protection (good-faith actions can be as harmful as the bad-faith ones). The protection action had nothing to do with the "conflict" (which, as of the time of protection, had not even started to develop). I truly and honestly find the accusations of "admin abuse" far-fetching, unsubstantiated, and not in spirit of assuming good faith (especially considering the fact that they've been made even before the accusing side had a chance to hear my reasoning and explanations). I would not object to allegations of "poor judgment", but I find allegations of "admin abuse" so early in the process despicable. At least take some time to hear the whole story! Is one weekend too long of a time to wait for me to return?
13. Moving on. A few minutes after the protection had been imposed, Andy voiced his concern on the template's talk page.
14. I replied immediately after having seen the comment, explaining the terminology peculiarities.
15. After a follow-up request, I wrote up an extensive and detailed response further explaining the reasons.
16. After that, the thread died (for six days!). Naturally, I assumed the issue is settled. The template remained fully protected.
17. On September 15, Andy posted three further comments, one of which stated that he is "disinclined" to read my previous response as it is too "lengthy". I have not addressed this comment as I have not noticed it; something which I later apologized for.
18. On September 17, User:Himalayan Explorer inquired as to the purpose of having the template locked.
19. I explained that the protection is for WP:HRT reasons, and that if he does not agree with my interpretation of WP:HRT or its applicability in this case, he is welcome to seek opinion of an administrator of his choice. To that, I received no response from Himalayan, nor was there an indication that Himalayan solicited any other admin for an opinion, so (here we go again) I assumed the matter settled (at least with him).
20. I did, however, receive a follow-up inquiry from Andy, in which he also alerted me to the fact that I have overlooked one of his previous requests (the one in which he states his "disinclination" to read my responses, for they are too "lengthy").
21. In my response, I addressed both issues:
    1. On protection, I advised Andy to take the same course of action I recommended Himalayan—he is welcome to solicit an opinion of another administrator of his choice and, if that opinion happens to differ from mine and the template does not qualify for protection under WP:HRT, I would comply nevertheless. (For the matter of record, I fully understand how HRT applicability in this case can seem borderline and subject to an individual interpretation, although I firmly stand by my own assessment).
    2. On the matter of "disinclination" to read my responses, I advised Andy that he cannot expect a productive discussion to take place if he refuses his opponent the right to be heard on the basis of a facetious essay.
22. As a result, Andy listed the template for unprotection, which ultimately lead to this AN/I thread.

To summarize: I admit that it was not a very sound judgment decision to protect the template after having moved it back (although I emphasize once again that no conflict took place as of the time of protection) and that I should have probably contacted a different admin to handle that. I do not admit any "admin abuse" or assumption of me acting in bad faith at any point of this conflict. The above list, hopefully, provides a clearer picture. If anything seems unclear or inaccurate, I'll be happy to take questions.

As for the template, as indicated above in my responses to two other users, I had agreed to abide by an assessment of another admin, and since that assessment is presently "unprotect", that's what I am going to abide by. I do, however, still believe it qualifies for protection under HRT (it is relatively high use and affects the area not many other admins watch over, so vandalism has greater chances of going undetected). I also reserve the right to fully protect this template again if a) it starts to attract vandals; b) when it's usage level increases by an order of magnitude (~3,000 articles).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Whether you disagree with Andy's moves with the Russian template or not you retaliated by hounding all of his (and one of my) nominations with the same copied and pasted message to prove a point about template naming conventions. If you had actually stopped and considered the content and function of some of the templates particuarly the Bangaldesh one which at present is far from accurate then you might see that some of them are actually valid nominations and not just part of a vendetta of Andys to add settlement to everywhere. If yo had assumed good faith in the first place rather than locking the template after a disagremeent and then angrily raiding his other TFDs nobody would have said anything and you most certainly would not have received a response from me. Himalayan 16:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

90% of Ezhiki's response is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, five minutes after reverting a disputed move, he protected the template. I requested he reverse that, explaining that it was an abuse of his admin powers. When he apparently did not see my request; I drew his attention to it. Once he stated that he would not unprotect it, I requested unprotection using the correct channel. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is very much relevant in a sense that without knowing what led to a protection (and a subsequent denial of an unprotection request) it is impossible to ascertain the merits of my actions properly. The reasons why the template was protected are covered under items 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 21.1 in the explanation above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:07, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion here. It is not addressing the real problem or helping what needs to be done here. Ezhiki is not going to be blocked and niether is he going to be stripped of his tools for locking a single template and neither do I want him to be so I think we should end this ANI discussion and discuss more calmly how we address Ezhiki's concerns about naming convention without conflict or misunderstanding and come to a consensus elsewhere. Himalayan 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't cherish the thought of having to drag this further either, but I do take accusations of "admin abuse" seriously. I would thus sincerely appreciate Doug's comment on the situation in light of my explanation above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:07, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

• Any use of tools to advance one's own personal position or interests is a violation of the trust that the community has in us - even if we think we are doing it for the benefit of the project. I don't find the explanation particularly helpful or convincing. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions but the evidence shows at best very poor judgment and a misuse of tools. Your statement: the protection was imposed due to my interpretation of the WP:HRT, as well as to the fact that the previous negligent move clearly demonstrated the need for such protection is very troubling. HRT is a guideline and it requires consensus to determine whether it applies to a particular page - as the HRT page clearly states; not the determination of the creator of the template. There had been no discussion of HRT that I'm aware of prior to your protection and there was an ongoing disagreement over the proper name of the template. Whether you previously planned to protect the page or not is irrelevant, at that point you should definitely not have done so. The idea that the move was negligent is conclusory and is a content dispute in reality over what the template should say and how it should be named (if a user makes a move and fails to clean up the double-redirects, this should be explained to him or her - but there's a bot that will eventually take care of it, it's not a justification for locking the page!). the previous negligent move is exactly why you should not be protecting this page at all as it shows you went into the protection decision with a bias that if done by a newbie editor would get him or her slapped with an ownership warning. I find your reservation of rights above to be a problem too; there is nothing that says "~3000" pages is the cut off for HRT and HRT actually says otherwise, the community decides through consensus on a page by page basis whether the number is 3 or 3,000,000,000 for any particular page. As I've said at the template talk page, I take no position on whether this page qualifies for HRT at present.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The "consensus" portion of the HRT refers to changing the template after it has been fully protected. True, it does also say that HRT applies to templates identified as at-risk "by the community", but in practice determining the need for such protection is often left to administrators. Could I have assessed the need for protection incorrectly? Of course I could have. Which is precisely why I advised the parties seeking unprotection to solicit a third opinion by an administrator of their choice, and which is why I preemptively agreed to abide by the said third opinion whatever it would turn out to be. If anything, it demonstrates willingness to admit the possibility that I might have been wrong. I don't understand how you manage to twist it in your head and see "abuse", especially considering the fact that you yourself are not sure whether HRT should apply or not? "Abuse" happens when there is a malicious intent to advance one's position; in the timeline above I demonstrated that nowhere in the process it was so. Please take an extra notice of the fact that of the time of protection there existed neither conflict nor discussion (i.e., your statement that "there was an ongoing disagreement over the proper name of the template" is incorrect). In other words, there was not even a "position" to "advance"!

Furthermore, nowhere in my explanation did I say that the protection I imposed after the move was solely because of the inadvertent effects of that move. That the move broke up some things pretty bad (and in high profile articles no less—not exactly the case when we should be waiting for a bot to detect this!) was a part of the decision, but the primary motive still stayed the same—the template, in my opinion, qualified under HRT. I apologize for having to repeat it endlessly, but that's one important thing that I want to be made crystal clear.

Finally, regarding the 3,000 threshold, it is purely arbitrary. I still believe the template qualifies under HRT now, and I believe even more that it will qualify when its transclusion reaches ~3,000. Now, someone may want to decide that it qualifies before that happens. Fine by me. I simply don't want to rush into re-protection to avoid further screams of "abuse". Don't read too much into my "3,000" remark, please.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

In case the above is too long and too hard to understand, here's the executive summary. Admin creates a template. The template sees use in hundreds of articles. Admin decides to protect the template (per WP:HRT). Someone moves the template and breaks things. Admin decides that the protection is doubly warranted. Admin protects the template (poor judgment here admitted; should've sought someone else's help; I repent). When questioned, admin refers the inquiring persons to a third party and agrees to abide by that party's decision. Now, at which stage here was there "abuse" to "advance a point"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

"of the time of protection there existed neither conflict nor discussion" Nonsense, You protected the template just 5 minutes after reverting me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense? On the contrary, it is true. For the matter of record (again!), I did protect the template just five minutes after reverting you. I did that (and by now admitted more than once that it was poor judgment). I also explained that it was my intent to protect the template on that very day: it was pretty much the first thing on my list of things to do after logging in (go ahead and check my contributions log). The fact that the move broke a number of high-profile articles and was out of line with the established terminology only confirmed my assessment that the template needs protection. Apart from reverting the move, there was neither conflict nor discussion at the time of protection (anyone is welcome to check the diffs and the state of the matters using the detailed timeline above). What exactly are you refuting here? Do I seem to you to be denying the fact of protection or something?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

"Apart from reverting the move…": QED. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since you insist on me re-emphasizing this, it should've read "apart from reverting an uneducated and negligent move" (as described under #9 in the timeline above). Having to fix things hardly qualifies as "conflict" or "discussion". I know you voiced your disagreement about the "uneducated" part, but you did so post factum. And it was in fact you who dismissed my arguments later by refusing even as much as to read them (see #17 above), so, really, this alone would have annulled whatever disagreement you had previously voiced. Yet for some reason we don't see you being too eager to comment to that effect. There is no way I am going to admit "abuse" here (because abuse can only happen when there is malicious intent, and there was none here), and I have already admitted and apologized for poor judgment at one point of the process. What else, exactly, do you want me to do?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue, I've stated my reasons, that's it - few other admins seem inclined to comment so it seems the matter is closed. You're the only one suggesting I'm out in left field with the word abuse and I'm the only admin using the phrase; so we're at an impasse and should both take our toys and go home. As for considering the fact that you yourself are not sure whether HRT should apply or not - I never said that, I said I have no position on the matter. I 1) don't care, and 2) went to the template regarding a separate matter and would not get involved in that ongoing dispute even if it interested me. I trust the parties can work things out at the template talk page and that you will most likely choose the prudence of asking an uninvolved admin over the simplicity of self help next time you think admin action is necessary for this template. Any uninvolved admin is free to re-protect, including full protect, if consensus so develops and I will not take any position on same.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I am not trying to get you to argue for argument's sake; I am asking you to clarify your comments. You have accused me point-blank of "admin abuse", and seem to continue to stand by that assessment even after I have provided an explanation of my actions, pointed out a thing or two that you misinterpreted, and admitted there was some poor judgment involved (and "poor judgment" is most certainly not the same as "admin abuse"). What I don't understand is which portion of my explanations you find unsatisfactory and/or suspicious. If you could clarify that, it would be most appreciated. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

For the record—the template was semi-protected a year later due to high use without my participation whatsoever. QED.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 15:46 (UTC)

File:Asterix_-_Cast.png

Moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh  07:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By choosing one image that shows all the cast, one can get away with minimal use.

By having the fair use rules applied stupidly, though, we end up with this, where the image is far, far too small to still show the content necessary for it to be useful to illustrate the comic.

Can we reverse the "fair use reduce" here? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Low resolution doesn't mean too low to be useful. If the resolution is low details cannot be made out, then it isn't useful and doesn't belong in an article to start with.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The pith of the policy is Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used ... [without] high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. Legibility is not at all the same thing as high fidelity, or put another way, a graphic can be legible and still be a low resolution screen image. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the point. look at this photo. You can't make really make out any of the details on the cast in this picture because the resolution is so low. This isn't text or a simple logo. Its a cast image with dozens and dozens of characters. The resolution is so low that it is essentially useless. Even with my face jammed up against the monitor I can't make out details on more than 30% of the cast members. The original image is 1024x768, looking at it in an image program and adjusting the size, I would say anything less than a 50% reduction to 512x384 borders on uselessness and I'd question its presence in the article. At that level I can lean in and with a little squinting make out and identify pretty much everyone in the photo. I also wouldn't call 512x384 high resolution either. The policy doesn't indicate what dimensions are "high resolution" but this resolution is clearly too low to be useful at all.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The dimensions of a fair use image have to do with outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term "fair useless". However, this image is not useless. It conveys something about the "flavor" of the show. Or at least I assume so, never having seen the show. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a show though, but a comic book series, with over 300 million copies sold of the 33 albums (or on average 9 milion per book), and translations in over 100 languages[146]. The resolution makes that image nearly useless. I don't know what the publisher of Asterix requires, but one of their main competitors, Dupuis, specifically states in its FAQ[147]: "L'intégrité du travail des auteurs doit être respectée, c'est-à-dire que l'illustration ne peut être retouchée ou modifiée. Dans le cas précis d'Internet, la compression des illustrations ne peut les dégrader visiblement." The last sentence translates as: "specifically for the Internet, the compression of illustrations may not visibly degrade them". So this is the biggest European comics publisher specifically asking that the resolution of images on the Internet should not be too low, if you want to reuse them... Fram (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's rather much what it says. Moreover, as I've been saying, a legible graphic is not the same thing as a high fidelity graphic. So, if it's not legible, it's useless and if it is legible, that doesn't mean it's a high fidelity/resolution copy of the image outside the bounds of fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So would you consider the image size being increase to the amount I indicated above to be "high res"?--Crossmr (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1024x768 is, for anything other than a screen, still on the edge of lo-res for an image like that. Given this thread, I would think that if the image were posted at half that size along with a note as to why that dimension is indeed lo-res and fair use, it could be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "low resolution" stipulation in WP:FU is a poorly written and overbroad policy. It makes sense for historic still pictures like Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima, where we are presenting the entire copyrighted work, and doing so in low resolution is the only reasonable way to avoid undermining "the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work." But in most other cases — screenshots, individual comic panels, etc. — it makes absolutely no sense. When we present a single screenshot of a TV show or movie, or a single panel of a comic book, we are only using a small portion of the copyrighted work. The resolution in which that screenshot or panel is presented should not impair our claim of fair use, since individual frames are hardly a substitute for the copyrighted work as a whole. The policy should be changed to require low resolution only in cases where it is necessary to avoid infringing on copyright. *** Crotalus *** 15:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't claim to understand the policy here, but I will say that that cast picture is way too low of resolution to be useful with respect to individual characters. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, the fair use reducing was a bit too aggresive. I didn't see the image at 1024x768, but the current version (350x246) is quite useless for any purpose. I'd say that "high-resolution" is a relative term: pictures just need to be low-res enough that they can't be commercialized by people. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored and reverted to the full-sized version of the image. I agree that the reduced version is too small to be usable. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Berthabollocks IP unblock

Resolved

Nja²⁴⁷ 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I issued a warning to Berthabollocks (talk · contribs) for username violation yesterday; he left a rationale on my talk page, but was indef blocked shortly afterwards on the same grounds. He's now emailed me to request that his IP block be lifted so that he can re-register with a less inflammatory user name. I left a comment with the admins responsible for the block and the decline of unblock, who declined but without prejudice, so could someone uninvolved take a look? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with indef-blocking the account, that username does seem inappropriate to me. However, I do not see a good reason why account creation was blocked - a softblock template was used that suggests registering a new account, and yet that was invalidated by the block options set. Unless there are objections to this, I'd have no problem adjusting the block to leave that account blocked, but allow the creator to make a new one. I don't think there is in fact an IP block in place (autoblock was disabled) - he/she is simply unable to create a new account from the blocked one. ~ mazca ^talk 13:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The block template left for him on his talk page, which is identical to the block reason, doesn't promise him that he can create a new account while logged in to his old one. We could merely point this detail out to him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Even when logged out the autoblock on the IP would prevent account creation due to the flags set on the block weather or not they are logged in. β^_command 15:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment ... I find it beyond hypocritical that this user was blocked for using a term in his username that is also widely used in referencing Wikipedia policy (see WP:BOLLOCKS). I'm not British (and thus not well-acquainted with the nuances of the term) nor am I easily offended, so maybe that's why I would find this warning laughable were it not also concerning in its hypocrisy. I have no dog in this fight and only stumbled across it while looking at another incident, but I couldn't pass it by without comment. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There was no reason to block that user. Not only is it against the part of the username policy that says to only use blocks in serious cases where a warning would be insufficient, it's against the blocking policy. Blocking is preventative, not punitive, and there's no compelling reason to prevent someone from editing just because their name is a very mild expletive. Nobody mature enough to edit Wikipedia is going to be offended. The motivation for the block seems, instead, to have been "I need to punish this use of an expletive in a username! What do I do? I know, block." rspεεr (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed block account creation, as the block was due to issue with the name itself, not behaviour. I've alerted the user of this on their talk page. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (I saw this after it was resolved), the block I applied had autoblock disabled. If for some reason the IP was blocked, I apologize. I only intended to apply a softblock. TNXMan 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Australia engulfed by dust storms

Resolved

 – Has been redirected

Could an admin please speedily redirect 2009 Sydney dust storm to 2009 Australian dust storm. When I checked Google News, Google was linking to the first article which is how noticed that the first article existed. It doesn't look good for Wikipedia if such a notable event is up for AfD. Bkdd (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User Simon Speed being disruptive

I'm having a serious problem with user Simon Speed, under justification this edits were vandalism, where he justifies that classification by assuming bad faith and pointing to old unrelated edits in my talk page, he ignored the last version, before those edits were made, and the earlier version of the article (before problematic changes in that article). Instead he reverted to a a specific version of the article that he liked better, without making that change explicit in the edit summary, restoring problematic and unreferenced content. That action was deceptive, unjustified, ignored the previous stable versions and, as many of his last actions disruptive. I think the user is having serious problem understanding Wikipedia's policies and editing process.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are having a content war. From first glance Simon Speed seems to be attempting to adhere to a more neutral point of view. Not ALL of your recent changes fail NPOV, but enough were to justify the revert. For example, you changed the heading "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex". You removed references to Christian promotion of abstinence and re-expressed it as if Wikipedia itself was advocating abstinence. I don't necessarily regard your edits as vandalism but they are POV biased and deserved to be reverted. You are unlikely to find many allies to your case here. Manning (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which specific edit you're talking. I'm talking about the latest. Where he says this edits were vandalism, but restored to another version that isn't neither the latest or the last stable version (before content dispute started). You can see more details on the article talk page.

I've made earlier changes on the article, but since Simon Seed was reverting all, I then restored to a previous version (before recent changes started), as it was, so we could discuss all the changes on top of that, as by the talk page. It doesn't mean I agree with that old version, right the opposite, otherwise I wouldn't have changed it into to that version (the first before Simon Seed started reverting)

I didn't change "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex", that was simple the way it was in that earlier version. I didn't make any specific change for that purpose.

Christian promotion of abstinence was removed (13:13, 16 September 2009) under the following justification "Removed problematic text supported by no or unreliable sources, please don't readd without providing a reliable scientific source". I had former rewritten that section in a balanced way, but that change was reverted by Simon Speed, as all my edits in that article.

Abstinence was rewritten] citing reliable sources and presenting both POVs.

I would like to hear other administrators if that user behavior, which just reverts all my edits using prejudice argumentation (assumption of bad faith) is appropriate.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to appeal for the input of further admins. I will recuse from further comment. Manning (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As with the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User systematically reverting my edits incident opened yesterday, I don't see a note at the user's talk page about this bit. I have added one. I also updated WQA to say this issue has been taken to ANI. - Sinneed (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Sineed for informing me and thank you to Nutriveg for escalating this: this is one of the few points on which I am in agreement with them. Thank you to Manning for considering that my reversions on Safe sex were justified, however since that point Nutriveg re-reverted, then User:Cameron Scott reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted, then User:MishMich reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted and then I reverted their edits. Would anyone wanting to deal with this please note the following edits Nutriveg made to their talk page spanning most of their editing career :- 2009-09-19 [148] 2009-04-20 [149] 2009-03-12 [150] 2008-12-14 [151] . --Simon Speed (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an actionable problem. Maybe I am being dense.

I do see a content dispute. I do see some too-large changes, some of which are problematic, some are not, all being done at once. Because 1 edit had such a wide range of changes, a single revert made MANY changes, and may make it "feel" as if all one's changes are being reverted.

I suggested to Nutriveg making more focused edits, so that it is easier to work with them, should an editor oppose.- Sinneed 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That page is currently blocked for 3 days, but the dispute continues at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mammary intercourse. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, I've already done that, reverted to an earlier version (7 September 2009) and started from there, but suddenly, after a few days user Simon Speed deleted all those edits and restored to a later version (16 September 2009) arguing vandalism. It's the second time he does that. He only reverts all my edits saying I'm acting in bad faith and doing vandalism.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My last edit to Safe sex was at 19:18 on 2009-09-20 when I reverted to the last edit of neutral editor User:MishMich which Nutriveg had reverted. Nobody is editing that article at the moment and I am trying to stay out of the discussion as this is exhausting. Any admin can check the response the 2 new editors are getting from Nutriveg on the talk page. I am now trying to deal with the issue mentioned above which seems more and more like griefing. Lets face it, looking at past history, this user is a troll. I admit that I have fed them, but then trolls do what they need to to get fed. Will an admin please check the history, as after this Nutriveg will move on to new pages and new editors as they have done in the past. --Simon Speed (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit that motivated this section, it's on top of it, was this, where using an excuse to revert vandalism you ignored that earlier version (7 September 2009) and reverted to later version (16 September 2009).

User:MishMich didn't knew the article history then but now is aware of the last stable version of the article. But you were well aware when you did that revert to (16 September 2009) instead of (7 September 2009), since you were there at the time it was done (because of the reverts made by you) and followed that argument in the article talk page.

You just reverting all my edits, attacking me of troll, bad faith and vandalism, instead of proposing content changes beyond reverting to unreferenced text, is exactly the problem we are having here.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, user Simon Speed is Wikihounding me in the Bisphenol A article. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He also approaching other users in their talk pages asking them to avoid discussing the article content with me.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's strange you didn't link to the message in context, along with its reply. But then, reading the reply, maybe it's not :-)))) It must be a funny little world under that bridge. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit to Talk:Safe sex that may be controversial: see [152]. If I was wrong, would any neutral editor please revert it. Otherwise, I will re-revert any of Nutriveg's reversions. This has got to stop! --Simon Speed (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please someone act about this user behavior, he is making defamatory attacks everywhere, like in this talk page and in other users talk pages.--Nutriveg (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again context & responses are rather unsurprisngly omited. When I asked for assistance at the project pages I still believed in this user's good faith: I am beginning to regret luring good editors into the clutches of this creative and mischievous troll. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The context is you have made basically such kind of edits in the last few days, and there's no justification to the level and number of personal attacks you have made so far. --Nutriveg (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Newb bitten

Resolved

 – User unblocked and article restored. I've been swiftly schooled in the err of my ways and do repent for the incident. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A little while ago, new user Sircharlesgairdner (talk · contribs) made this edit to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. This is, in my opinion, generally a useful expansion, though it does need someone to clean out a few weasel words.

I posted a welcome message, and let the user know about our rule against usernames that represent a company[153]—a friendly and welcoming way to broach an extremely low-priority low-threat issue.

A few minutes later Ioeth (talk · contribs) used the rollback button on the article edits,[154] indefinitely blocked the account,[155] and removed my friendly message, replacing it with a {{spamusername}} template, with an edit summary that said "... because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion".[156]

This is the most severe case of biting a newb I've seen in years, and I am pissed off that this was done even though someone else (i.e. me) had already engaged the user on their username. I left a angry message at User talk:Ioeth, and got a rather rude response. Ioeth declines to revert, but is willing for me to revert. I make it a rule not to act when I am pissed off. I would like this reviewed by a third party please.

Hesperian 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, have commented on their talk page. This new editor needs guidance, not a kick out the door. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the reversion was over the top, in Ioeth's defence the username does violate WP:USERNAME. Manning (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, and had already told them so. Hesperian 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I've always felt that the spam blocks might be a little too fast, but otherwise I do have to agree with Ioeth's block. From the edit, and username, it seems as though they will be making the article a little more 'advertiseish', and while I dislike the general principle of block, template and move on, I don't think the block was wrong in this case, if only to help them discover their talk page and explain the rules without having to guess if they were ignoring the 'new messages' bar or not. That said, I do think that the removal of your message was unfriendly, and disrespectful to User:Hesperian. Sodam Yat (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the institution is a government run hospital, there is no commercial gain to be made. Also the claims of "second busiest hospital" were backed up by government refs. I think we probably just have an enthusiastic employee here rather than anyone with a POV agenda. Manning (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. There needs to be a large dose of common sense--not every weasel word or unsourced addition is a vandal that needs to be crushed. We have plenty of vandals, but we were all white belts once. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the content and undone the block. Manning (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with that decision. A block is NOT mandated for every username violation, and spamusernames doubly so, since most users would be perfectly willing to change their username if the policy were politely and fully explained to them. Blocking always sends the message "GTFO, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out", and with some users that sentiment would be right on (abusive or vulgar usernames, for example). However if there is any chance of correcting a problem without blocking we should always try that first. There are WAY too many itchy trigger fingers at WP:UAA, and for a long time it has been one of the most misused noticeboards at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to guide this editor on our policies and ask them to get their name changed. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. No matter whether the name was a username violation, this was not a situation where blocking was the right answer. Especially since Hesperian had already handled this the right way. Ioeth bit a newbie. rspεεr (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki to az:Alban xaç daşları in article Khachkar

Users from Armenia Taron Saharyan (talk · contribs), MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs), Sardur (talk · contribs), Serouj (talk · contribs), Meowy (talk · contribs), Aptak (talk · contribs) and guest which vandalized some articles about Azerbaijan with IP 67.84.101.196 (talk · contribs) in recent 1 month maniacally removing the interwiki to Azerbaijani wikipedia in article Khachkar. The fact of the matter is that in Azerbaijan khachkars, i.e. stones with cross icon on it identifying as "Albanian cross stones" (Azerbaijani: Alban xaç daşları; Alban khach dashlari). But this guys think that there is no Albanian khackars at all. Let's face it, their opinions can't change the fact that this objects calling Albanian. But they don't want to seize that. So, dear administrators, please, explain them that removing interwikis for no special reason is inadmissible. Wertuose (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The page is now protected. I warned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Khachkar, Wertuose, and in the weeks since you still haven't gone to the talk page to discuss this point, even though others have. Discuss, don't edit war. Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Word Albania means Caucasian Albania, which was an ancient country that existed between 4th century B.C. and 8th century A.D. on the territory of present-day Azerbaijan. That's why, in Azerbaijan this objects known as Albanian cross stones. May be you missed it, but I tried to discuss this term and you can see it in the talk page of the article Talk:Khachkar. And as I saw, this guys from Armenia, especially Taron Saharyan (talk · contribs), reject absolutely history and culture of Azerbaijan. So, how can I discuss this subject with them? I think this is a fact, that in Azerbaijan Khachkars identifying as "Alban xaç daşları", so interwiki must be here without fail, whether armenian users agree with it or not, and admins should ensure that, but not meet such kind of illogical claims. Wertuose (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't miss what isn't there to be missed in the first place. You have zero edits in either Talk:Khachkar#Alban xaç daşları or Talk:Khachkar#Interwiki. Others are discussing. You are not. The quite simple answer to "how can I discuss this subject with them?" is actually join in the discussion. You've been edit warring, and you have zero input to talk page discussion, to persuade your fellow editors. For the third time: Discuss, don't edit war. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Crusade

The editor CharlotteGoiar (talk · contribs) is in a dispute with Jokestress (talk · contribs) involving the article Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, a topic related to transsexualism. The two editors have both been accused (by each other and others) of being "on a crusade" and soapboxing. At the AfD of this article, Charlotte Goiar recently posted several messages admitting such: here she says "it will be soon exposed widely on the internet" and "eventually other articles will appear on Wikipedia and in other informational resources on the internet", and higher up in that page she posted something similar: i.e., she is preparing to use Wikipedia as part of a campaign. Is it appropriate to block this user until she promises to read Wikipedia policy and not do that?

I am notifying all the involved parties of this thread. I should also note that she recently filed an arbitrarion request (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitration needed for this article's dispute page), but I'm commenting here instead because I do not consider myself an involved party (I only showed up to this dispute yesterday, and was only trying to be a mediator) and I think this is outside the scope of the RfAR anyway, since it involves protecting the encyclopedia outside of just this one article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved in a crusade, I expose facts. I am not interested in "crusades" anyway. Facts as HBS Phobia are planned to be exposed widely on the internet by advocates of the HBS movement, I wasn't speaking about an action that I personally will do in any case, but of something that I am seeing that it will happen from what I heard in the HBS community. So, I am not preparing to use Wikipedia as part of a campaign and these accusations must be reverted. In fact, I never started an article on Wikipedia and I am not personally interested in starting "a campaign" about this issues on Wikipedia, but others seems to be interested on it. I comment Wikipedia articles exposing facts, or I occasionally contribute to improve their content but I don't start them. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's possible that this was a miscommunication since English is not your first language. There may be no need for a "pre-emptive" block here, and I would be willing to withdraw this report if you can promise that a) you have read and understood Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not a soapbox; and b) that you understand the consequence, that if you do start using Wikipedia to push an advocacy campaign (whether by starting articles or just editing them inappropriately) you may be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The ones who are pushing an advocacy campaign here are you and your ally Jokestress, so stop your nasty speech. BTW it is you who apparently need to read Wikipedia's guidelines and understand them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 September 2009

I have never interacted with Jokestress until yesterday when I stumbled across this dispute, I don't see why you think we're "allies". I also don't see what you found to be "nasty" above. And finally, I don't see what Wikipedia guidelines you think I don't understand. Could you please be a little more specific in your vitriol? Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing evidence of an inappropriate campaign that would require admin intervention. I frequently see people at AfD note that something will soon have greater exposure in the media and that deletion is premature. Patience and consideration for editors who may be new is helpful. I appreciate input into the situation is being sought, and I would encourage the editors trying to keep the article to focus on substantial coverage in independent reliable sources as the key to notability, article inclusion and content development. Long arguments aren't helpful and can be disruptive. There may be some soap boxing, but that often happens with new editors at AfD. The discussion seems to be progressing in a reasonable fashion. If the article is deleted it can be moved to userspace for further work and there are editors here willing to help and advise on horwto proceed. Let's not make it personal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue is that she's not saying the issue is going to have wider exposure soon; she's saying that she, or someone she knows, is planning to use Wikipedia soon to show the world how bad her enemies are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• User Rjanag continues with false accusations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs)

The socking and back and forth on editors instead of the notability issue is a problem. I agree there is a COI issue and some of the arguments are problematic (ie soapboxy). "Experts" on subjects are often too close to them and their editing and arguments cross over into advocacy. The nom also seems to be very passionate on the issue so its not just the article creators. Maybe some clerking to keep the discussion tight and to remove comments that don't address the notability issue directly (content, sourcing, and policies that apply) would be helpful. Getting editors to contribute constructively from one account would also be nice. If we can keep the AfD discussion on track the issues should work themselves out. Is the subject notable appropriate to include in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article, merged to an appropriate target, or deleted? That seems to be the critical question. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal Menace from Rjanag

Resolved

 – Nothing to apologize for or retract. Please deal with the substance of the issue raised above. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I received a personal menace from this editor Rjanag in my Talk page:

"I have mentioned you at the administrator's noticeboard because you admitted you intend to use Wikipedia as part of a crusade. It is in your best interest not to ignore this message like you ignored my previous one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"

I request protection from this user from Wikipedia's administrators, or by default, an apology by this user's behaviour and the promise that he will don't try to menace me with future threats.

I never "admitted to intend use Wikipedia as a part of crusade" as this editor falsely states and I ask for an apology for these accusations as well.

This user is taking the things completely crazy and going too far.

I request protection or an apology for this.--CharlotteGoiar (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't an attack or a threat; it was simply a courtesy notice that the discussion had been opened here. As the writer stated, it isn't in your best interest to ignore discussions about you and your behaviour that have been posted to ANI. There's no reason for an apology. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a threat to Goiar and with blunt accusations involved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 September 2009

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 causing problems again

Resolved

 – No action necessary. lifebaka++ 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User Rjanag is causing problems again with more false accusations to more people on Harry Benjamin's Syndrome Articles for deletion discussion page.

A sketch of the discussion where this user is causing trouble again:

• "Note to closer: Two of the "keep" IPs, 83.165.153.211 and 88.2.224.215 , are likely to be the same person, based on their contribs. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Very poor arguments by you once again, and you are involved again in false accusations to other people. Can you back up these accusations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk)
    • The duck test. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)"

He cannot prove his accusations.

BTW I use a public network in a city with 300.000 population.

Action required and block this user if proposed by admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-23 14:51:39

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.

Accusing an editor of supporting child pornography

I don't find this acceptable: secure diff "You say you're a Christian and yet you support child pornography?--KatelynJohann (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)" for at least two reasons. Request admin intervention. I feel a block, at least, is justified. (Comment related to removal of comments on File Talk:Virgin Killer.jpg) Thanks,Verbal chat 05:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A block is not justified. You don't bring every dispute to ANI.--KatelynJohann (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I don't. I do bring accusations of supporting child pornography here though. Verbal chat 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to silence your critics.--KatelynJohann (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are the one who failed to Assume Good Faith when you removed my comments at File Talk:Virgin Killer.jpg.--KatelynJohann (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks, back it off a couple notches please. Katelyn: I agree that Verbal should not have removed your comments. But I do have to say that your comments were so far over the line that I have to warn you that any further personal attacks could be met with a block. Please refactor, and the two of you, disagree without being disagreeable. SirFozzie (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to that.--KatelynJohann (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments were appropriately removed. KatelynJohann's reaction was 100% inappropriate, violating many of our policies. It is a huge, huge personal attack of a disgusting nature. There is no equal balance of action here. How can I "back it off a notch" when all I've done is reported the gross smear this editor placed on my talk page, which should probably be oversighted. The talk page comments breached BLP, by the way, assuming the girl and her parents are alive, artists, photographer etc. Verbal chat 05:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As a conservative Christian, the ridiculous comments removed just looked like trolling to me. The Scorpions are about as satanic as Warrant and Styker. Nevard (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• This shoudl just be closed and the whole comments section on that talk page archived. The image isn't going to be removed cropped or blurred. Sorry. If that offends you there are options available to configure your browser in order to not display it. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk's suggestion. Casting aspersions on editors' characters and removing talkpage comments from someone you're in conflict can only be expected to piss the other person off and not help content enhancement or constructive discussion.  Skomorokh  07:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Protonk, but I'd like some clarification from Skomorokh - what improper removal of talk page comments are you referring to, as there is some ambiguity. Verbal chat 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any specific removal, nor suggesting that your actions were improper in a guidelines and policies sense; my point is that irrespective of the justness of removing the talkpage (not usertalk) comments of someone you're at odds with will rarely help resolve the dispute, and more likely than not inflame the situation.  Skomorokh  08:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the comments of a troll might get them closer to being blocked. This improves the encyclopedia. Why not? Nevard (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would it get them closer to being blocked? Because it would incite them further, or represent a MMORPGist black mark? Point proven. Future blocks are exogenous to my comments above.  Skomorokh  09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie has given the user a final civility warning - any further attacks of this or other kinds will result in a block. If people want me to justify my action I'll do so here or on my talk page, but that is a seperate issue to this appalling behaviour - which it turns out isn't a first occurance. Verbal chat 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Sockpuppetry

That user KatelynJohann was created 5 days ago and immediately went to AIV to file a complaint against another user. Obviously, not a new user. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor's 15th edit was posting evidence in an RFA? It quacks to me like a sock engaging in highly WP:TE. Should we even go through a SPI? Toddst1 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the words "obvious" and "quack quack" sum things up nicely. Single purpose accounts that dive directly into disputes and then make harsh attacks all in their first couple weeks are something we can do without. Chillum 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, this edit, with the phrase “you’ve never been one for civility, have you?”, suggests a history of editing since it shows knowledge of the other editor’s prior, historical edits. Further, the editor’s comment above, “A block is not justified. You don’t bring every dispute to ANI,” (made with this edit), also suggests an experienced user: What five-day old editor knows words like “blocked” and “ANI”? — Spike (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed KatelynJohann (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Quince Quincy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

KatelynJohann is blocked indefinitely.

 IP blocked - Hardblocked for three months. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Quince Quincy is probably a sock of somebody else, considering their very first edits were reverting what they claimed to be blocked vandals: [157]. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm a regular editor, but I can't log in from where I am. I don't want to let anybody know who I am since I don't want my location checked from this anon IP address. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

edits by User:A conundrum

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody with the appropriate tool(s) undo the edits of A conundrum (talk · contribs)? It looks like they hit well over 50 pages. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass rollbacked, as edits of a banned user. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, doesn't seem to be that straightforward. I'll have to remove Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) from all pages it's on too. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems not, others use that category. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is being covered by a thread higher up in the page concerning sockpuppetry.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Experienced admin/OTRS member advice wanted re possible BLP issue

I've had a polite email from a record company on behalf of the subject of one of our articles, objecting to some of the content of that article and requesting that a nominated representative of their choice oversees the article's content from now on. Obviously we can't do this, but I've drafted a reply that I hope sets out their options. I'd like to run it by someone more experienced in handling this sort of thing than I am before I send it off - any takers? EyeSerene^talk 17:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd email it direct to OTRS along with your comments as above. info-en -at- wikimedia.org Cheers Manning (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've done that. Thanks Manning. EyeSerene^talk 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user User:Zephram Stark is trying to start an edit war on Law of the United States, both directly and through friends

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for a couple of weeks — Huntster (t @ c) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Banned user User:Zephram Stark is trying to start an edit war on Law of the United States, both directly and through friends

Stark was banned four years ago by ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, but continues to vandalize Wikipedia from time to time through various sockpuppets. He has urged all his crazy friends to vandalize Law of the United States with his kooky unsourced POV/OR at this blog entry here. See also the discussion at Talk:Law of the United States where his strange edits are discussed in detail. He was trying to vandalize the article through sockpuppet User:Russell Savage, who was finally identified as a sockpuppet and was just banned a few hours ago. But while this nutcase Stark continues to urge people to vandalize the article, it should be semi-protected or protected by any available admin. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Fuhghettaboutit. I find it quite amusing that Zephram Stark's idea to improve Wikipedia involves allowing individuals to choose which reality they want to exist in, and have each article display ideals relevant to that chosen reality. (link, see comments) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that Zephram Stark just admitted that he still has other active sockpuppets, "including four who are progressing nicely in Wikipedia's bureaucratic ladder". Everyone needs to keep a lookout for those. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could be bluffing, trying to intimidate us from within maybe?--SKATER ^Speak. 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom

Tom is engaging me in a very inappropriate manner. He is engaging in personal attacks and now he is apparently going through my history looking for I don't know what.

1st attack 2nd attack My response3rd attack My final response He then responded on my talk page.

He was then warned

But, now he is hounding me.

The attacks were of little consequence, but now that he is apparently searching my history I have decided to file a complaint. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Tom of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? ... that may have been personal but maybe it wouldn't have been if

• 1. he made real arguments that actually might contribute to the article instead of pushing a POV
• 2. talked to me directly instead of evading me leading me to "hound" him.
• 3. This sounds a bit more like censorship and hypocrisy...
• 4. He personally attacked me too, by the way
• 5. What "history" did I search, it's ON YOUR OWN TALK PAGE! ... All the ridiculous the accusations and the paranoia ugh I can't stand it. ..needs wiki break

Tom (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take one, then. Your behaviour in those diffs given is improper to say the least. "Miss, miss, but he started it!" is rarely an acceptable defence, and certainly isn't in this situation. I note that "only the truth is good enough for you" - we don't work on truth. We work on verifiability. If you are that fanatical about something that you want to push in what you think happened/is happening/whatever at all costs, it's probably best to stay away from that area as a starting point. Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but he has a history of pushing for a POV clearly evidenced on his talk page from many users... I'm only here because I had the nerve to take him on it. Tom (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Tom stated that I created a specific article with which to push my POV. He was actually referring to a section heading on my talk started by another editor. Tom, please stop accusing me of pushing a POV. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Tom, you're here because of your outrageous behavior toward another editor. Take some personal responsibility or take a wiki break. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I could have toned it down, I'm not denying that... Note that the reason why he reported me was the fact that I stalked his history... which is obviously a lie seeing he couldn't look on his talk page, so there's obviously a little paranoia. Regardless, here is another issue I will not back away from and that is he promotes a POV.

Examples:

• 1. User_talk:Arzel#Kieth_Olbermann
• 2. User_talk:Arzel#Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder "liberalism is a mental disorder" - severe POV push.
• 3. Similarly, he's been very close to violating the 3RR rule and has been warned multiple times on articles such as User_talk:Arzel#Gretchen Carlson, User_talk:Arzel#Political positions of John McCain and User_talk:Arzel#Criticism of Bill O'Reilly topics on his talk page. ..... I can keep going.

Now again, I could have toned that down, but then again with a history such as the one above ... it speaks for itself. Similarly, if you want to look at my history of my edits, I welcome it, especially with my edits in controversial topics such as Talk:Same-sex marriage. One last thing, I have

"...and is open to any discussion regarding any edit."

on my talk page for a reason. If he had a problem, he could have taken it there and we wouldn't be here. Tom (talk)

Are you going to go through my whole history? I suppose I could just delete everything negative like you have just done. FYI, removing a 3RR warning from an administrator is probably not the best thing to do. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As one can find here, an editor is permitted to delete anything they want from their talk pages. Some of us do not. Some of us archive. Others, delete. The policy/guideline at WP is that when a user deletes — especially when they delete warnings — such deletion is evidence that s/he has read the warning. It is as telling as signing for a registered letter. To wit,

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, it is inappropriate and misleading for one editor to suggest that attitudes, guilt, etc., can be inferred from another editor’s warning deletions from said editor’s own talk page. The above guideline makes clear that the only inference that can be drawn is that the editor in question has been notified by, and read, the warning deleted. — Spike (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spike. Arzel, this is a waste of Admin's time when they can be working on real problems. Next time just take it to my talk page and then when I give you a hard time, you can come here an report me. Tom (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

puppets at Frank Lorenzo

• Airguy (talk · contribs)
• Duggin (talk · contribs)
• DavidDaws (talk · contribs)
• Casatkes (talk · contribs)
• Aaa222ppp (talk · contribs)
• Wikilore (talk · contribs)

All are SPA to put a pro-Frank spin on the article Frank Lorenzo. There are probably others, but these are the most egregious. As in IP editor, I can't start a sockpuppet/checkuser report, so I bring it here. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of filing an SPI, let's just watch the article. The last three guys (DavidDaws, Duggin and Airguy) have only edited one day each. Could be someone who hasn't figured out how to use one account consistently. If Airguy continues to revert, he may be blocked. These guys seem to possess a lot of real information, though they are argumentative. There is no point in blocking old accounts that are no longer active, such as Wikilore. His last edit was in May. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 70.108.59.249

This IP and various similar ones of a dynamic nature (70.108.121.71, 70.108.86.23, 70.108.66.63, 70.108.89.47, 70.108.61.231, 70.108.70.197, 70.108.104.200, 70.108.114.181) has been engaged for the last nearly 3 weeks in trying to insert content sourced to a blog-type source, written ostensibly by someone named Jawn Murray, into the article The Game (U.S. TV series). He made reference to other CW network shows as "trash" and "bullshit" [158], Some of the content was sourced to twitter posts regarding an alleged "plagiarism" claim by the same Jawn Murray against TV Guide over an item, and even admitted the story was the IP's story in one edit to the article [159], when he posted the plagiarism accusation into the article, and also in an early talk page post Funny thing its basically my story from June 16!. Other sources were found for the same content and placed by established editor User:Pinkadelica. Pinkadelica reverted the addition of the plagiarism accusation and Twitter post refs three times [160] [161] [162] and posts were made to the talk page of the IP being used at the time by three different editors, regarding two different articles and edit warring, inappropriate content including incomplete sentences and other grammatical errors. [163] At one point, the IP stated "for the 2nd time 3 colums(look b4 u rever). if you're going to credit some1 credit the one WHO PUBLISHED IT FIRST. &if twitter isnt reliable you need to strip it from the hundreds of articles it is in", seeking credit for himself for the story. I also removed the plagiarism accusation and use of the Twitter source. [164] The IP persisted, posting the plagiarism accusation on the talk page and Pinkadelica finally requested semi-protection on September 14. [165] At that point, the IP began to post to the article talk page, at which time I asked if the person was Jawn Murray, [166], here, here, here and here. I repeatedly pointed out that the actual link the IP was posting was not going to the story he thought he was posting, since each new blog entry pushed the story further back in the pages. The IP response was "I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you...". I asked the editor at least four different times to remove this incivility [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] The IP began to refer to Pinkadelica as "pink", and when asked to call her by her full username, posted a tirade, repeatedly calling her "pink", said "Can you not focus? Go drink some giseng & then come back", "I disagree as I still see smoke coming from you area" and other incivil comments [172]. I reverted that post due to the harassing and incivil nature of it [173] and the IP began to call me "wild", despite repeated requests to use my full username. In addition the IP kept messing with the column markup, claiming that the 3 columns were absent, although it was not each and every time I looked at the page. This is blatant WP:COI, trying to insert his own column into the article, incivility, edit-warring and harassment and it would be very nice if someone put a stop to it. I've requested the page be protected again, but so far, no action has been taken on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looking at the IPs he uses, a rangeblock would be impossible to enact without huge collateral damage, so this is probably the best we can do. --Jayron32 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We knew that the IP hopping was going to be an issue. Appreciate the help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

AOL Black Voices is not a blog. It is an entertainment website, just as marc malkin/eonline and ausiello/ew. The CW network is trash, I am not the only one who feels like this. I did not include it being trash in the is the article, so pointing it out is of no matter. I did quote twitter but never did "...even admitted the story was the IP's story in one edit to the article". Pink did revert the twitter source, and I posted on the talk page asking why, but Pink didn't reply. I then acquiesced and compromised by removing the twitter, and jsut adding the AOL source, leaving the matt mitovich source. I do feel twitter is removed arbitrarily. Twitter is used as a source, for example in many Miley Cyrus articles, and it stands as a source. Wild said this link was not the actual link which I corrected, but wild wont accept the corrected. Yes I did reply in the ride manner in which I was posted to. Wild is not tellling you that wild/pink are friends. Thus wild is calling my replies incivil but did not warn their friend pink. I did not mess with the markup, I fixed it so that 3 columns were visible; the 3 columns were not visible each and every time I looked at the page. This is not blatant COI. I am inserting a reputable source, it is not my column. 70.108.122.230 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue at the article talk page. If you can establish widespread consensus among editors for the changes you propose, then and ONLY then can you implement them. But either way, this venue is not the place to discuss content issues. --Jayron32 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#English Defence League

First up, if you're one of the usual people that reply to any thread within minutes saying it's a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI, please don't reply. This isn't a content dispute as such, although content is involved obviously. Since being unblocked in July following a year long Arbitration Committee ban and subsequent indefinite block for evading the ban using sockpuppets, Yorkshirian has continued to edit in the same problematic way. In fact, I believe below is evidence that every single type of problematic behaviour detailed in the finding of fact in the Arbitration Committee case still applies right now. I really don't want to go to RFC as when editing is this bad I consider having to jump through hoops to find someone willing to certify an RFC to be unhelpful, especially when an editor has had ample opportunity to learn from their mistakes after a year's ban. So I'd rather try and deal with the problem here, and if a consensus can't be reached I'll be happy to take it to the Arbitration Committee.

Yorkshirian's editing is generally problematic in various areas (although improving in other areas apparently, for the sake of balance), in particular with regards to the far right in the UK and related articles about anti-fascists who oppose the far right, attempting to paint the former in a more positive light and the latter in a more negative light. Dealing with articles one at a time, or actually two at a time for the first two since they involve the exact same content and problems.

• Red Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anti-Fascist Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. Two people who happened to be members of Red Action and/or Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) became involved with the Provisional IRA and took part in a bombing campaign, for which they were jailed for 30 years. Yorkshirian believes that both the Red Action and AFA articles should mention this. Others disagree with the inclusion (especially for Red Action, which is a short article and causes major undue weight problems), for example if a Greenpeace member becomes an Animal Rights Militia member and bombs a lab, does that belong in the Greenpeace article, and would that get a "terrorism" category too? Problems include undue weight, POV language, inappropriate categories, personal attacks, accusations of vandalism, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith and flat-out lying about what books actually say. Diffs:

• [174] [175] - Initial addition of the problematic content. Note the inappropriate and POV use of "bombing their home country", which is a judgmental view that does not appear in the source, it is Yorkshirian's own opinion. Also note the use of this unreliable source which is nothing to do with Searchlight (magazine), it is a far right spoof website.
• [176] [177] - Adds "terrorism" category (in addition to an unsourced and incorrect "communism" category on one diff, AFA are not communist. They had communist members, anarchist members, and all sorts of other members. Their only political position was anti-fascism, they were single-issue).
• [178] [179] - Claims removal of information with well explained edit summaries are vandalism.
• [180] [181] [182] [183] - More edit warring to retain the information above, including personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.
• [184] - More personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.
• [185] - After an editor points out neither book deals with Red Action, Yorkshirian responds by saying "Both book mentions Red Action explicity", this is a lie. The books being referred to are The Irish War by Tony Geraghty (Google Books link to the relevant page, and feel free to use the search function on the left to search the book for "Red Action", zero results, and neither does "Red Action" appear in the print version I also have), and Terrorism, 1992-1995: a chronology of events and a selectively annotated bibliography by Edward F. Mickolus (Google Books search for "Jan Taylor", Google Books search for "Patrick Hayes", Google Books search for "Red Action"), where as you can see both people involved are mentioned on page 282, yet there is no mention of Red Action.

• Stop the Islamification of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. A group in the UK have been protesting against Islam and have been met by counter-demonstators and there has been rioting. Yorkshirian has attempted to smear anyone saying anything negative about the group or who oppose the group. Problems include accusations of vandalism, original research, POV language, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith

• [186] - Two tendentious claims added. First is that present at a demonstration were "Muslims who claimed to be there to "defend the mosque"" sourced by this, when no such quote is attributed to Muslims. Depending on your reading of the actual sentence, the Muslims could have been there for the same reason but it is ambiguous, thus failing WP:V which says citations have to be unambiguous. The second tendentious claim is that "The Muslims and the far-left rioted, attacking the police with bricks, bottles and firecrackers" sourced by the same source, which gives no information as to who was actually attacking the police, be they "far-left" (that label is also Yorkshirian's own invention, as it does not appear in the source), Muslim or Stop the Islamification of Europe.
• [187] - Adds unsourced "left-wing" description to John Denham.
• [188] - Adds "with riots against the police" to the sentence "Unite Against Fascism have opposed the group" sourced by this, which again gives no information as to who the rioters were, and does not directly implicate UAF.
• [189] [190] - Edit warring to maintain those tendentious additions, complete with a slight on a contributor for editing anonymously and a false accusation of vandalism.
• [191] - Related to the above. Combines the title of this source ("Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow") with a sentence from this source ("Bricks, bottles and firecrackers were thrown at police officers who were present in riot gear at the scene") to create the synthesised sentence "Islamic demonstrators clashed with the police, throwing bricks, bottles and firecrackers", despite objections about OR in an ongoing discussion.
• [192] - Assumes bad faith and says removal of information sourced by an unreliable source was "partisan removal of sourced LDN info by Nickhh. rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT", when Nickhh had explained on the talk page why it was unreliable.

• English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. A group in the UK linked to Stop the Islamification of Europe, similiar demonstrations with similar violent reactions and similar condemnation from politicans and the press. Again, Yorkshirian has attempted to smear anyone saying anything negative about the group or who oppose the group. Problems include accusations of vandalism, original research, POV language, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources

• [193] - "sort out some militant left bias inserted by Presbo" edit summary first of all. Opening sentence changed to "The English and Welsh Defence League is a British pressure group which organises protests against what it regards as Islamism, the introduction of Sharia law to the UK and a percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", sourced by this (which sources that the EDL and Casuals United have held a number of "explicitly anti-Muslim rallies" with more to follow), this (which sources EDL protests against Islamic extremism and the use of sharia law in Britain) and this (which sources an upcoming EDL rally against Islamic extremism). So the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance" is a Yorkshirian invention. The claim that UAF "violently react to protests" held by the EDL is also unsourced, and the addition of "(a town in which Islamists recently held protests against the British Army)" with regard to Luton looks like a clear attempt to push a point of view that Muslims are allowed to protest in Luton yet "English" people are not.
• [194] - Same sources as above edit, used to source the claim that the EDL oppose the spread of Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom, none of which even contain the word "terrorism". Another invention by Yorkshirian. Also removes substantial content correctly cited from this source claiming "unsourced POV by JzG", considering JzG's changes are properly sourced and Yorkshirian's are his own opinions, what?!
• [195] - Changes "anti-fascist" to "far-left", despite both sources saying "anti-fascist" and never mentioning "far-left".
• [196] - Further attempt to add the "Islamic terrorism" claim. Labels the BBC as "left-wing", as well as John Denham again.
• [197] - Another attempt to add the "Islamic terrorism" claim, as well as labelling John Denham as left-wing again.
• [198] - Adds claim that counter protesters are "far-left...who call themselves "anti-fascists"". Source is no longer on the original link, but it's an AP story which can be seen here. The "far-left" label is attributed to the EDL, yet Yorkshirian insists that the EDL cannot be simply called "far-right", it must be attributed. Reasonable enough, if the same applies to "far-left" which it clearly doesn't! The "who call themselves "anti-fascists"" addition is quite laughable, considering the dozens of sources relating to the incidents that call them exactly that.
• [199] - Changes the previous AP reference to this source, where the label "far-left" does not ever appear.
• [200] - Unexplained removal of {{UK far right}} with misleading edit summary.
• [201] - Adds irrelevant information about John Denham being a member of the Fabian Society, seemingly to try and discredit his opinion of the EDL.
• [202] - Changes that the EDL chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators at International al-Quds Day to the claim that they chanted it at "Hezbollah demonstrators", despite the source saying nothing of the sort.
• [203] [204] - Changes "pro-Palestinian demonstrators" to "a Palestine themed demonstration, featuring Islamic immigrants (some with Hezbollah flags" based on this image (and a Guardian hosted video for the second diff), which does not in any way support the "Islamic immigrants" addition and neither does the already cited source.
• [205] - Proposes that the article should say "the far-left have levelled the term far-right at the EDL. This is used mostly as a form of newspeak to try and blacklist, as the EDL has yet to produce any political goal other than peaceful protest against the far-right Islamist movement". So apparently almost every media outlet in the UK is now "far-left", and they use the term for the reason in the second sentence. And don't get me started on "the far-right Islamist movement"
• [206] Assumes bad faith and shows his obvious politcal leanings with "The recent edits which you put into the article are clearly bias in favour of violent communist militias IMO" and reference to "reds", which in the UK is a term used almost exclusively by far-right activists, I'm sure you've all heard of Redwatch?
• [207] - Refers to some unions out of National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, Communication Workers Union, UNISON and the TUC, as "corrupt unions", which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

There's more besides, but I wanted to keep things relatively brief. Everything that got him banned by the Arbitration Committee is still being done - "personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith", "edit-warring", "attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines" - yes to all three. The admin who unblocked him has already warned Yorkshirian of problems with his editing and said "the next valid complaint I receive about you will lead to the indef block being reinstated. Examples include but are not limited to: revert warring, editing against consensus, or being rude to anyone in any way. If I am not around to do it, an other admin can so so with my blessing", so perhaps it is time for that to be put into action? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:One Night In Hackney - Here is a short answer to a long thread (which I read and reviewed thoroughly). You have a strong case here and I agree that an indef block is warranted. Manning (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yorkshirian since being unblocked has made alot of good contributions to different articles. This character assassination is unfair and doesnt belong here. If you had a problem with some of his actions or comments, you should have questioned them at the time, instead of plotting and creating this long list of examples which has clearly been in the works a long time. Disgraceful BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thoguh I've only been involved in the English Defence League article, I can't do anything but agree with the evidence that BW has brought up here. Yorkshirian has a distinct POV in these articles and constantly edit-wars and fights against anything negative being added, as well as adding wildly inaccurate and inflammatory speeches on their talkpages, especially that of the EDL. Editors who need more evidence need only look over that article's talkpage to see what he's been upto. Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Whoops. That should be 'One Night in Hackney' and not BritishWatcher, my apologies to both of you. Skinny87 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I was about to post here in partial defence of Yorkshirian - despite my fundamental opposition to many of his edits, and concerns about his behaviour - then realised that the block had already been reapplied, without the opportunity for any debate. A very hasty and regrettable decision has been taken, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Ghmyrtle - I have no doubt this user had the potential to be useful to the project. I have no doubt that since his release he has made some useful contributions. Now I am actually regarded as one of the most lenient and forgiving admins around and many admins question my willingness to give people a second chance. Regardless, my decision was a simple and uncontroversial one. His status was not that of an "editor in good standing". His status was of someone who had been released from an indefinite block under very stringent conditions of good behaviour. He clearly breached these conditions and therefore the block was reinstated. I had no alternative. Manning (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I hear what you say, and under the rules I'm sure you are correct - but I think it is unfortunate, firstly, that Yorkshirian was not given more specific warnings recently; and secondly that other involved editors were not given an opportunity to comment. I know Yorkshirian can be abusive (as can many other editors, of course) but in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles, which I think is common ground; and so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry. Perhaps I'm just being naive here, but I would have thought that a short sharp ban, to bring him to his senses re his occasionally abusive comments, would have been better on this occasion than an indef one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • How do people know they are "stepping over the line" if the first time its raised is when a long list of actions is presented here instead of them being told at the time to stop? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • You mean apart from the Request for Comment, the Request for Arbitration, the Arbcom case, being blocked, then being unblocked under the strict ruling that he not start up his old behaviour...then starting it up again? Skinny87 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                • He should have been dealt with at the time if he stepped over the line, not have this huge list of examples over a period of time added here, with no possible way to defend himself as hes already been blocked so cant post here. Thats unfair BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • (od)No, it really isn't He was blocked the last time for doing this kind of thing, then unblocked under the strict proviso he not continue what he was doing. He did, and now he suffers the consequences. Skinny87 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of review: The user involved has been indef blocked on previous occasions, in addition to the Arbcom remedy of a 12 month ban. The reversal of the block came about after extensive pleading and promises to adopt acceptable Wikipedia practices. These assurances have been reneged upon. I see no further reason to assume good faith with this user. The indef block has been reinstated. Manning (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Considering when other people bring matters to this place about editors disgraceful actions they get told to bugger off, the double standards is incredible. For example, every time an issue is raised about an editor who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her anti British pov pushing, people get told its a content matter and to get lost. Disgusting and offensive hipocracy from this place as always BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Good block Manning Bartlett continued disruption since return. BigDunc 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the re-block. As I pointed out to Theresa Knott, Yorkshirian had involved himself in eleven problems in only the first 48 hours since his unblock: [208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218]. I stopped paying attention after that but I know he was warned about various things since then, so I imagine things continued as disruptively after that time as well. From the beginning of this thread, that is obviously the case. This is a user who socked mercilessly for most of his recent ban with nasty threats and intimidation any time he was caught, so I was of the strong belief that he shouldn't have been unblocked in the first place. I was right. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, editors were dealing with this without blocks, and actually tackling the content issue (which is a content dispute, despite the framing here, and was directed to the NPOV noticeboard the last time that it came up at AN/I) at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere. It's somewhat misleading to frame English Defence League as Yorkshirian-versus-the-world, and to then treat it as such. For starters, there's another editor on Talk:English Defence League who agrees with Yorkshirian. And the diffs above are somewhat selective, ignoring edit summaries by Yorkshirian such as "seems to be talk consensus to mention labour, but not 'wings'", for example. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out to BW that the evidence regarding RA/AFA is from the last couple of days, and the other stuff is pretty recent too. Also the diff from Theresa Knott (it's right at the end of the post by ONiH) pointing out that Yorkshirian would be indef blocked on receipt of the next valid complaint, so he had ample warning in addition to having been banned for a year for what he's still been doing. BigDunc 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I endorse this block. Yorkshirian has made some decent contributions in his time, but the catalog of PoV-push edit-warring detailed here really do suggest he's poorly suited to a collaborative environment like this. Reinstating the indef-block does seem the only solution at this point - letting him back was worth trying, I think, but the experiment has pretty clearly failed. He's had his opportunities to reform, and has not. ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Restatement of my decision - there seems to be some confusion about what went on here, so I will restate it.

• Yorkshirian was released from his block under very specific conditions which related to no disruptive editing, no personal attacks, and no POV pushing. The most recent warning he received from Admin Theresa Knott in late July was quite explicit in that a single act of reoffending would incur reinstatement of the block.
• There is clearly at least one incident of reoffending in the numerous examples given above. As a result I saw no option but to fulfill the warning already issued.
• I remind all concerned that Yorkshirian was NOT an editor in good standing who deserved the protection of WP:AGF. He was a user who had been released from an indefinite block under strict conditions. All of the demands for fairness above fail to recognise that all manners of fairness have already been extended.
• BritishWatcher - If there are other users being the beneficiary of a "double standard" then by all means inform us. We cannot act on vague statements of unfairness, but need solid evidence we can review. I assure you we treat all cases of misconduct with impartiality. Manning (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you manning, the next time a matter is raised here about someone who has been sanctioned by arbcom for their past actions i hope it wont simply be dismissed as a content dispute or their comments ignored. As Yorkshirian is not able to discuss this matter here as hes blocked, perhaps you could atleast try to explain your reasons to him on his talk page where he can atleast try to defend himself. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to dredge up the past, but he was only unblocked after an agreement with Theresa Knott made in January 2009 or so. By rights, his ban should have been reset to one year at that point since he had not served any of it (instead creating dozens of socks for the first half of the ban). If that had happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion - he'd still be serving the original ban until next January or so. So he got off very easy and has returned the favor by disrupting the project at numerous turns starting almost the moment he was unblocked. If ever there was a preventive block, this was it. Wknight94 ^talk 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher - I assure you that if such a situation arises and you feel you are getting dismissed on AN/I then please feel free to contact me directly. As far as Yorkshirian, this highly POV diff alone was sufficient to reinstate the indefinite block, as it is in clear violation of the findings of Arbcom. (There are numerous others which were equally unacceptable.) There is no defending it, so there is simply no point in discussing the matter further. Manning (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn between regarding him as (i) an example of an lovable english eccentric, who amuses (Fascist football hooligans described as innocent christians defending their faith against islamic terrorists to take one of this comments) and a useful editor on esoteric issues (recent material on England), or (ii) a major force for disruption as evidenced above. Overall I would endorse the ban. I'm not sure why BW is opposing this, OK there is an overlap in their political perspective but a disruptive editor is a disruptive editor. Also BW, I do think you should name names, making generalised accusations is not helpful. On Yorkshirian, It might be an idea to leave it three months and then consider allowing him back in under "supervised edits" ie requiring prior approval, he has done some useful detailed work, its just a pity he couldn't confine himself to that. --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request - Yorkshirian has formally requested a block review at User_talk:Yorkshirian#ANI. As the blocking admin I obviously cannot conduct this review, so I'd be grateful if someone else could examine it. Manning (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very problematic block I started looking through the evidence and there were some problems. But the dispute clearly has two sides. The same person objecting to Yorkshirian's use of terms like "left-wing" keeps using problematic terms like "right-wing". The Irish British feuding has been very problematic lately. Some sort of mediation is needed. Perhaps some limitations like using the talk page and getting consensus might be helpful. But I don't see that this block before we've heard from the accused and before we've had a chance to discuss the problem and work through it is helpful. I support an unblock at least to allow Yorkshirian to post here. Asking him to limit himself to the talk pages while an investigation is carried out would have been a lot more helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• For example just looking at the EDL article I see the very first sentence is problematic as it uses the wording "professed aim". Clearly this is not NPOV and casts doubt on what their aims really are. We don't do that kind of thing. All the parties involved should slow down and we should work out a way to work through the disputes to address the issues of dispute one by one. This is in fact a content dispute with passions high on both sides. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So your logic is that both sides are in the wrong. Only Yorkshirian was already in a final final final last-chance situation. An Arbcom ban isn't just a time out, it's a message that such action will not be tolerated. Not only has he returned to the exact same stomping grounds engaging in the exact same activity, but there is good behavioral evidence that Yorkshirian = Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) which means he's twice been banned for the same activity! Maybe he's not edit warring with the same people as back then, but he's still edit warring. He is the common thread in all of the edit warring situations that he is blocked/banned for. And listen to him below with the thinly-veiled threat, "I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will". And the ludicrous socking claim, "which I have stopped completely". Of course he stopped socking - he was unblocked! He has probably been busy all day creating socks in order to pick up right where he left off. And the claim that he was indeffed last year "ONLY for socking" - not true, he was indeffed for socking to evade the year-long ban. It's just going to go round and round like this forever. It's all about community patience and he's worn it out for sure. Wknight94 ^talk 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is not just a content dispute it's a user conduct dispute. The finding of fact on the RFAR regarding Yorkshirian's conduct had three things - personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring, attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines. The first two are easy to show just by providing diffs which ONiH has done above, the third has to involve analysis of content to show that it applies. BigDunc 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't an agreement from Yorkshirian to limit himself to the talk pages of the disputed articles for the time being solve the problem? Other editors involved in the dispute should ALSO be trying to use the dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation is needed. Simply blocking one side or the other doesn't seem constructive to me. Where will it end? The last ones standing get to edit the article? Why don't we all agree to slow down, use the talk pages, and establish a mediation venue where the disputes can be worked out according to our policies. A little while ago people were trying to go after Irish editors, now it's an English editor, let's come together as Wikipedia editors. There are major differences in perspectives, but we can work through the content issues in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

COM - if this was in any way a content issue I would complete agree. However I have so far treated this as purely a behavioural and conduct issue. What I see from the evidence is a pattern of behaviour repeating itself - a pattern for which Arbcom has already issued a 12 month ban which was then circumvented via sockpuppetry. I don't see myself as going after any editor or favouring any standpoint. Manning (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - Regardless of the conduct issue, I think your suggestions about comprehensive mediation for the content dispute overall are highly valid. Manning (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Yorkshirian has agreed on his talk page to limit himself to the talk page of the Red Action article. He's also agreed to use follow the dispute resolution procedures by using the appropriate noticeboards and getting outside input when there is a dispute, instead of reverting back and forth. He's also been reminded to comment on content and not other editors. The same approach should be followed by other editors working on these articles. His "history" shouldn't make him more of a target or exempt others editors from following the same rules. Comments and edit summaries addressing other editors instead of article content, and revert warring with hostile edit summaries will result in interventions that are never pleasant. You've all been warned. :) Please try to work in a more collegial and collaborative manner and work through content disputes using the discussion pages and relevant noticeboards where outside opinions and perspectives from experienced editors can help resolve disagreements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Sounds like what he said in January. And again when he was unblocked. And again a few days after that. And what will his answer be in 3 weeks when it happens again? Let me guess - "Yes, I'll limit myself to collegial discussion"? And how about 2 weeks after that? The same? Ad nauseum...? Wknight94 ^talk 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Is that not what editors are supposed to be doing especially an editor who was given another chance after promises to change their behavior and when blocked for repeating what they had been sanctioned before on, they then say that they will do what they should have done since their unblock, bit late is it not? BigDunc 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also could I point out that while blocked he said vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing about the editing of ONiH. Hardly an act of contrition and could probably be seen as a personal attack at worse or a disregard for AGF. BigDunc 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

Yorkshirian has requested the ability to respond here, so I've created a section of his talk page in which he can do so. I am transcluding it below. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's comments

First of all I would like to say that the block should be removed, (1) because the rationale which ONIH present is riddled with strawmen and this is about simply a content dispute, rather than specific policy or anything else. (2) Manning also rushed in with the ban before I had a fair chance to present a defence and answer the ANI and indef blocking for a mere content dispute when he doesn't seem to understand why I was blocked before, is incorrect. Two points on that;

• The reason I was blocked on ArbCom, for a year, not indefinetly, was due to pushing regional separatism.[219] Since returning from my block I have completely reformed on this. I have helped editors I previously had problems with, in their tackling of such POV in the project and have helped to build up the England article as a way to make up for past errors. In fact that article is half way through a GA process as we speak and I need to finish off a few things to get it through.[220]

• The reason I previously had an indef block by Theresa was because of sockpuppeting[221] (I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will). Once I agreed to stop socking for around half a year Theresa allowed me to come back. Since then I have reformed on this too, I have not created a single sockpuppet. Reinserting the indef block for an issue of a content is completely illegitimate. Since I was indefed last year ONLY for socking (which I have stopped completely), not content or ArbCom.[222]

Now down to the rest:

Red Action / IRA — This is the reason ONIH launched the ANI, the rest he just trawled through my contributions to try and create a strawman to bolster his argument. In 1993, two members of the British communist organisation Red Action, Jan Taylor and Patrick Hayes, bombed their own country at Harrods on behalf of the IRA. The full story for quick view is available on The Independent here.[223][224] One says; "Besides running a big IRA bombing campaign, he was a leading member of Red Action, and his political associates maintain that "he was heavily involved" in their anti-Fascist activities, legal and illegal, "playing a crucial role, right up until he was lifted [for the terrorist offences]".[225][226]

Thus, I put such information, reliably referenced also by two books on the incident into the article on Red Action. ONIH (who happens to be a leftwing British, activist for republicanism in Ireland: see, COI) completely blanked this verifiable information from the article.[227] To give an American equivelent, it would be like an Islamist activist trying to get mentions of 9/11 removed from Al-Qaeda article. Seems an obvious case of vandalism, right? ONIH then preceded to create an extremely weak argument to rip all of the referenced info out, in the summary (other stuff exists) or that it gives "undue weight" because its a small article.[228] In summary, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No such policy exists to blank referenced information from articles, just because its an underdeveloped article. Lets just say sources for Red Action helping old grannies across the road, are rather slim on the ground. My stance on this is not based on Irish-vs-British; my own personal background is half-Irish, half-Italian. It is the referenced information for the Red Action article about their involvement in carrying out the bombing which I am saying needs to be included.

English Defence League / SOIE — ONIH was completely univolved in discussing content or editing these articles around a week ago. He has just created a strawman on here, after furiously rifling through my contributions to try and find anything bolster his presentation. Ie - move attention away from the Red Action issue and his removal of media referenced information. As Uncle G said this was discussion and differing opinions between various editors on content, ONIH's framing & selective commenting on the diffs is complete strawman. I cited my sources & presented an argument, collaborating with editors on the talk, some editors presented similar arguments, some presented different opinions.[229] Even the two editors who most strongly disagreed with my opinion there, & I in some sense "know" & work with on different articles across Wikipedia (Snowded and Ghmyrtle) are not throthing at the mouth here, which is telling on the extremely dubious framing by ONIH. For instance Ghmyrtle says above: "in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles .. so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry."[230]

I'll just give a couple of examples of the mischaracterisation of the diffs in this content dispute, presented by ONIH above. If this reply itself does not convince I'm willing to go through each one, till the point is got across. Keep in mind you do not have to be a communist to edit Wikipedia (thankfully).

• regarding left, far-left and so on. The organisation who have rioted with the police in protest against these groups (UAF) are described by the press as "socialists".[231] They are described by the Guardian as part of the "far left".[232] They were formed out of a group belonging to the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.[233] The article didn't mention the position or origins of their opposition at all, so I felt this relevent—I even used references from left wing sites, to present the argument.[234][235][236]

• ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting "We Hate Muslims". Yet the diff he presents shows that I did no such thing at all.[237] In the edit I added that some of the Islamist marches, where EDL protested (they claim to be opposed to "Islamism, terrorism and so on) were flying the yellow flags of Hezbollah. I used for reference, this video report the Guardian website, which you can see the yellow flags. And also this picture from the Associated Press.[238] Though again this is simply content, some editors agreed, some disagreed, we worked to come to a consesus (ONIH wasn't even involved).

Based on all of this and repeating what I said at the very start, I should be unbanned, since it is completely unwarranted, completely unrelated to ArbCom, more importantly the sockpuppeting which I was previous indefed for. This is simply a disagreement on content, nothing "malicious", I'm always proving references, collaborating and discussing to come to a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Manning below. You rushed in from my view, because you didn't even give me a chance to reply at ANI first before you formed an opinion (other editors have said the same). You didn't give other editors actually involved a chance to make comment either, rather took ONIH's dodgy propaganda presentation on face value, which has since been described as selective and dubiously framed by people actually involved (including ones who disagreed with me on the articles themselves).

In the ArbCom thing you see there about "geographical and cultural". That is what its refering to, regarding my previous (now reformed) regionalist pushing. Read through the ArbCom case. In any case, I served half a year block without editing for it. As for "POV editing", I present verifiable sources, collaborate on talks and come to a consensus—all completely within editing policy. There are no rules against presenting referenced information some might not agree with. You don't seem to be assuming good faith on it, perhaps take into account comments above such as ChildofMidnight. If a block can be handed out on that basis, then you should block ONIH too, for vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because you're pushing an extreme English nationalist POV and not your former English Regionalist POV (if there is actually a significant difference between the two strongly overlapping camps), it is somehow not a problem? Sorry, that doesn't wash. You are soapboxing, misrepresenting sources, using mainspace to pursue a political agenda including against living individuals, and you seem unwilling to admit that there is much of a problem with this. The only way you are ever going to be able to edit without turbulence, in my view, is to steer clear on article where you have a strong POV. Perhaps you can give a list of articles not on issues of British politics where you have made significant positive contributions? Guy (Help!) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't let that last slur pass unchallenged. Any cursory inspection of Yorkshirian's contributions since coming off his last block - or even just a glance at his talk page - would show major inputs of content on a whole variety of historical, ecclesiastical and European subjects, including a DYK. That's not to excuse some of his recent behaviour, or to suggest that I agree with all his edits or his manner of undertaking them, or for that matter his politics - but I do get the feeling that some people here are making comments based on the serious issues that happened some time ago (but which have now ceased), rather than on the relatively minor disputes (speaking as one who's been involved in some of them) that have taken place in recent days. I've had far worse arguments with "experienced" and "valued" editors than I've ever had with Yorkshirian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been mentioned above, that you've (in the past) evaded a ban (via socks). To quote a Shania Twain tune - 'That don't impress me much'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

..and if anyone can find any evidence whatsoever of recent behaviour by Yorkshirian along those lines, please make it public. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was closely tied, for my sins, with Yorkshirian's pre-2009 contributions, RfCs, ANIs, Sockpuppets, etc etc. We have locked horns and have had (I think it is quite fair to say) a turbulent, if not hostile relationship in former times. However, I really am with Yorkshirian on this; I share his views entirely on why he should be unblocked here and now. I do believe Yorkshirian is a different editor since returning, and has done some invaluable article work (a complete revamp of England for example) that proves him to be an asset. He has strong views, and can be difficult to persuade (hell, I know), but I don't see anything of this supposed bad behaviour that he's been blocked for, and so also agree with User:Ghmyrtle that evidence (diffs) should be shown together with which policies he has broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I too am of the opinion that Yorkshirian should be unblocked unless there's recent evidence of serious misconduct, despite not always having seen eye to eye with him in the past. I've been very impressed with his work and attitude on the England article, and if we're all required to be perfect here then wikipedia's going to run out of contributors pretty damn soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)

I was an uninvolved editor who has only encountered Yorkshirian since coming back from being blocked (a fact about which I was, until very recently, oblivious). I too have locked horns with Y. at the England talk pages, and have been trying to find a NPOV way forward at Talk:Red Action. I find Y. to be rather opinionated in talk contributions, but I have to back a couple of other editors here like Ghmyrtle and say that Y.'s contribs have been net positive. Y. certainly has a POV which is relevant to the articles where they've been an active editor, but this mostly has been managed successfully through discussion on talk pages, the way it should be. I'm not tracking the specifics of this incident, but i will say that there are POVs on both 'sides' at Red Action, and as a neutral editor on that topic, I wouldn't lay all fault at the feet of Y. I think Y. also makes a good point that the previous block was for socking, and there's no evidence of socking here, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to be relying on Y 'having form' in making the judgement calls on the current complaint (if that is the case: i'm not across the detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Yorkshirian around since coming back from the block, and though he is obviously still very opinionated, his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically. I am completely unimpressed that the evidence given proves serious behavioural issues and it seems the ANI is being used as a means to silent an opponent on the issues. Quantpole (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fot the comments everybody (including on my talk). Can somebody take the block off now so I can get back to seeing to England's GA? It seems most involved (or who I mostly come into contact with here) think this block was incorrect, its obviously a content difference of opinion and absolutely nothing to do with last years socking or anything else. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be willing to unblock you if there is no opposition...? Is there? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

May be best left to the blocking admin - have you approached them? Keith D (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be left to the blocking admin. He's cocked up once already. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unblocking. I don't think it was cocked up at all. Theresa Knott made it clear that Yorkshirian was on a very short leash, and he has mostly ignored that. He's simply not allowed to play around in these controversial areas. Just like Guy said above - which was conveniently ignored like the rest of the opposition - all Yorkshirian has done is exchange one POV bias with another. If he is unblocked, we'll just be right back here in a few weeks, guaranteed. Wknight94 ^talk 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And Jza84, you've made your stance pretty clear which makes you "involved". You unblocking Yorkshirian would be just as inappropriate as me re-blocking him afterwards. Wknight94 ^talk 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have very strong feelings on this matter Wknight94, Yorkshirian has apologised above, hes stopped using socks a long time ago, hes reformed. Avoiding the specific articles which has caused this dispute would resolve the problem and allow him to go on to contributing at articles where several respected editors have said hes done alot of good edits. Surely encouraging more reform is better than just giving up which means wikipedia loses out in the long run. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that is a little odd, but you do right to put "involved" in scare quotes. I am not involved in this case, and all my contact with Yorkshirian in the RfC etc (which I hope you have read to have passed your judgement?) were broadly before me becoming an administrator. However, I concede this as opposition for me to unblock (though disagree with the rationale, and I'm still looking for what diffs are policy breaching, where his warnings are, etc) and will not perform it. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Yorkshirian has contributed to the project in terms of improvements to articles. However, although his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically since his return from being (officially) blocked, his interaction with and lack of respect for editors who do not share his views is still, frankly, appalling. I would be in favour of the block being lifted only if his behaviour toward other editors is moderated considerably. Perhaps a probationary period with an experienced editor monitoring his contributions would be the answer. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Jza84 can't find any policy violating diffs, I would just like to ask him if he's familiar with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPA being policy, as there's clear evidence of violations of all three in the diffs provided. BigDunc 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're being silly: do you think I'm going to say I'm not familliar with those being policy BigDunc? Come on. I'm asking which diffs? That's what I'm asking, but I'll underline it incase you missed it: Which are the offending diffs? What policies have they breached? What steps/warnings were made to curtail distruption? I'm sure that something has happened, if a block has been made, but Yorkshirian's request to be unblocked raises serious questions, questions that you'd want answering if in that position, right? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No I am not being silly, there's a large collection of them on ANI which most people have bothered to look at, but here's a few specific ones, Personal attacks, Addition of unsourced claim about the EDL protesting against the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", Lying about sources. Also could I point out that people who've been banned for a year for various conduct issues, and received a final warning after that do not have to be warned any further before being blocked, and there's no policy that says otherwise. BigDunc 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider the first a personal attack: who is being personally attacked (if you say republicans, and that it is a blockable offense then I'll be blocking half of WP:IR for the stuff I see against "the British", and let go by)? The second is a breach of WP:OR, but that's not a blockable offense, it's an editorial dispute. The third diff ([239]) is not a blockable offense, it's an edit that needs further input and refinement (and I presume you're not assuming bad faith that Yorkshirian forgot to add a source or misunderstood one of them?); its edit summary is, actually, more of a personal attack than the first diff as it names an editor, but it's certainly not raging hatred; it's a poor summary that Yorkshirian should've been warned about. Yorkshirian needs mentoring, not blocking. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for violations and you have been provided with them that you chose to ignore is your own concern the fellow traveller comment is a clear attack. Also you say that individually they are not blockable but considering that this editor was on a final warning yet continues the behavior that got them blocked originally then the reblock was a good one. BigDunc 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is fellow traveller an attack or offensive? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see that. Am I missing some context here BigDunc? I don't see who (editor or group) is being attacked. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for an example of WP:PA: here - noting a good faith edit with which he disagreed as Welsh nationalist vandalism. Here are other examples of Yorkshirian's style: here failing to WP:AGF + insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here belittling Cornish/baiting Cornish editors, here racial baiting. Mentoring would be good. But would it work? Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how an earth can "Far more important than any "Saxons and Druids" stuff" be called 'racial baiting'? Quantpole (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. Daicaregos, there's nothing wrong in those diffs and I say that publically, on record and with conviction, because it's so clear. You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding with the WP:PA policy: nobody was mentioned by name and there's no use of derogatory language or slurs, or saying a particular editor is (wrongfully) harming Wikipedia without basis; so I ask again, who was personally attacked? At worst this is anglocentricism, but I think the truth is more like one editor sharing an opinion on a talk page. I don't agree with some of it, but, even as a half-Scot, I just see one perspective in a debate about lack of progress on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then say so, counter it with evidence, but don't say they should be blocked/banned for it, as that's not what blocking/banning is for. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on Dai, we can cope with that level of baiting, he can be amusing and he does his position not good with the stupid comments. On the other side he is willing to do some good detailed work to improve articles. He won't ever get another chance after this one, so lets go with it. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I did not rush in, I reviewed the matter quite carefully. I am very slow to make blocks.

1. The characterisation of the Arbcom's finding is wrong. I quote: "Yorkshirian has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines". The finding of fact makes no mention of "regional seperatism" as asserted above.
2. It is perfectly evident that there is a content dispute at the various pages referred to. This was not a factor in issuing the block. The block was made on the basis of disruptive and POV editing such as those I highlighted above.
3. You received a warning in July that one more case of misconduct would result in an indefinite block. Such misconduct occurred, and the indefinite block resulted.
4. As a compromise, I would be willing offer you that instead of the indefinite block, you simply serve the one year block that Arbcom originally levelled against you. As you sockpuppeted your way around it the first time you have yet to actually serve ANY of it. So I am willing to alter the block back to a full year instead of the current indef. Manning (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting We Hate Muslims. What was actually said was Changes that the EDL chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators at International al-Quds Day to the claim that they chanted it at "Hezbollah demonstrators", despite the source saying nothing of the sort. So ONiH didn't claim he removed anything, he said he changed the target of the chanting. BigDunc 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal block review

I have reviewed this case after a night's sleep and find my attitude has not changed. Despite the user clearly having made some positive contributions recently, I see this as a case of a long-term disruptive editor who has repeatedly abused policy, conducted sockpuppetry to evade a 12 month arbcom sanction and whose net benefit to the project is negative.

Regardless, Yorkshirian has formally requested block review on his talk page and I note that this has NOT yet been conducted. Due process should be followed and my comments above should be taken as nothing more than another single opinion.

In light of the heated content debate that exists parallel to this issue I would recommend that the review be conducted an admin with no prior experience editing in the related subject matter. I would also recommend that the review be conducted solely with regard to user conduct.

In conducting the review please also examine the alternate remedy proposed by ChildofMidnight on Yorkshirian's talk page. Manning (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)