Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592

Block needed for long-term sneaky vandalism IP

Resolved

58.172.32.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for a while been the static IP of the "climate chart vandal" aka Mkd111 (talk · contribs), who has been on a year-long spree of slow sneaky vandalism. His edits are partly random changes falsifying statistics tables and climate charts, such as [1] (apparently random mechanical changes to figures; the correct ones as per the source are those he removed), and partly insertion of new climate charts that look superficially plausible but are pure invention – none of them are ever sourced, and often he inserts figures that directly contradict sources that are already in the articles.

Can somebody please slap a longish hardblock on that IP? I'm not taking action, because he has recently been concentrating on Macedonia articles, where I am restricted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting others' comments

Resolved

 – Settled elsewhere (and this wasn't really the right venue, anyway) —DoRD (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

At WT:RFA, Arcayne (talk · contribs) has twice deleted a comment left by Xeno (talk · contribs), an admin. Arcayne is an immensely experienced user and must surely know that such activity is disallowed. He was also warned in-between the two deletions. I consider this behaviour to be unacceptable, and would welcome input. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an ANI on this is necessary - Arcayne and I are in dialog on the issue. –xeno^talk 20:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understood it, you were in dialogue over the "racism" debate. I am more concerned about the fact that Arcayne considers himself exempt from the talkpage guidelines, and I think that it merits wider input as a behavioural issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As to that issue, I've chosen a different word [2] which hopefully resolves the issue. –xeno^talk 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm not wildly concerned about his objection to your message's phrasing. It's the fact that he thought it was acceptable to remove it, twice, despite a warning and a long experience of Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was minded to give Arcayne a uw-delete2, but if the two of them are discussing the issue then maybe we should allow them to sort it out between them. Generally it is not a good idea to remove other editors comments. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think he appreciates your choice of words, judging by the threat at the end of his reply... ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone comes off looking too good here. While I see now that it is pointed out, the origins of the phrase "going off the reservation", it is still common parlance and I would not have thought twice about using it. Arcayne would have been smarter just to ask xeno to strike the language. No administrative intervention required here. Who's buying lunch?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, TT. Why you felt the matter could not have been handled off-noticeboard is beyond me, but there it is. I refactored out the comment that termed me as a racist because it was disruptive, attack-y and superfluous to the conversation. It was during a discussion at Talk:RfA wherein the term "gone off the reservation" was used to denote an admin who has begun acting outside of the rules. The rest of the conversation went on smoothly, as everyone understood the intent of the term. Xeno requested that I refrain from racist language a day (and more than at least a dozen other comments - none of which considered the phrase unbecoming). As the comment was essentially tossing gasoline on a fire, I refactored out the comment, as per WP:TPO and WP:REFACTOR, considering it desruptive. Call me crazy, but I consider being called a racist somewhat disruptive, uncivil and lacking in AGF. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of WP:TPO mandates removal of "disruptive" and "lacking in AGF" comments twice? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out phrases that are considered by some to be racist or insensitive is not the same as "calling someone a racist" - so now it is you who is being asked to refactor. –xeno^talk 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of TPO? Take your pick: how about "Removing prohibited material" (libel), "Removing harmful posts" or "Refactoring for relevance"? Stating that someone is using racist language equates to calling them a racist. Before you argue that, consider carefully how you would react to someone dropping the n-word into a conversation. I'm ¼ Native American, and if I have no problem with the common usage of the term, then neither should you. Your moral outrage non-sequitur aside, it was disruptive and was equivalent to tossing gas on a smoldering discussion between participants. It was unwise and should have been handled privately, since the offense taken was of a personal nature. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd respond, but this isn't the right venue. Someone close this, it's stale. And so is lunch - I'm not paying =) –xeno^talk 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And Treasury Tag is buying lunch, but not for me; I just ate his. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Blocked article subjects

Looking at the thread on James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) above I am reminded of something I have been meaning to do for some time. {{Blocked subject}} is advice for blocked subjects. If your template-fu is strong I encourage you to tweak or amend as necessary, for example to include whether the user is blocked or not as a parameter and tailor the message accordingly. Also reduce the length as it is somewhat loquacious. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice template Guy. I've made a suggestion on its talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, feel free to make any changes you like. It's very much a first draft. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Grandmasterka 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

question

I remember a consensus (policy?) that we shouldn't collect what other editors have said on talk pages and save them on a private page somewhere. I forget what it was called, and haven't seen it for a long time, so I don't know if it's current consensus. Can s.o. point me in the right direction? kwami (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about copying and pasting it to your own userspace, or something different? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the fourth paragraph of Wikipedia:Attack page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was it. Thanks! kwami (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Please

Just by sheer luck I happen to spot an article created by a now blocked user with a bunch of racially charged BS concerning the earthquake in Hatti, on a hunch I check the contributions and found a massive attack campaign underway at the article Timeline of rescue efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I semi-protected the article and reverted the worst of the vandalism. I had a look through it, so far everything seems correct after the revert, but I would really like an extra pair of eyes to check to make sure all the vandalism is out of the article (I haven't been following the quake statistics all that much), and I could use a second opinion on the semi-protection length. I plugged in 6 hours, but in all honest if today's edits were any indication I think more time should be allotted. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked all the diffs from the last good edit before ClueBot's back to 17 Jan, and they all look clean to me. —DoRD (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one of the vandal edits mentioned "9000" so I expect that this has something to do with /b/. —DoRD (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Lord, we all know that means :/ Handling this assignment is going to be loads of phun... TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought something was up. I mean, I'm aware that your average school IP is filled with thee cream of both stupidity and ignorance's crops, but it seemed as though the Haitian earthquake articles had been getting a bit too much attention from vandals... HalfShadow 19:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why the hell are we even talking about this if /b/ is involved? Find the thread, report the fuck out of it, and semi the article for a bit. Don't talk about it, shut it down! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NY Times content

The New York Magazine is reporting that the New York Times is going to cease providing free content and will install a "metered" payment system. Please see Wikipedia:Using WebCite for information on how to archive NY Times articles in Wikipedia before they disappear behind a paywall.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bot waiting to be written. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The current NYT plan seems to be that only access to more than a few articles will require payment, just like Financial Times does. So, I don't see how this will cause any serious problems for us. You'd still be able to verify the occasional article reference. Besides, all NYT has to do to nix all your WebCite copies is to send an opt-out letter to WebCite. Pcap ping 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Already done → User:WebCiteBOT. I'd leave it's owner a message. He has already done Geocities, and Encarta Tim1357 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with User

I am having difficulty trying to calm down User talk:Dropmeoff at the article Mestizo, its talk page, and my talk page. He has insulted me, and accused me of many things, while using terms such as "Pro-European racial ideology", "Stormfront.org", etc. I believe we need someone to moderate, because he insists on inserting questionable and sensitive information in the articlres, which is very POV. Thank you for the help. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Building on this thread, I would ask C.Kent87 if User:Chris Iz Cali (consult sockpuppets of C.Kent87) is your new sock puppet because it seems very coincidental that both do very similar issues to increase the percentage of whites in Mexico [3], manipulation of sources [4][5] and violating 3rv [6]. Another coincidence is the name of your previous sock puppet User:Cali567 and I presume is his new sock puppet User:Chris Iz Cali, or not?. Ccrazymann (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ccrazyman, you can ask an Admin. to check the IP addresses, and you will see that our IPs are not the same. It is a known strategy to accuse others so that you may continue to vandalize, but really, enough. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Chummer, administrators do not have access to that kind of info; only checkusers do. Having said that, Ccrazyman, either file a SPI about this or shut up about it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seems odd to me so much coincidence. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Then file a fragging SPI and stop using AN/I as a surrogate. Most admins here are not gonna be able to help you (especially if you keep spewing accusations); a CU will. Get thee to WP:SPI; stop blathering here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jéské, would you ever take a chill-pill or something. That's three times in the last few mins on ANI that you've just been downright rude, and esp. to relative newbs. Chill already - Alison ^❤ 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ccrazymann deserves every bit of it. He's terribly annoying. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that an experienced user and old as Jeremy, react so angrily to a novice user like me, I find it worrying. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He was a little off putting, and is probably regretting it now, but he made a valid suggestion about the SPI thing and where to request a checkuser. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but his reaction only makes inexperienced users away from discussions like this, plus a lack of respect is telling me "stop blathering here". That can take as a personal attack and a clear lack the Civics. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but his suggestion is valid. If you've strong suspicions regarding an editor abusively socking, you can gather your evidence and post a case over on WP:SPI for other admins/checkusers to look over - Alison ^❤ 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get back to the original request (User:Ccrazymann, you may do whatever you'd like elsewhere). C.Kent87 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An old friend?

Something about Seregain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) puts me in mind of an old friend.

• Started a correctly formed AfD with their first edits
• Start a campaign against another editor with only 200 edits under their belt.
• Only 200 edits but has started two AfDs and is clearly well versed in policy and wikipedia debating styles and terms from edit one.
• [7] also does not look like the kind of thing a new user would write within their first 200 edits.

Does anyone kn ow what this user's original account was? I'm not going to believe this is a genuine newbie. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note that, WP:SPI is likely to be the best place for this. NJA (t/c) 09:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hovhannesk and wilful misunderstanding of categories

I'd like to complain about User:Hovhannesk, who for months on end has been adding bogus categories to biographies of ethnic Armenians. For example, at Mariam Matossian, he added Category:Armenian musicians. I reverted him with the question "but is she a citizen?", yet he simply undid my revert. It's proper to put her in Category:Armenian Canadians, because she is of Armenian descent. It's not right to include her at Category:Armenian musicians, because chances are very high she's not a citizen of Armenia. She's Canadian by citizenship, so she belongs in Category:Canadian folk musicians.

Another example: this edit. First, it's illogical to have him at Category:Polish people of Armenian descent and Category:Polish Armenians -- one or the other (presumably the former). But it's downright absurd to put him under Category:Armenian film directors. He was not a citizen of Armenia, never made a film there, and for all we can tell, never set foot there.

I've tried to reason with him, but was met with defiance. This isn't a content dispute: we categorise people in professions by citizenship, period. And he does it all the time, so there's a bit of urgency involved too. Could someone else try to drum some sense into him? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have left User User:Hovhannesk a notification of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• The possibility of dual citizenship should not be excluded. Many Canadians are also citizens of other countries, and Armenia may consider that a child of an Armenian parent born outside Armenia is also an Armenian. This is speculation on my part, but it is worth considering. On that basis, Jerzy Kawalerowicz may also have been an Armenian citizen. - Eastmain (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What really matters is what relaible sources report as far as nationality goes. Something similar was going on at the Rachel Maddow bio where Canadian nationality was being added to the lead per a citation to Canada's nationality laws. --Tom (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastmain, it is possible some of these are dual citizens. However, he has stated he doesn't care about citizenship, but about "ethnic race". Moreover, have a look at this edit. There was no Armenian state at any time during this individual's lifetime, yet he went ahead and added Category:Armenian actors (as well as Category:Turkish Armenians when Category:Turkish people of Armenian descent was already there). I think that's a problem, and shows he isn't at all concerned with citizenship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This editor seems to be a bit of an issue. Note the number of automated BLP notices on their talk page. Also see this old ANI thread. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hovhannesk recently moved Armenian Iranians to Iranian Armenians just hours after the proposal was made at WP:RM by another user to make that move. It's not an uncontroversial move, as evidenced by the comment of another user on the page (which was there when Hovhannesk made the move). I moved the page back and asked him not to move pages in the middle of a formal move discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom is right: what matters is what reliable sources say, particularly when it comes to living people. Repeatedly adding dubious and unsourced categories to BLPs is a blocking offense. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One factor that needs to be remembered here is that until a few years ago the Armenians were an ethnic group without a state: it would be hard for any Armenians to have dual citizenship. (A similar case is the Kurds.) Further, some members of an ethnic group live as expatriates due to a clear risk to their well being: life may be far better as a cab driver in Berlin than as a professor at their national university where they might be taken for "questioning" by the national security apparatus at any time, for example. That said, what I would look for is some assertion that the individual has a presence in Armenian culture -- that their music, art or writings are intended in some significant degree for an Armenian audience. While personally I would hold a person to a lower standard of verifiability than some here would, I still would look for something in the article to support the category beyond place of birth. -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Armenians born in the Armenian SSR certainly have evidence in their internal and external Soviet passports to determine if they are Armenian citizens. If reliable sources cannot be found that call a person a Soviet and/or an Armenian citizen, then it cannot be included in that person's article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But what about Armenians born in Turkey or Syria, areas traditionally considered part of the Armenian homelands? (Which is why I mentioned the Kurds as a similar case.) The issue of ethnicity here is far more complex than simple labels on a passport -- no matter which country issues them. -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that with persons notable enough to feature in Wikipedia, we would have some evidence of them self-identifying as Armenian (the same principal as for Americans identifying as Jewish). This might exclude a few people who do not refer to their origins out of fear or other reasons, but is probably the best we can do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

La Brea Tar Pits

Resolved

 – Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. It's a dead give away when a single use account signs their signature on both accounts manually, but wikilinks to article space instead of user space. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor with the name of "Playdoh"-something has been waging a slow edit war for the last month, repeatedly attempting to insert a promotional piece. The editor won't follow consensus, and has been arguing his case on the talk page, and keeps adding it anyway. I don't know if I can take this to the edit-warring page since he doesn't seem to have violated 3RR (yet). But since he won't listen to anyone else, maybe a notice on his talk page, from an admin, might get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like no serious attempt has been made to have a discussion with this user. The only messages on his/her talk page are a boilerplate welcome message and a one-liner with little more than a link to WP:3RR (and no explanation). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Playdoh-something?! Please provide diffs, references to what and who you mean. And please notify that person of the multiple threads you have now opened about them. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Playdoh1845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As for spamming, here are some diffs. Also, given that the editor above has been participating in the discussion on the talk page, your note there has been no attempt to discuss this with the editor is false, given there is ample discussion there telling the user exactly that. Please read a little more into the situation before you go making broad statements that don't assume the good-faith of others. Bugs even said that he tried explaining this to the user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion without first informing the editor of the discussion is couterproductive. I have now informed them of this section. Weakopedia (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, apart from the article talkpage, I'm not seeing any other threads where BB mentioned this. —DoRD (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, BB appeared twice in my watchlist and I misread the second edit summary - one thread it is. Weakopedia (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The user is a single-purpose account whose entire focus is that one article, to promote his website. I've already warned him at least twice at the one place he's working. I wanted an admin to speak to him on his talk page - where, if you'll notice, he's ignored all attempts by other to get him to follow consensus and stop his spamming. I was hoping an admin would post on his talk page so he might pay some attention, since he doesn't care what anyone else thinks. If he comes here to make his case, that's fine. Thank you (to the non-admin) for posting on his talk page. We'll see what he does next. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: If the user persists, can I take him to the edit-warring page even if he hasn't technically violated 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the editor continues to add the material, even if they don't violate 3rr, take it to an/ew as it allows for slow edit wars as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR is meaningless. If someone is edit warring, you can take them to the edit-warring page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3rr is only "the bright line," before which blockable edit warring can and often does happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Playdoh1845. Thank you for your time. Whoever has been involved here, I hereby request that you review the evidence and comment. Again, thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

His apparent sock is also accusing us of being workers for the La Brea Tar Pits museum. Until this situation came up, I was unaware that there was a conspiracy theory connected with this place. He's basically accusing us of trying to sweep his pet project under the tar pit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:David Steele Searacer

User:David Steele Searacer seems determined to create an article about himself. He has created David Steele (Searacer) and David Steele Searacer, both of which have been deleted, and has now created David Steele Searacer again. However, this is not the reason why I am posting here. He has repeatedly moved his user talk elsewhere: first he moved it to David Steele (Searacer), and I copied the material back to User talk:David Steele Searacer. Now he has moved User talk:David Steele Searacer to Talk:David Steele Searacer. I believe it is important for the history of the user talk page to remain intact, because it contains a record of warnings and other messages which may be relevant in future considerations of this editor's behaviour. I can, of course, simply copy the material back to his user talk page, as I did before. However, I see two reasons why this would not be a perfect solution: (1) it would not maintain the proper history, and (2) since he has now moved his user talk page twice it looks as though he may be prepared to continue to do so, and a futile edit war over this issue would not be desirable. I wonder whether it is possible for an administrator to restore the full edit history of the user talk page, and there may also be a point in someone other than me contacting the editor and explaining why moving his user talk page in this way is problematic. I have done my best, but to no avail. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I now see that User:Redvers has merged Talk:David Steele Searacer back to User talk:David Steele Searacer. Whether this was done in response to my post above or independently I cannot tell, but anyway it is done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a result of your post. I've also move-protected his userpage to stop him making an article of it again, in the hope of avoiding biting him. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism & Civility

I would like to mention couple of things in the ANI report :

1. Uncivil remarks and personal attacks by User:Goethean—"f***ing joke" "megalomaniac and a liar"
2. Edit summary vandalism by IP 76.217.117.66 which looks ugly in History and counter personal attacks!—[8]. ( Also would like to mention that another admin User:Abecedare was investigating stalking by AT&T ip address on User:Goethean )

--TheMandarin (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has a history of disruptive editing based off the talk page discussions regarding violations of WP:3RR, at a very minimum. I'd like to point out that [9] was a personal attack in response to a request to avoid personal attacks. I was considering dropping off a {{uw-npa4im}} on the talk page based on that, but based on the conversation that has already happened, it doesn't seem like it's useful. I would like to see some input from the user, or at least an acknowledgement that this is a problem in hopes that things can change. But the comment regarding religion is quite unacceptable. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. If you think someone is using personal attacks, ask them nicely to tone it down. Templates tend to inflame, rather than cool off, heated situations. If your goal is to get them to stop, the best method is to start a non-templated discussion with them. --Jayron32 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well my comment wasn't really regarding the template; the fact remains that there already was an attempt to tone down the personal attacks, and the response was to use a personal attack. At that point, there isn't much more that can be done. I remain hopeful that the user stops by here to give some insight, though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous editor was definitely out of line, but I can see he was provoked. A bit of context to the above edit shows that Goethean wrote that "You've got a tremendous amount of gall complaining about systemic bias against your position. What a fucking joke." Neither side really looks too good. I think that both editors be given a warning that further inflammatory comments shouldn't be made. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The anon user is a well-known harasser of User:Goethean and should be reverted and blocked on sight, without wasting time engaging in his trolling.
• As for Goethean's comments themselves: I have previously had occasion to urge him to be more civil in discussions, to avoid personal attacks, and to use dispute resolution processes. It would help if other admins and users could take a look at his conduct, and also the content disputes surrounding Ramakrishna, Jeffrey J. Kripal, and Kali's Child. The combination of genuine content issues and sub-standard editor conduct have made the editorial process reach an impasse (Note: I am not involved in these issues, though I have offered advice to parties on both sides of the dispute). Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ramakrishnan goes to a dab page. Which page do you want us to look at? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I've looked at the contributions. The only really controversial stuff I can see is on one of the articles, which is Talk:Jeffrey J. Kripal. The first problem is where he wrote that "Showing a lack of restraint that is completely typical" (unnecessary) and also where he wrote "What a fucking joke". I have to say that while this is definitely uncivil, it's not the worst I've seen. Definitely needs a warning though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added a warning to his talk page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion after this user undid an edit of mine with the summary, 'undoing hatcheding of article'. I think he meant 'hatcheting.' I felt insulted, especially since I made my edit in good faith. Maybe he didn't understand the warning about using good manners? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created a Wikiquette alert. I hate trying to type this neologism, btw. From now on I'm calling it an etiquette alert. The spelling of Wikiquete Wikiqet Wikiquette makes my brain hurt. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the civility problems, rampant personal attacks from as early as 2008, explained briefly at the wikiquette. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Vandals

Resolved

 – Content dispute. No admin intervention required, but discussion is urged. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor User:Racepacket is in my view abusing the authority to edit articles. Specifically, Racepacket has targeted two articles, the List of Notable Morehouse College Alumni and the Black Ivy League, by deleting valid content.

Similar deletions and/or comments have not been made to similar articles such as the list of Earlham college alumni, Hampden Sydney, Elon University, etc. Why these two articles have received such harsh scrutiny is a question the editor must answer. Nonetheless, deleting a large percentage of an article which has been on the wiki for several months is odd if not deviant.

The edits made by Racepacket destroy or otherwise undermine the historical significance of Black Colleges and the tradition of the Black Ivy League.

Because similar deletions and or comments have not occurred on similar articles, one can only conclude that a certain level of bias exists.

The content/text deleted was factual and supported by citations and acted to further the overall purpose of these article(s). It is unfortunate however, that the editor found it necessary to intrude on two well written articles.

In the spirit of MLK Day, we must promote peace and harmony by discontinuing invasive attacks on substantive articles of historic significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Three things right off the bat:

1. If you're trying to paint somebody as a racist, stop right there. Such personal attacks will get you nowhere here fast.
2. I don't see what much ANI is able to do for you here. This looks more like a content dispute more than anything. Rather than continue conversation with Racepacket, you instead come here and accuse him of vandalism – a lack of assuming good faith on your part as well.
3. You are required to notify whom you are reporting here (like that I just had to do).

–MuZemike 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The word "racists" never came out of my mouth! No I am not attempting to so label. Simply attempting to have this type of editing stopped. Do you wish to help?? John E. Rhea (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)JER —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I should note that when discussing issues related to "black folk" too often we conclude that a "contesting party" is raising allegations of racism. Such makes it easy to dismiss the underlying issue. In the instant situation, we have an editor who is applying scrutiny to an article unnecessarily.John E. Rhea (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)JER

• I understand your good intentions, but it might be worthwhile discussing why they are making the changes on the talk page, and also perhaps send them a friendly message noting our policies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, I see you did. This does look to be a content dispute. I'm marking as resolved. Please discuss with the editor but preferrably stay to the article talk pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket is discussing this on the talk page. Suggest you take an AGF pill and do likewise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in "Don't bite the newby," and User:John E. Rhea is clearly a newby. He created his account on Nov. 27, 2009 and has 436 edits that were are mostly devoted to Morehouse College and the Black Ivy League articles. We have left welcome messages explaining the need to sign talk page comments and to document with references main article contributions. With respect to lists of college alumni, such alumni should be notable. If a Wikipedia article exists for the person, I assume that notability has been established. However, User John E. Rhea has been adding many people who are not covered by Wikipedia articles. In these cases, I evaluated whether the person could meet notability standards, and if not, I deleted the name. At Mr. Rhea's request, I have spent the last three hours working on Earlham College. The list of notable Earlham alumni and faculty were recently trimmed by User:Awiseman, but I did trim three non-notable faculty. (I then turned to building up the referenced content of the article.) The members of WP:UNI are willing to apply criteria fairly regardless of the race of the individuals involved. However, the insertion of non-notable people in alumni lists is an on-going problem and warning messages are included as comments in the source code of such lists asking editors to not do that.

I don't understand his concept of "intruding on an article." Perhaps User:John E. Rhea needs some mentoring. He has a lot of energy, but needs to learn more about WP:N, WP:NPOV as well as the mechanics of Wikipedia.

Regarding "deleting a large percentage of an article" (without discussion on the talk page), that is in fact what User:John E. Rhea has done today. Again, this is probably a beginner's mistake. Racepacket (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, that's very gracious and good natured of you Racepacket... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be a case of mistakenly thinking that editors own articles. In any case, I apologize if I caused any difficulty here. When I saw this being brought up on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day I naturally drew the line that someone may have been alleging racism going on. I also assumed that the OP wanted some admin action taken, i.e. via a protection or a block (which clearly neither will happen per the recent commentary). But yeah. I would also recommend to keep discussing on the article's talk page, as that's that article talk pages are there for. –MuZemike 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John E. Rhea has confirmed that User:John E. Rhea and User:MuJami are the same person. Given the note on User talk:John E. Rhea about deleting an account, it's possible this is just a case of a newbie forgetting his password and making a new account - although it wouldn't have killed him to explain this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:RMHED

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

As there appears to be overwhelming support for this block, there is no reason to continue piling on. RMHED has the necessary avenues for appealing the block should he wish to do so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RMHED (talk · contribs) was provisionally unbanned by BASC in late September. Since then, he has engaged in disruptive activity that has led to a series of subsequent blocks for incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate behavior, and trolling. More recently, he has blatantly violated WP:POINT by seeking some sort of revenge against another editor. As a result, I issued this user a final warning, and his response indicated that he doesn't understand why his actions are disruptive. As such, I have indefinitely blocked him. I am posting here to alert the community of my actions and to ensure that they are not considered excessive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: RMHED is a classic example of "the wasp at the picnic" who appears to consider erudition to be superior to negotiation or civility. Providing good content here is not unique to a handful of editors, nor confers immunity from sanbtions, as previous disruptive editors have found to their cost. Time after time, RMHED has been brought here, and elsewhere, has been multiply blocked and has perpetually failed to behave in a collegiate manner- and even if he's objectively correct, he's conspicuously failed to have that view accepted. Enough. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, although I usually use "fly in the ointment". RMHED could be a good editor if he wasn't so RMHED about it :P. He's been blocked countless times, without understanding that we won't tolerate what he's doing (possibly because we keep tolerating it). He's exhausted all his chances, as far as I'm concerned. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - RMHED has also been mildly disruptive at other RfA/Bs. See here, here, here, here, here, here... And those are just recent ones. Though he does amuse me on occasion, I think that a block isn't a bad thing. -- Atama頭 01:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Otherwise, where's the end of the line for someone like this? Şłџğģő 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Support All of his disruptive activity makes me wonder why he was unbanned in the first place. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. When I saw RMHED's comments earlier today in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight 3, I thought there were so obviously over the line as to merit an immediate block right then and there; the revenge diff[10] only made it worse. In view of the long history of disruption and apparent unwillingness to reform, an indef block was very much in order. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. This behavior had to come to an end at some point. RMHED has used up his "chances", and since being unbanned, has consistently embodied "disruptive" in every sense of the word. JamieS93 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse, beneficial, with no loss to the project. Should remain blocked. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - While I am reluctant to comment given that I was the user who removed his remarks at useight's RfB with a less than cordial edit summary. Even still, I've seen nothing but absolute incivility and trolling from this user. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - I never quite understood why he remained unbanned all this time; RMHED acts like Wikipedia is his playground, we are his toys, and he has nothing to lose. Constantly skirting (and crossing) the edges of policies and guidelines for personal amusement is disruptive. Would have been an amazing gadfly against entrenched wiki-bureaucracy if he cared to be, but sadly he did not. -kotra (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support block, oppose indef. Perhaps a little mentoring is needed? (If not then just ignore this)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand ready to be a mentor to RMHED if that is what's needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case. I Support the proposed mentorship of RHHED. As long as he himslef agrees that is.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

and you seriously think ChildofMidnight would be an appropriate mentor? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs)

What evidence do we have that Baconfat will respond positively to mentoring? There are several diffs right up there indicating he is an irredeemable troll. Şłџğģő 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Why not? CoM is a competent person. While he made some mistakes in the past, he's no idiot. He'll do fine. 2. If you never try then you'll never know. Give him a chance (yes I know he has had a second chance before)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From the many mentorings I've seen on en.WP, the mentoree almost always winds up reblocked but the mentor learns a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll just say this: ChildofMidnight, as an editor, is not without conflict, and struggle as I might to WP:AGF, I would prefer to see some terms and conditions laid out for both parties to this arrangement. Rodhullandemu 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cruel here, but "a second chance?" Do you know how to count? Şłџğģő 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

When RMHED was provisionally unbanned in September, he was given three mentors, all experienced WP users. Obviously that has not helped. Apart from the current incident, there were two other blocks for disruption between Sept 20 and now. I would say he has used up his second and third chances already. Nsk92 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry people. Just trying to save him from a terrible fate....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did duck out of mentorship when we were fellow candidates for ArbCom, for obvious reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• The terms of his unban found here may be interesting, and it should be noted that he has been blocked for disruptive comments on RfX in the past. Nathan ^T 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support with regrets for the block. Mentorship isn't a panacea. RMHED can contribute productively when he chooses to, but blanking a civil oppose at an RFA is a direct challenge to how our website operates. This is someone who only recently received a provisional unban. Durova⁴⁰³ 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He can't choose to if he can't edit now can he? So how can he be unblocked? No since loseing another editor (even if he is disruptive). Can't people change?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how many chances you're prepared to give; tell me, how many has RMHED had already? Rodhullandemu 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alot less than Vintagekit's. I just thought that something good could come out of this, that's all.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, and to answer your question at the end there: Fuck no. Şłџğģő 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an RFA candidate with more blocks than him.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So? Şłџğģő 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

your right, just forget everything I said.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mine's bigger than yours" is never a valid argument. The person currently at RfA has not exhausted the community's trust in the way RMHED has; tell me, how many of that user's blocks are indefs? Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support He does deserve to get banned, but until the thirst for disruption goes away, he'll just keep on making socks and being a nuisance. Better to just revert everything he does and not feed any drama to his trolling. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this is an "indefinite until the problem is unlikley to reassert itself" rather than "indef seeking for a ban"?--Tznkai (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, but butting heads with the user will only make him angrier. Better just to not give him the attention he wants. Banning or not banning is irrelevant until that is solved.Doc Quintana (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - To be honest, I am not sure why the BASC unblocked him in the first place. Tiptoety ^talk 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough was enough. I wouldn't be opposed to the WP:Standard offer, but the disruptions RHMED has caused both recently and long-term, mean I beleive he needs to stay blocked for at least a while. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Editor is of no value to the project, and far too much time has been exerted discussing his problems. Cut the cord. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support I supported this users second chance and it did not take long to regret it. I was not surprised to see this thread. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• I had a feeling this was coming for quite a while - in fact, I'm surprised this discussion hasn't happened sooner. I'm not sure why ArbCom reversed the community-imposed ban like that - their authority should not override that of the community's in this regard, and a formal appeal should have been applied instead (or was it - either way, his unblock was widely opposed at the time). But that's ultimately beside the point - since his return to active editing, RMHED has done next-to-nothing even remotely helpful to the site (I've checked before), and has instead conducted himself in a manner reminiscent of a jester, making satirical remarks on numerous talk spaces that are often laden with pointy undertones, and are so incoherent that they cannot be taken seriously as anything other than blatant trolling. The only slight redeeming factor in this case is, I actually like his sense of humour. But the fact remains, he has proven that he is not a fit for this site. Wikipedia needs editors, it needs vandal fighters, it needs administrators - but it does not need satirizing jesters. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• RMHED has been playing games and hovering on the brink of a block or topic ban for some time. The block is appropriate and should remian in place until there is some acknowledgement of, and commitment to reforming, the issues identified above. He's quite capable of doing that any time and I would obviously support a conditional unblock when suitable assurances are in place. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support. RHMED's latest antics aren't so bad in themselves, but these are just the latest shenanigans in a long history of what is pretty blatant trolling. If RHMED had any point to make I might be a little more forgiving, but causing disruption seems to be the only aim. Not useful to the project, so get rid of him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose without date certain RMHED is, at best, "colorful", and certainly can act a bit odd (yes, I saw his work at Daily Mail), but I continue to oppose indefinite blocks as being quite inutile at best, and Drsaconian at worst. Collect (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain As the candidate in one of the recent WP:RFAs that he has targetted (as Mr. Baconfat), I would not want to sound like "sour grapes" towards my first oppose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support perfect example of the dangers of giving too many "last chances". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support As others have mentioned, the latest nonsense isn't so bad in itself, but taken with the rest of RMHED's history, this is a necessary end. Look at all the time and energy spent trying to convince him to behave in a civil manner, all for naught. Sorry, but the net value of his presence here is in the red. —DoRD (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Thehairybananasling on Obama bio

This user (a troll?) posted this. [11]. Can something be done to prevent this person from doing it again? Thanks. Malke2010 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference the correct name is Thehairybananasling (talk · contribs). I had already reverted and given this user a level 2 vandalism warning with an additional note about altering peoples talk page posts. As it's the only contribution i'm not sure that additional steps need to be taken unless more contributions follow.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, Thanks, Malke2010 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the Obama article along with its talk page under protection from vandals?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like protection is off. Can someone put it back if so?Malke2010 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, the talk page is not. This edit was to the talk page. Protecting the talk page completely cuts off even good faith input by non-confirmed editors and shouldn't be done lightly.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama is semi-protected, which prevents edits by new and unregistered users. The talk page is not protected, nor should it be unless it is vandalized extremely often.  Sandstein  16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::See that, very good, Danke.Malke2010 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hairy banana sling is probably a username violation, this is almost certainly not an account on which to expend too much effort before blocking. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Did not know about user name vios. Good point. I do feel that anyone coming on saying such things is demonstrating that he/she does not wish to be part of the wikipedia community and should be shown the door, but this is a process.Malke2010 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Probably at least borderline. Just to be clear I have no expectations of watching FA's flow out of this account. I'm also not sure it's any different then the dozens of other one time vandal accounts that pop up weekly.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if s/he comes back, then could it be blocked? Because, presumably the block is for that computer/IP where the edits are coming from?Malke2010 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikal

Resolved

 – matter is in hand Rodhullandemu 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There is an ongoing dispute over at Mikal, which appears to be the name of two separate musicians--one from the U.S., and the other from the UK. Editors are fully replacing content in favour of one musician or the other. The most recent articles for both are: UK and US. Both of these articles have notability issues. In order to address both of them, some disambig is in order, but I think it goes beyond my capabilities as an editor. My best guess for a solution is to create a redirect from Mikal to Mikal (disambiguation), and create Mikal (American musician) and Mikal (UK musician) with appropriate content and edit histories. Thanks, Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... This will need some work to split into separate articles, but the disambig need not be that complicated. Since the UK article was created first, I think that should be under the main title. Notability and sourcing can be addressed when the waters have cleared somewhat. Rodhullandemu 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I hadn't realised there was another Mikal - Michael Gurry, so have created the DAB page accordingly. I'll take a look at the content. No further admin action required here. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stealing a userpage, abusive comments

Resolved

 – Page blanked as lacking attribution, later recreated as an attack page and subsequently deleted. –xeno^talk 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No administrative action required. All Wikipedia pages are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; scroll to the bottom of any Wikipedia page and read the fine print. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After I noticed User:TheRightfullEqual stole another editor's userpage wholesale without attribution (see his versus User:NDfan007), I deleted it with the edit summary "Remove copyvio; license for that text requires attribution. Copied from User:NDfan007." This disease of copying userpages wholesale without attribution seems to be going around in the last day or so. The response I got was this abusive comment on my talkpage and TheRightfullEqual's userpage now changed to be a personal attack on me.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: also this attack from new sockpuppet User:The Man That Rocks And Is Cool.

I'm not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Wikipedia is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 10:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm no expert here, but read over the comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User has copied my user page in near-entirety including barnstars.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I contributed to that thread, and have obviously read it. I am still not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Wikipedia is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I'm no expert, just going by what was said above, but the problem would be that the CC-BY-SA isn't a free license in the sense that it's like public domain material or something; attribution is still required for a subsequent use to be permitted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• The terms of CC-BY-SA are clear - re-use of content requires attribution, even within Wikipedia. However, although that is a perfectly correct reason to prevent unattributed userpage copying, the fact that it is deceitful and rude is more important but also more open to wikilawyering. CIreland (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• User:The_Man_That_Rocks_And_Is_Cool's only contributions so far have been to vandalise a talk page, and refactor my comments when I notified them. Very very mild personal attacks, but still, I don't really think they are here to build an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, they seem to not have any intention to stop. User:The Man That Rocks And Is Cool. Still very very mild, but not really constructive or suitable for building the project. --Taelus (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• See also The Man That Rocks' new userpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• User blocked as a harrassment account. --Taelus (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

COmment

SO similiar looking User Pages is a crime? O_O. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Idential userpages are violating US copyright law without attribution, yes. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about similiar looking? My User page layout is similiar to Deltype's. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar looking doesn't really matter; but if you've copied parts of it, you need attribution. The same copyright license applies in our article space and user space. We don't alow cut-and-paste moves in article space for this reason, and we can't allow them (by law) in user space either. CC-BY-SA requires attribution. I don't know if we have any views or polcies on it apart from the legal stuff, I haven't checked. Ale_Jrb^talk 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While what the user did would be considered rather rude and obnoxious, is there really a wikipedian policy that prohibits it? I thought this was supposed to be a free-content projet. Prop3v56 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is, both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution for copying content. What we produce here is free as in beer and as in freedom, under the condition that credit is given where credit is due. MLauba (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it goes beyond Wikipedia policy and goes into international copyright law. Everything anyone posts here is copyright to them, they own it, and the condition they give to otherwise free use is that it be given attribution and that derivative works follow the same license. Using Wikipedia content, even inside Wikipedia, without attribution is copyright infringement. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I see this is closed, so I will not re-open it, but I think Fastily's close comment is in direct contravention of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Woogee (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that this should be pursued as a copyright violation is fanciful, but excessive unauthorized "borrowing" of other people's userpages (to the point of copying their barnstars, etc.) is uncivil, and if necessary I will blank or delete such pages if they are not revised after a warning and a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's comments notwithstanding; This is correct. The page would have been properly attributed if the edit summary of the initial edit had said "copied from (source)". However, lacking this, it was a violation of the cc-by-sa license. –xeno^talk 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors.. The edit summary would need to provide a hyperlink or URL from the original source, not just the name of the person whose page was copied. Woogee (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's what you would paste where I put (source). "Copied from User:Xeno" would be sufficient as Mediawiki would generate a hyperlink (the dickishness of copying wholesale a userpage without permission notwithstanding). –xeno^talk 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know, WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NYBrad, I don't the pursuing this as a copyright issue is fanciful at all, that is exactly what it is. Not Wikipedia's copyright either, but the user who created the content. You can call it "borrowing" if you want, but the fact is that the content of Wikipedia is using has been given to use with some very clear conditions and attribution is one of them. That being said, I don't think anyone is going to involve the law, but it is entirely reasonable for a user to demand attribution for their content. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Butler's maintenance of an attack page against me

Resolved

Tom Butler has blanked his user page of his own accord.

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

Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Relevant discussions:

• User_talk:Durova/Archive_76#Help with a user who maintains a user page attacking me?
• User_talk:Coppertwig#Help_with_a_user_who_maintains_a_user_page_attacking_me.3F
• User_talk:Tom_Butler#Concern

I am concerned that this particular user is maintaining an on-wiki WP:ATTACK page in violation of the userpage policy. Since there is a history of bad-blood between myself and this user, I have expressed my concerns to others and asked for their advice. The user is reticent and refuses to adjust his user page. I ask now for uninvolved administrator intervention.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't see you referred to specifically on his page... I don't find pages complaining on how the skeptics are all blind particularly tasteful but... could you please specify the section of the talk page where he refers specifically to you. Simonm223 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, most of the quotes that Tom Butler finds so abhorrent are from me, not ScienceApologist. The lead quote at "Expectation of safety" is from SA. I've been aware of the page for some time, and have even pointed to it in my RFAs. Mr. Butler has the same right to consider my views harmful to Wikipedia as I do to find his views harmful. So long as he doesn't stoop to name-calling and other inflammatory techniques, I don't consider it to be an attack page.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have been looking at an older version. Sorry about the refresh. Still, the entire userpage is somewhat distasteful and he does take a quote from me out-of-context (even though he removed my timestamp and username attribution). Anyway, I can't help but feel that the maintenance of this page is a battlefield tactic. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspection you are referenced once by initials SA with an implication that your (low) opinion of conspiracy theory proponents makes Wikipedia unsafe. I bet you like that about as much as I like being called a pawn of the Communist Party of China! That would suggest that this particular anti-skeptical screed is a bit more targeted than some I've seen on Wikipedia. I'd present this as a much less problematic example of an ant-skeptical complaint on a talk page for the sake of comparison. It would appear that SA's complaint may have some merit. Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• So Tom Butler is basically setting himself up to look bad if he gets involved in any kind of dispute that gets escalated. At this point I would be sitting back in my large black leather chair and stroking my long-haired white cat... Guy (Help!) 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • /me sits back on her broomstick stroking her familiar. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I'll get you, my pretty! -The Wiki Witch of the West

There should be no objection to a person speaking the truth on their own page, but this drama is too time consuming. SA, if any editor is going to say things they don't want others to know about, then perhaps it would be best not to speak. Take responsibility for your actions! Tom Butler (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:DegenFarang ignoring tendentious editing warnings

A prior ANI complaint illustrated this editors histor of tendatious editing, including vandalizing BLP articles and Wikihounding. He was then giving a final warning, and then another warning and then a "last warning". To this he responded he would only obey Wikipedia rule which is he would be ignoring all rules. He editionally mocked all policy and guidelines and made up his own. He recieved "final warnings" for his previous BLP vandalizing here and here. He has recieved about five "final warnings" in total, yet he is allowed to continue his slash and burn editing. Today he as violated 3RR and has made a [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger second OUTING] abusive attack at me, as well as inappropriately editting that article. Enough is enough. User:DegenFarang and his IP should be blocked permanently, immediately. It is a complete mockery that he has ignored numerous final warnings and continues to act far beyond anything acceptable to the Wikipedia comunity. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvass much ? Arkon (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not dignify this with a response, other than to say I reported 2005 for edit warring prior to this posting - and to say that this all stems from my editing a likely autobiographical article full of un sourced info, self-published external link spam and peacock terms DegenFarang (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, it is not canvassing to notify adminstrators who have given him a final warning that their final warnings have been ignored. The entire problem here is individual admins only being aware of isolated incidents, rather than a pattern of behavior. Obviously if one admin gives a final warning over an attempted outing, that this administrator should be made aware of a second attempted outing, as noted by Cailil below. 2005 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You should read WP:CANVAS. What I found objectionable was not so much the notifications, but the tone, which is unarguably biased. Arkon (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Degen did get warned for tendentious commentary and for wikilawyering about WP:IAR (see my talk page). I warned him. User:2005 has a history of canvassing and was also warned about that. While the post to my page & Ed's could be considered appropriate as we both warned Degen [12] - there is maybe a wider WP:CANVAS issue here.
  I suggest a caution be issued to both Users to disengage from anything to do with the other. Both editors are edit warring and both should be blocked even though they technically have not broken 3RR - they have broken it's spirit and are both engaged in tit-for-tat pointy WP:AN3 posts. Additional Degen was reported for a separate 3RR issue by another user today
  Suggesting 36hour blocks for both if this behaviour continues--Cailil ^talk 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That advice echoes my own advice given privately to an editor asking what should be done about these two editors. Just stay away from each other. I don't see either one being particularly disruptive except when in conflict with each other, so like vinegar and baking soda they should stay apart. The problem is that both have an interest in the same subject (poker) so it can be difficult, but it should be possible as long as they don't do the following:

1. Contact one another.
2. Talk about the other person either on talk pages (article or user) or noticeboards.
3. Revert each other or remove each other's content.

Just pretend that the other person doesn't exist. Forget about reporting the other person for spamming, or civility breaches, or BLP violations, etc. If the other person is misbehaving, let someone else take care of it. -- Atama頭 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While in general I agree, Degen has exhibitted tendentious and pointy behaviour and is continuing to be uncivil and generally combative in his communications with sysops who are attempting to help him. He's also attempting to rules-lawyer using WP:IAR--Cailil ^talk 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also the diff from the AFD User:2005 tried to link to [13] may indeed show an attempted outting--Cailil ^talk 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I was reported for a 3rr by an editor who was paid to write the article (and on an article that is likely going to be deleted). 2005 is similarly self-interested in the article in question here. The "rules" say do not revert three times - but IAR and common sense tell me if I make edits that improve Wikipedia, and editors with a WP:COI fight me, I should not appease them by letting them have their way. DegenFarang (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And regarding outing I think it is relevant. Poker-Babes.com is a self-published blog that has been deemed an unreliable source, yet has hundreds of links and references on Wikipedia. The majority of these came from User:2005 - who defends their inclusion vigorously. I have sent at least 10 emails to Poker-Babes.com referencing User:2005 and Wikipedia and have not gotten a single reply. If that was not User:2005, don't you think they would have said that? Or at least asked me what I was talking about? Poker-Babes.com is owned by Shirley Rosario and the domain is in the name of Steve Badger - you do the math. If I just broke some rule, I'm sorry, but I'm acting in good faith and trying to keep Wikipedia neutral (which the article in question is clearly not) and free of spam. DegenFarang (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• DegenFarang has blatantly violated 3RR, with his fourth revert -- of three different editors. I have no interest in engaging with this editor. He has engaged in hounding, and attempted outing, both before and again today. I have notified administrators who have previously given DegenFarang "final warnings", and have followed Wikipedia guidelines in reporting things where they should be reported. DegenFarang engages in point-y behavior with everyone he encounters, which leads to reports about his behavior being spread all over the place instead of concentrated in one place, leading to multiple toothless "final warnings". It's not canvasing to alert the editors who have given him final warnings that all their final warnings are being ignored! The vast majority of his edits are tendatious and/or mischaracterized. He should be banned permanently. He has never learned from the multiple times he has been blocked before. Because Administrators have only briefly blocked him, he continues to violate policies, ignoring all other editors, etc. He has violated the letter of the 3RR policy. He has been reverted by two other editors besides me, so it is not a case of me edit warring him.(edit conflict) 2005 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been reverted by them but am not edit warring with them. They are reverting individual edits I have made whereas you are making blanket rollbacks of ALL of my edits. If you don't want to 'engage' with me then stop following me around Wikipedia undoing all of the good faith edits that I make, as you have been doing since day 1 of me being an editor. You seem to think you own all of the poker biographies on Wikipedia - newsflash 2005: you don't. DegenFarang (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned user returns?

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet indefinitely blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A newly created account, HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is posting personal attacks against other editors on Talk:Neil Gaiman.[14][15] The language and conduct of this editor is identical to that of an indefinitely blocked account, EchoofReason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which turned out to be a sock of a banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Block review, sockpuppet? for previous discussions on this user. I recommend blocking HomolkaTheAllKnowing and doing a checkuser run on the account, as per the previous discussion, since this user has had a habit of abusing multiple accounts. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, that's a pretty blatant sock-puppeting. You would think after several bans he would've figured out that his 'DO NO HARM' verbal tic would be something to suppress. --Gwern (contribs) 18:18 19 January 2010 (GMT)

You had it posted here before I saw any of the discussion, but I agree it seems pretty obvious. Has a new SPI case been opened, or is it just here? Having run afoul of him before, I hesitate to step in here. LadyofShalott 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's so obvious I didn't think it was worth filing an SPI case. This should be a block on sight case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And the sockpuppet has now confirmed that it's ColScott again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion at article talk

Resolved

 – Does not require administrator intervention

an experienced editor, User: William M. Connolley is continually removing article talk page comments which relate to his conduct at that page. his removals of other editors' comments do not seem warranted. have no justification whatsoever. he has been warned repeatedly regarding his adherence to WP:CIVIL. please see this talk page diff. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

additional note: the deletion may have had good-faith reasons, as he was deleting his own comment as well. however i have restored another editor's comment there, so perhaps some outside review might be useful just to provide some objective advice. he has also repeatedly removed my comments from his own talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, per WP:UP#CMT it is perfectly acceptable for users to remove comments from their own talk page. Also, William M. Connolley has now been notified of this thread. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• This was article talk where William had been requested to remove his own response to an unhelpful comment – Sm8900 undid the removal without giving any reason in the edit summary,[16] so I undid that edit with the comment "unexplained restoration of contentious and apparently offtopic discussion". The statement "i have restored another editor's comment there" is misleading, as the restoration included William's comments which he had been requested to delete, with a strike through and additional comment. Per WP:TPO it can be in order to remove disruptive comments, though usually it's better to archive them. As the request to delete was to remove a contentious statement, I've compromised by redacting William M. Connolley's own remark, and suggest that the others consider removing their remarks. Telling someone to shut up after they write "please tell me to "shut up"." is rising to the bait and inappropriate, getting those who made them to remove the provocative remarks now that the response has been removed seems worthwhile. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate dave souza's response. I would just like to mention that his summation of the situation, though it may seem a bit convoluted at first glance, is actually a very comprehensive and accurate review of the facts. thanks for your willingness to address this matter, and to diligently review all of the facts relating to it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Issue appears to be well in hand now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago, someone from The New Yorker left a message on my talk page asking me for an interview regarding BLPs (specifically concerning Neil Gaiman, on which I had been involved about a year ago). I see that The New Yorker has now published a cover story on Gaiman - a major biographical profile - which includes the comment: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors." [17] Looking at the page history, it seems that The New Yorker's comment is well-founded - two editors appear to be trying to WP:OWN the article are going against the consensus on the talk page by reverting out even new material cited to The New Yorker. The reasons for doing so appear to be very dubious - for instance, arguing that The New Yorker is a tabloid (!) This really doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia and being highlighted in a cover story is an embarrassment to the project. The issue has been raised on WP:BLPN#Neil Gaiman, which is how I found out about it. However I think, given the adverse press commentary, that the article would benefit from the involvement of the experienced editors here. (For the record, I'm not involved in the current discussion on Talk:Neil Gaiman#Scientology.) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors mentioned I don't see how one reverting a change I thought breached BLP, giving reasons in the edit summary, followed by lengthier reasons given immediately in talk, or any of my other contributions in that thread, means I have ownership issues. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll refactor that; although it does give the impression of ownership, I accept that you were acting in good faith. But I suggest that you should work with the other editors on the talk page to find a way to include the information rather than just reverting it out of the article on what seem to me to be very dubious grounds. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the single sentence in the New Yorker article which references Wikipedia: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors". I don't see that as a "swipe" taken at anyone. Although it does not make Wikipedia look good, it appears to be accurate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's accurate. My point is that the fact that it's accurate looks bad for us. I don't think it's been handled well, frankly, hence my request for input here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While this may be an interesting tidbit, I don't see any need for admin intervention. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is well in hand now. I'll mark it as resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball

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.

---

Talk page unprotected, then reprotected, email blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Talk page unprotected by Mjroots and prevented from using email function by TBSDY. However, due to WP:SUICIDE, the user page has now been protected again.

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs) has contacted me with the request to have his user talk page unprotected. This user was community-banned the other day and then had his talk page locked because he made comments mentioning suicide that led people to think he was mentally unstable. He now wishes to appeal his ban, and while I don't see this as particularly likely to succeed (and I understand the ban appeals subcommittee unblock-en list may already have turned him down), he certainly sounds stable and rational enough that those suicide concerns appear moot, so I see no strong reason to deny him the talk page further.

He being a Greek user I'm not supposed to take action myself, so I'll ask here if anybody would grant him the favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For the relevant discussions see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he offered any particular justification for unblocking his access to the talk page? In all honesty, this user has come up a lot recently and the community's consensus was pretty strong. No unblock request posted there could reasonably be acted upon by an administrator without at least first deferring to the community, and in that regard perhaps the appropriate course of action would be to open the request here, but I'll say flat out right now I personally see nothing to justify an unbanning simply for temporal reasons. Perhaps a few months from now, but not now. And, while I cannot speak on behalf of the community as a whole, if the community does in fact agree with me that it is too early to consider an unbanning, then I don't see a reason to unblock the talk page either based on the circumstances that led to that event. If there was any rationale on WGB's part, though, I think it should be noted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way thus far at least six admins/user have received an email with a request to unblock him, what in my eyes is a clear repetition of his previous behaviour and additionally suggests no change in his attitude. As he has done already with his notifications of bureaucrats, I would assume that he intends to sent this email to admins till such time as he has reached his aim. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I have no dog in this fight, obviously; as far as I am concerned anybody is welcome to close this and consider the request denied, if people feel the consensus is clear. My own view is there's little harm in him having the talk page, where he can make requests and argue his case in a transparent way, which would take away the incentive for the e-mail admin shopping. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why there's another checkbox in the block UI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow the talk page access, on the strict understanding that it will be blocked again if the talk page is not used constructively. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As per the discussion at ANI linked to above, I see no reason why this unblocking should be considered for at least a month or two (although probably nearer 6 months). As for the e-mails to admins, I have sent (through Wikipedia e-mail user) advice to WGB not to contact any more admins about this, as this will risk the loss of Wiki e-mail rights. I have also suggested that he reads the 'standard offer' carefully - and that a discussion regarding his unblocking will be initiated in time. I have also said that if he continues to contact admins about unblocking, he is risking the block going from indefinite (i.e. with no fixed time set) to infinite. Hopefully he will use common sense and refrain from emailing admins. I would support allowing him his talk page access back - if he is disruptive there again, then he can have it removed again - in which case he also loses access to Wikipedia mail as well -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose, for now. The user has been repeatedly explained why his behavior was considered disruptive, yet, he has shown no sign of understanding. The reasoning of the user is that his mistake was to nominate himself at WP:RFA, when it was his attitude after being declined what was really considered disruptive. If he demonstrates an understanding of how the chain of events led to his blocking, I would support unprotecting his talk page. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock of talk page. It is not onerous to allow WGB the opportunity to talk things through with any editor willing to help him understand where he stands and how he can restore his standing with the community, and I don't believe there is any compelling reason this should be done off-wiki. The disruption potential at his own talk page is contained, and talk page access can be removed again at the drop of a hat. MLauba (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know how many people he has contacted via email, as I have also been contacted. However, as he has been blocked and his user talk page protected, I guess that he took this course of action is not unreasonable. Perhaps we should unprotect his user page? Or is there an email address I'm not aware of that we can refer him to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the unblock-en e-mail list. Apparently he's already tried that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Right then. I'm restricting his on-email wiki access as he already knew about that email address. More examples of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He emailed me as well, before he was asked to stop. He claims he will abide by our 'site policies', but does he understand them? I guess I wouldn't oppose letting him use his talk page to convince us. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He also e-mailed me, received on 18th at 18:22 hrs. System put the e-mail in my spam box . Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also received an e-mail from him a few days ago. Ucucha 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—why don't we allow him use of his talkpage, but block email access? He's been effectively spamming tens of editors and (I think) most of the bureaucrats about this (talkpage-spammed all the bureaucrats, my mistake), despite being repeatedly turned down. If he has talkpage access, everything's open, so we can withdraw his ability to email. How's that sound? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support talk page unprotection. It will probably be several months before the consensus moves towards unblocking him completely, but I see no harm in restoring his access to his talk page- it's something we allow the most egregious vandals and trolls. Besides, it can be taken away again without any faff. HJMitchell You rang? 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now unprotected WGBs talk page. The e-mail restriction can stay for now. Any abuse of the talk page by WGB and the privilege can be revoked by any admin without further ado. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Going by posts here and on his talk page one can see he's sent, at least, more than half a dozen emails to admins in the last day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I'm AGFing here - he knows that admins have the tools to unblock him, so as he couldn't leave messages on his talk page, he's contacting admins in the hope that one of them will. Hopefully, he'll read the messages on his talk page and realise that (a) he can post there now; (b) he won't be unblocked in the immediate future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed him to let him know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I had previously blocked access to this page per WP:SUICIDE. No one a) thought to consult me or b) even brought up the reason it was protected. Excellent work, guys. Tan | 39 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you note this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In the protection note and on the talk page, as one normally would. Here. Tan | 39 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that... it looks like Gwen might have accidentally removed your suicide notice. I'm going to reprotect and restore your comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but FPAS mentioned it in the very opening post to this thread, and also mentioned he believe the user to be stable, which very much influenced at least my vote to unblock the talk page. To this otherwise uninvolved administrator, it starts looking like we're playing bureaucratic games with the user. I don't think re-protecting the talk page is warranted at present. MLauba (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Start a straw poll to find consensus that this user is "stable", and I almost guarantee you it will fail. I don't think unprotecting the talk page was warranted. The bureaucratic game was to unprotect the talk page while keeping him blocked and disabling email; what was that for? This situation was handled appropriately until this thread. Tan | 39 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep that page protected. I think we should all cool it - nobody was playing a game over how to deal with this editor, indeed all I see is a desire to be fair towards him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not being argumentative, but beyond the one mention he made when initially threatened with a block, has WGB made any other mentions of suicide? None of the messages that he sent me had any indication of such feelings - but as I'm not an admin, I've not heard from him recently. Has anyone had any further mentions? The reason I'm asking is, how long do we assume that he has suicidal feelings - as I say, none of the communications I've seen after that one have shown any indications. Also, with no talk page access and no e-mail access, how is WGB supposed to ask for the block to be lifted in the future? If he contacts ArbCom, they will look at the discussion here, and say that they can't lift it as it was a community decision, so it seems to me that he has no way of contacting anyone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From my communications from him, I also got the impression that the is no longer unstable. Ucucha 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm neutral as to unprotecting the page. I'm not aware of any later threats and I see no need for leaving a link to a suicide counseling service on that talk page (if anything, I think it's unhelpful to both the user and the project). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He has already sent an email to the the unblock address, and was denied. He won't be unblocked, at least not any time soon. I don't think there is a problem here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think blocking + talk page protection + e-mail disabled is an excellent sock knitting system, hence the suggestion to unprotect the talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there consensus to change the block like this in the first place? I don't understand how an admin can change it with just 3 clear supports when there are opposes to it as well. Especially when this comes only about a week after his block and eventual unblock request (which was denied with consensus clearly against it). This is not the same as overturning another admin's decision. A wider discussion should take place before we try to change something that was decided by the community. What's the hurry? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Only concern about the suicide threat. As always, I put my actions forward to the general admin community. If they were in error, please feel free to reverse. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ChamalN, there were more supports than opposes when I allowed WGB access to his talk page. I thought I spelled it out clearly enough that allowing such access was a privilege and not a right and that abuse of the talk page would lead to it being re-blocked. If I made an error in my actions I apologise. Even admins can make a mistake! As with all my administrative actions, I'm open to reasonable discussion and persuasion if anyone feels that my action was not correct. I notice from the talk page history that WGB did not edit his talk page before the block was re-imposed. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

E-mail from WGB

Here is the latest (you can see my first e-mail to him today, and my reply to his response to that):

FW: Your emails to admins

From: Phantomsteve Sent: 19 January 2010 18:48 To: 'Apollo' Subject: RE: Your emails to admins WGB, Firstly: I cannot allow you to edit your user page. I am not an admin, as I've told you in the past. Secondly: You did threaten to kill yourself when you were first blocked. Guidelines normally indicate that the account of a person who does this is blocked, with no editing allowed to their talk page. No one has said that you threatened to kill yourself today - all of the references are to your previous threat Thirdly, your access to email through Wikipedia has been removed because you contacted multiple admins. Fourthly, no one is going to contact the police - you aren't threatening to kill yourself, so there is no cause for the police to be contacted with your location. READ the advice on your talk page. READ the standard offer. I see that you have done editing on other Wikipedias: - Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia.org) - 11 edits - last edit 10 April 2009 - Croatian Wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org) - 3 edits - last edit 5 April 2009 - French Wikipedia (fr.wikipedia.org) - 27 edits - last edit 10 April 2009 - Italian Wikipedia (it.wikipedia.org) - 18 edits - last edit 10 January 2010 - Spanish Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org) - 34 edits - last edit 5 April 2009 I also see that you have an account on commons (commons.wikimedia.org), but that doesn't have any edits. If you go to one of the other Wikipedias (you are only blocked on the English one), you can sort out getting a Unified login (all the accounts will be linked) - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#How_to_unify_your_accounts for details. (To see the list that I used to find your contributions, go to http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wiki+Greek+Basketball) If I was you, I would continue editing on the other Wikipedias (also, you can edit at the Greek Wikipedia at el.wikipedia.org) - your block is *only* on the English Wikipedia. Regards, Phantomsteve ________________________________ From: Apollo Sent: 19 January 2010 17:36 To: Phantomsteve Subject: Re: Your emails to admins Can you please allow me to edit my user talk page? They blocked my email and they still won't allow me access to my user talk page. Mjroots the admin granted me access to edit my talk page and then two other admin took it off and claimed I threatened to kill myself and that this gave them the right to permanently remove any access to my talk page. I did NOT do anything like that. How can they say I threatened to kill myself just today when that happened weeks ago? You know that this is not true and you know that they are lying and treating me unfairly and that they are abusing their positions as admin. Can you please give me back my user talk page access and tell them to stop saying I am threatening to kill myself when they are lying about it. If the police show up to my house because those admin made up a lie that I threatened suicide then I will take the proper procedures to deal with them. --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Phantomsteve wrote: From: Phantomsteve Subject: Your emails to admins To: "Wiki Greek Basketball" Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 3:18 AM I would strongly suggest that you stop sending e-mails to admins asking to be unblocked. This is for two reasons: Firstly, following the community discussion, no admin would even consider thinking about it for at least another month (if not longer - I'd probably say nearer to 6 months) Secondly, if you continue to e-mail admins, then you are risking losing your e-mail rights on Wikipedia. Should this happen, the only way in which you would be able to communicate would be to send an e-mail through normal e-mail systems (i.e. not through Wikipedia) to ArbCom - and they would not overturn a block so overwhelmingly backed by the community. My advice would be to read the 'standard offer' linked to on your talk page, and just wait. In time, a discussion will be restarted regarding your possible unblocking. If you continue to badger the admins, you will risk putting yourself in the position where your indefinite block (i.e. with no specific time scale) will become an infinite block (i.e. no chance of being unblocked). I hope that you will pay attention to this advice - it really is for you own good. If you choose to ignore it, then that is your right, but I think I am only saying what you have probably seen on ANI and on your talk page. Regards, Phantomsteve

-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think WGB's talk page (protected or not) is more fit for this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I can't put anything on WGB's talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What I should have said is, WGB is only forum shopping and trying to keep things stirred up. There's no need to post his emails here, but I know you're being helpful and I'd be startled if anyone thought otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• And here I thought by posting a simple note on his talk page I could avoid yet another long ANI thread in this subject... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

...forum shopping much? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with userpage

Closing Discussion for obvious reasons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Diicbtv2otwtdod23

This one is on a page move vandalism spree with threats against an editors family. Needs blocked and the pages returned to their proper places. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've voablocked this vandal - but would appreciate some assistance in undoing his vandalism. The redirects needs unpicking. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done the honors of revoking tp and email - I've seen this git before, and am about ready to ask for a community ban for him. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the LeeD vandal who apparently got autoconfirmed on purpose to do what he did. I asked J.delanoy for a checkuser to see if he is on a new IP range. Currently 3 of his ranges are on a long term block. I believe the actual user is ScienceGolfFanatic but not 100% sure. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone threatening "Tewapack" is virtually guaranteed to be ScienceGolfFanatic unless he's got friends working with him now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Filter 273, LeeD Vandalism may need to be updated as well to reflect the edits made. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have adapted filter 273 to account for this. Please let me know if there's anything still being missed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually saw this as it was happening because I have several of the pages that were vandalized on my watchlist. He was already blocked before I was able to send a report to AIV, so my response was to look at the unusual sequence of early edits to his own userpage to see what they were and why he made them. It looks like he was trying to evade Filter 72, so I spent quite some time looking at 72 to see what possible changes could be made. However I can't see any easy changes to make other than to raise the limit even higher, which might be controversial. I agree with your changes to 273. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

something that bears watching

Resolved

Keanu217 (talk · contribs) looks like a spam account for 'Cheap Food for Hard Times' - I already reverted where it replaced the content on the doc pages for {{infobox}}, but I suspect it will try elsewhere and may start spawning new accounts. may need some looking into. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him and deleted his talk page as G11; as soon as I revert what remains of his still-standing promo edits I will place the spamblock template on his page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki. Again.

User:MisterWiki has not learned. He was indeffed for acting inappropriately, and then unblocked on the provision that he would get his game together and stop treating WP like a place to have fun (among other things, such as, y'know, not socking). this and, to a lesser extent, this FPC shows that he's not taking it seriously. Comments? Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, is this a joke or what? --MW talk contribs 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You, be quiet before you get yourself into more trouble!! </mom rant>

Ironholds, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be fun? OK, the kitteh piccy isn't of the greatest, but two articles are using it. Why shouldn't he nom it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Elen: and redirecting piss-on-elmo? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he knew perfectly well it didn't meet the criteria and that it would fail. And that's plain disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear MisterWiki's explanation of how this is non-disruptive activity, and the same for this – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI I have fulfilled a db-g7 request for Piss-on-elmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which consisted of #REDIRECT[[Pichilemu]] and had only one author (User:MisterWiki). –xeno^talk 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear how a poorly thought out featured article nomination is a WP:POINT violation, or more specifically, what point he was attempting to prove in a disruptive fashion. Shereth 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I'll tell you. It is very, very, very obvious, to even the meanest of intellects, and definitely to someone of MisterWiki's considerable intelligence, that the picture in question did not meet the criteria, particularly #1, probably #3, definitely #5 and #7. And nominating an image which so blatantly doesn't satisfy the required standard is, in my opinion, disruptive – particularly given this editor's standing in the community at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a specific kind of disruption. If you want to claim his nomination was disruptive because he knew it would fail anyway, then call it disruptive, but it is not a WP:POINT violation. Shereth 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my labelling MisterWiki (talk · contribs) as a WP:POINT violator over the FPC nomination, when he is, in fact, a WP:Disruptive editing violator. I shall strive never to make a similar mistake again. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, you're taking it the wrong way, but I'm not going to press the point further. Shereth 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give MisterWiki a pass on the featured picture nomination, he was even encouraged by a couple of established editors there. But the Piss-on-elmo... although he requested its deletion himself afterward, I don't think creating joke articles in the mainspace is ever a good idea. I don't think this is enough to reconsider a block, but it's not a good sign either. -- Atama頭 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that they count for much, but in an IRC discussion in which an admin repeatedly tried to impress on MisterWiki the silliness of FP noms like that, he repeatedly laughed and tried to justify himself with an argumentum ad lolcat, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More lulz would've been had if the cat had a "I Can Has FPC?" caption. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki, in spite of his apparent technical intelligence, displays a continual lack of fundamental understanding of what this project is for. Whether his apparent inability to stop treating Wikipedia like a fun joke is willful or not, is not a question for me to answer. Whether his toying around and his games are severe enough to warrant further action, I am not sure. He does contribute positively, and I'm not fully convinced that his disruptions are so egregious as to warrant a reinstatement of his block, but it is a fact that he's had his "second chance" and is running dangerously close to exhausting the patience of the community; the fact that he removed the notification of this report on his talk page, dismissing this ANI thread as a "joke" is worrisome at best. Shereth 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, removing the {{ANI-notice}} isn't wrong at all, its only purpose is to notify, and once that's been done, there's no real reason to keep it. This is one of the more legitimate things that MisterWiki seems to have done! (Also, I'm not sure that "inability" can be "willful"...) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't his removal of the notice but the associated edit summary ( rm; that ani thread is a joke ) that worries me with regards to how seriously he approaches things at Wikipedia - more as a joke and a game. I don't want to be all "I R SRS ADMIN" and I enjoy a bit of lighthearted humor from time to time but if this thread is not something he can take seriously ... Shereth 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed the edit-summary, fair enough, point taken! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one am growing rather tired of these games, and wouldn't object to reinstating the block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Piss-on-elmo was obviously a fail, I didn't had a dictionary near me and I didn't knew what does it meant (I will not give the name of the person that gave me the idea). Obviously, there are more bizarre redirections than this one. Also, I hadn't read the FI criteria before nominating the kitty image. All of this is not the motive of an Ani thread, this should had been resolved by posting it on the talk page, but a user just wants me blocked (again, I will not name him). --MW talk contribs 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it as a joke on IRC (we were discussing pichelmu (sp), which I can never spell, and I jokingly called it piss-on-elmo); the idea that a joke invites you to create a redirect is ludicrous. And you need a dictionary to understand what the word "piss" means? Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "piss" meant to step. In Spanish means "pisar", I thought it was a cognate word. --MW talk contribs 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Tan | 39 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For once, I have to agree with the previous speaker, if MisterWiki is competent to use English phrases such as "cognate word" then he knows what piss means. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides, "stepping on Elmo" is so much less problematic than "urinating on Elmo" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also call bullshit. MisterWiki is clearly fluent in the English language; if he knows that "pisar" means "to step", well, he knows that "to step" means "to step" ... come on ... Shereth 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ...only if one rides the AGF toboggan into the trees (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See, I thought that "piss" meant "to step", not to urinate. Someone explained me what "piss" means in English. I thought it was a cognate word of "pisar", that means "to step". I didn't knew what "piss" meant, but "pisar" yep. And, Elmo isn't the character from Sesame Square (or something else) ? --MW talk contribs 18:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But again, how is "step on elmo" an appropriate redirect? Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's not, but why too much problem for a simple redirect, this should have been solved with a post on my talk page, not this whole thread here in the ani, that is really bizarre. --MW talk contribs 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please at least remove the autoreviewer bit from him before we have Deficate-on-Oscar redirected to Shitaki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't you see that's not the problem? It's just that this should hadn't been never posted here. It's really annoying just because of a redirect! I know the redirect was bizarre but, c'mon, now I know perfectly what does "piss" means. Thank you. --MW talk contribs 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't have autoreviewer since Jan 5. –xeno^talk 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) My bad ... it's still listed on his userpage, and I failed to take the extra step to verify ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki, you're missing the point. You're a user who previously exhausted the community's patience for acting immaturely, and within a week you're not only doing stuff like this but refusing to admit it's even a problem, or that you recognise the issue. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what taking the piss means? –xeno^talk 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Up to five minutes ago the answer would, if we are to believe him, be "stealing steps?" :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Ok, we have an editor, fresh off a socking block (reduced due to off-wiki contact). They made at least 1, if not 2 childishly disruptive edits. They then lied about knowing what they were doing, finally admitting they did understand when they did it. They considered the community discussion here on ANI to be a joke, and said so in an edit summary. How are we moving forward? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By letting MisterWiki know, in no uncertain terms, that any further disruptive editing, no matter how minor, will result in an indefinite block. This may be considered a final warning, and I highly recommend staying far away from the "line" by making only completely non-controversial edits. Tan | 39 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to avoid another WGB incident, I have invited MrWiki to acknowledge this warning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at this, where many people who opposed blocking him again after he was unblocked (including me) said that he was on pretty thin ice. I'm not quite saying he should be blocked again, but maybe he should. I think that MisterWiki has two big problems on Wikipedia; childish actions, which would be bad enough, and deception, which we've seen with his sockpuppetry in the past and now this feigned confusion about the meaning of the word "piss" that I don't think anyone is buying. I'm wavering on this, but I guess what I'm asking is, can we trust him anymore? -- Atama頭 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhmm.... no.

I agree with what Tan has said, a final warning, followed up by an indef block if MW continues to be disruptive. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a block, per Atama. When this last came to ANI we had pretty good consensus for a block, which was eventually turned into a super-duper-final "here is a list of things you can't do" warning. Simply giving him another super-duper warning isn't going to work; he ignored the last one. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a laundry-list of faults, but being wishy-washy is certainly not one of them. I guarantee you that I will make good on my warning if the time comes, without discussion. Tan | 39 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't think why too much problem for a simple redirect that could had been solved by posting a message on my talk page. Always, the users and the admins focus just on the bad things the users had done, but many times, the users are not just that. I have recognized in the past that I've socked and I'm ashamed. I didn't knew what does "piss" meant, until a IRC user (not from #wikipedia-en) explained what does that meant. Yes, you can trust me, because I have good intentions, I don't want to produce problems to anyone but why don't you think a little bit on the person in question. An indef block is excessive. I'm against it in all the cases, not just in my one, maybe 1 year or 2 years for vandals or very very disruptive users. I repeat it, there's no need for this whole controversy about that shitty redirect, that I should have never created, never. --MW talk contribs 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As we all said before, this whole thing could have been "solved" by you not creating a childish redirect based on your attempt at humour. You are the antecedent to the consequence, so put first things first. When you're already on thin ice, it's recommended that you not light even a small fire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange how you know what “shitty” means but not “piss”. Oh well, we’ll see! Leaky Caldron 20:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not interested on know what does "piss" meant until this thread was posted. Seriously. --MW talk contribs 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please User:MisterWiki any Latino, knows that piss or "mear" in Spanish means to urinate. And besides, is sponsoring their family photos in the article Chilean people. Apparently Wikipedia is your means of auspice of your city, acquaintances and family, another example is to add your photo in the article Chile.

PD: I do not think age is a justification for committing such acts of immaturity and vandalism (eg I have 16 years).Ccrazymann (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know I'm not AGFing here, but I think MisterWiki has been having a bit of fun dragging even this thread into the dirt. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Now it's vandalism. C'mon. --MW talk contribs 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For which I've blocked your account 24h. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Purposal to ban MisterWiki's left knee Hello, I recently seen MisterWiki evade a ban by moving his left knee. Should we ban him? BigHappyHarry (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) This is alleged to be another sock of MisterWiki, and if so would definitely be the last straw. But it might also be a joe job, someone trying to get him in trouble. I'm opening an SPI case for a CU to verify, as much to clear him as anything else. -- Atama頭 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Excuse me, I am not a sock. BigHappyHarry (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) As I thought, not MisterWiki, but a different sockmaster stirring up trouble. -- Atama頭 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC) A "kitten stocking", since indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the sock in the above closed section went straight to the Governor's Island article, would it make sense to see if he's also a sock of DeKoning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He's asked Jimbo to intervene in this "urgent" matter. Shouldn't there be a Godwin's law corollary for running to Jimbo?

Has this editor done anything to help Wikipedia? All I've seen is joking around and wasting other editors' time, and lying about what he thinks "piss" means. If this is how he acts after he has an indef block lifted, that suggests to me that another, but more long lived, indef is appropriate.—Finell 02:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say this. See WP:YOULOSE, an essay I only just wrote. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please - whatever about what this editor has done here (and it looks like a lot), can we please leave information about his age, etc, out of the conversation? Yes, he's a minor, and an immature one from all accounts, but I've just had to suppress vast amounts of his userspace due to his posting of personally identifying information relating to himself and others. It's been removed now, so please let's not propagate it any further - Alison ^❤ 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• MisterWiki has now found it appropriate, while on his final final final warning, to call admins nazis for not excusing his behaviour due to his article contributions. Exactly how long does this have to go on for? Ironholds (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'd support an indef, or a 10 year block. That should give him time to mature before he decides to contribute again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indef. "This is your final warning" is not an invitation to dick around. He's had the chance to learn this twice now, and responded to the first one by pissing around, and to the second one by pissing around offensively. Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• After reading this discussion, I must say I am astounded that MisterWiki has not already been indef blocked. This type of behavior by editors gives Wikipedia a bad name. However, I feel that an indef block may be excessive. I like Crossmr's idea of a ten year block. RadManCF (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for the next ten years. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional unblock discussion

I have been in discussion with MisterWiki to replace his 10 year block with a set of editing restrictions designed to curb his antisocial tendencies at Wikipedia. What thinks everybody?

• MisterWiki is hereby placed on editing restrictions. These include: No use of the User talk: namespace except for brief messages directly related to article editing. No further comments directed at other users. Strict civility parole. Restrictions to stay in place indefinitely, but may be revisited after 1 years time (January 17, 2011) at the request of MisterWiki via ANI discussion. Violation of these terms may result in return of the prior indefinite block.

Any comments? Are these reasonable for an unblock, or has this person worn out their welcome? --Jayron32 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that MisterWiki hasn't actually agreed to these. His exact words were "I agree, except for things that I would need" - so essentially, "I'm restricted except when I don't want to be restricted". Ironholds (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. MisterWiki knew exactly what he was doing when he called was vandalizing, socking, insulting users, and calling admins nazis. Enough drama already; this user is trying to troll us. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and propose increasing block length to fifty years for this unashamed attempt to play us even more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough with the damn IRC negotiations bullshit. We did this last time. Auntie E. (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is getting ridiculous. bibliomaniac15 07:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. If he could stick to the terms of the standard offer, I could see unblocking him sometime down the road but right now? I don't think so. Shereth 07:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - gods, no. Please - Alison ^❤ 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support conditionally. The user needs a block, but not ten years. make him blocked for 3-6 months to let him know the seriousness. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let’s not and Pretend We Did — I just read through the above sections and I ran into this user a few days ago without knowing his history (but the above set off a few little tinkles (pun noted)); he was up to immature 'good users' navigation on Jimbo's user page. I reverted it on sight. At most, reduce the 10 years to 7 for good behavior (in 2017;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support conditionally. A block of 10 years, is practically to be out of Wikipedia forever, I believe that a blockade of one year would be more convenient for their maturation. Eg I have 16 years and if I look back one year ago, I realize I've learned, matured and evolved as a person. Do not be harsh with excessive blocks of 10 years, we can all make mistakes, but at the same time have the opportunity to rectify. Regards. Ccrazymann (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose After all the recent drama, it is not appropriate to start negotiating an unblock within three hours of the block being imposed; this user is not ready to contribute helpfully. The standard offer is adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Why does it seem like there's always a mad rush to put an offer on the table as soon as an editor gets indef (or 10 year) blocked? If being here is so important they need to negotiate a pardon as soon as they're finally caught, I think some time between the blocking and the conditional unblock would help them to understand what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, having been watching this it's got to the point of. "This is your final warning." followed by "This is your final final warning." Are we proposing to give him an "Ultimate final final warning for real this time." now? --Taelus (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Reduce block to one year, but leave it in place for the year. At the end of the year, give him the probation for a year. At the end of that time, he'll be grown out of this phase anyway. Otherwise, you're just sending the message that anything is excusable if you beg and plead hard enough, and he'll have no incentive to change. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Keep the block as it is; there's no reason why the community can't consider it again in a couple of years. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike say WGB, this editor knows he's doing wrong, he just doesn't care nor take responsibility for his actions. Normally, one could make a good judgement call about someone simply on the fixation on rickrolling. Yes, the user's disruption is reasonably minor, but it is done so cavalierly, and with no real sign that he understands that Wikipedia is not a game, and a lot of editor time has been wasted dealing with problems created by the editor. I will not suggest a valid length of time, merely that I oppose an unblock right now because of these issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've been astoundingly patient with MisterWiki thus far, and his behavior has not changed. Keep the ten year block.RadManCF (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose MisterWiki has been given chance after chance. This community is remarkably tolerant, but at some point, "This is your last chance" has to mean exactly what it says. Calling another user a "nazi" is so far beyond the line of WP:NPA that it can not be easily overlooked. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Most strongly oppose, recall this user has been saying "please, forgive me, I wont' do it again" for 2 years. His original sockpuppets were blocked for precisely the same he keeps doing, using WP as his playground to promote his town, and using it as vanity for his family and friends (speciall articles "Chilean people", "Pichilemu" and "Chile"). Keep uploading irrelevant images about jokes. He is also know as a repeated liar (when confronted, he usually makes up excuses until he's cornered and then "ok I did lie, I know it was wrong and won't do it again"). -- m:drini 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – MisterWiki has been given enough chances; it's been far too many times to assume good faith. Unless after a year he can prove he has been editing constructively on a different project, the 10-year ban stays. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Just when you thoguht this was over, I got a comment on my user talk suggesting a new way out for MW. Crosspost commence:

Well, you do have a gory username so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by a decade-long block, which I'm sorry to say did make me smile.

But still . . . yes, the perp merited a block. I'm not at all sure he merits an unblock. But if it were me I'd have given him a week at most. How about something like shortening it to a week from the start of the block, on condition that he demonstrates his likely value by actually drafting a substantial amount of sourced, worthwhile article content (on the subject of his choice) within his userspace? -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I would be opposed to this, I can certainly see the merit in such an idea. It's better than what has currently been proposed and soundly rejected. What I might propose instead is to reduce the block to one month on those terms, provided there is support from the rest of the community. (Actually, I'm tempted to leave him blocked, but I think that's a good compromise). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A one month block seems appropriate, but 10 years is a tad excessive. henrik•talk 15:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Most folk were actually for it. I'm gonna go crosspost this to ANI so discussion can continue there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Crosspost end. Discuss. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I support reducing the blocked to one or a few months depending on what the community decides, childish mistakes have clouded their collaboration in the Wikipedia, but not interest in helping her, a point which is also valuable. Moreover, due to his age and English language, not being their mother tongue, we assume in good faith sometimes not understand or knows how to use the English correctly. Ccrazymann (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful idea above, though I say it myself. So, a kid behaves like a kid, and tops it off by calling an administrator, or some administrators, or administrators in general, "nazis". Well, kids say the durnedest things. Though actually it's hardly the durnedest thing hereabouts; indeed, it's (sadly) humdrum. He seems to be a waster of others' time, but at least he doesn't seem to do the things that really hurt an encyclopedia, such as beans beans beans, and he does seem to do some useful stuff. I don't much care what he promises to do or not to do. If he intends to contribute, he can make a contribution. Well, let's see a draft contribution. Working on it might concentrate his mind wonderfully. -- Hoary (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• A month is not long enough; it still gives the impression that if you whine and beg and plead enough, you'll get what you want. He now seems to be blackmailing the community by saying (to paraphrase) that if the block is longer than a year, he'll just resign. His behaviour was entirely inappropriate, he has not demonstrated that he's learnt from his mistakes, and reducing the block so much based on him crying will just allow him to think he can act how he pleases. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three months. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Call his bluff. One year exactly. See if he comes back after that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

However this winds up, while middle teens sometimes don't understand the likely outcomes of what they do (and may stir things up a bit to find out), this kind of taunting and teasing are something else altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• While I am not opposed to another "last chance", I agree with User:Ironholds that the editor might misinterpret any grace bestowed by the community. Tiderolls 17:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he misinterprets the GF he's given, seems to me as though he rather heedlessly plays users as if he's on a straightforward MUD. en.Wikipedia is a MUD in some ways, but these are not MisterWiki's way, hence perhaps the... muddle. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct re: the editor's perception. I'm hoping for some solution to be found that will show MW that the community is serious (should he be allowed back). Nice word play, btw. Regards Tiderolls 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave the ten year block in place. Dealing with disruptive editors in the indecisive fashion that MisterWiki has been dealt with sends the message that we don't take disruptive editing seriously. RadManCF (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I do find those much fun to stumble upon :) As to keeping the ten year block, that's ok, since after a few months almost any blocked/banned user can send an email to an admin asking if an unblock might be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he asked for unblock once more. I'm going to warn him that unless he backs off for a while I will modify his block settings so that he cannot edit even his userspace, and he will be banished forever. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Standard offer. Leaky Caldron 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• a) I'll leave him email free b) He's already come back from an indef only to get reblocked and then call admins Nazis. He blew his standard offer. Even when we had a proposal above to help him, he's still wasting our time. This is hopefuly purely academic, he has promised not to post it anymore. Then again... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, he has already used up the standard offer, this sockpuppet was unblocked precisely because he promised to act maturely and stop disrupting. -- m:drini 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't remotely support standard offer. If the community decides to send him packing we can't form a new consensus 6 months later when everyone has wandered off and forgotten about them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems clear that we all agree with some form of block, even though the lengths differ. Can I suggest reconsidering the situation in say, two months, when he's had a chance to reflect? I personally oppose any unblock for a long, long time, because I feel the problem is his immaturity, which can't be resolved in a month, but we'll see what the community says when it comes up again. Ironholds (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• He has been told to come back late April/early May. If/when he does, we can discuss it here. That sound fair? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me. I suspect the result will be the same. Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• opppose any unblock before 2020. I suggested it for a reason. He had his super duper last chance. How serious does the community look if after every super last chance indef, we turn around and go "oh well.. maybe it wasn't exactly your last chance.. let's reduce the block to a shoulder massage and tell him to have at it"?--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think we'd be wasting our time. Let's draw a line under this. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki's "wiki project"

Just to note that just before he went down the tubes this time, MisterWiki for the second time attempted to create a wiki project (currently at User:MisterWiki/WikiProject_Modern_Talking). The first time, in December, he was warned to go thru the process and not just to claim he was a project and invent some templates to stick on articles. This time, he appropriated another Project's shortcuts [18] and was again advised not to start the project without any supporters [19]. Since he is gone for a while, I have moved everything back into his userspace (again), and suggested that he not attempt to restart this project if he is unblocked [20] as I for one would consider it disruption.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's likely about to push him over the edge. I'll AGF, but how many centiseconds before we see some socks related to that "project", and some angry diatribes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we will. Trouble was, he started out in an edit war with another editor over the content of some articles about this german pop group, then started his "wiki project" to give his edits more 'status' than the other editor. I had some lengthy conversation with him the first time, about how he needed active members for the project. I didn't do it to annoy him - I've kept everything and moved all the pages back to userspace rather than just tagging for CSD, and corrected the transclusions - but I can't see why his deliberately ignoring the rules should be allowed to stand.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Every time we give him an inch of leeway it seems he screws something else up. I suggest deleting the project as improperly created and below the number of active users required; perhaps that will show him that negative actions have negative consequences, since unblocking him in two months certainly wont. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Seconded. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion. The projects's categories are under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#Category:WikiProject_Modern_Talking, but in the circumstances I don't see any resaon to await the outcome of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 NativeForeigner is doing...

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MisterWiki/WikiProject Modern Talking Wikiproject
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:WP_Modern_Talking_Sidebar Sidebar  Deleted
• Category:WikiProject Modern Talking participants(edit talk links history)[ Category speedy per C1  Deleted

 per concensus NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've speedily deleted the category and templatespace pages. Not particularly bothered about the User space pages to speedy those, but another admin may wish to do so. –xeno^talk 22:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Shared user account with COI issues

User:Etrangere is having issues with a BLP they (yes, plural, he/she and subject of article) created, L. Cedeño, including a possible COI, and personal attacks on another user,[21] claiming that User:Fastily was being a vandal by deleting an image (not certain what image).

At this point, User:Etranger has admitted that they are allowing the subject of the L. Cedeño article to edit the article from User:Etranger's account.

"During the course of the discussion about the article I have been in contact with him and today while going over the issues at hand he entered information through my account that we both thought would alleviate the questions. It would appear that the information (permission to use a photo) created more confusion as it now seems the community believes I am the author and the subject."[22]

A single purpose account[23] has turned up to edit the article, and question why User:Etranger is blanking the article.

Anyway, no specific board or warning for shared accounts, but it seems that an administrator could inform the user of the policy. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FALSE: While it is true that I am having issues with an article that I wrote I have not "attacked" anyone nor am I sharing my account. Any administrator is welcome to log into my account and check. What I was trying to express was - the person who is the subject of the article I was writing was here - at my physical location - and present during the point at which the photo of them came into question with regard to permissions. I asked the person to validate that I had permissions - and they simply typed into the DESCRIPTION area of the photo that they (L. Cedeño) were the person in the photo - and that they created the image and granted rights to use the photo.

As for why I blanked the article? It's because various people have insisted that the article is not in keeping with Wiki policies. I don't think that is the case but I'd like to straighten out this tangle of problems before posting something that has not been cleared.

This is beginning to become a bit of a witch hunt.

Please advise me as to how to resolve this without further problems.

Thanks

Etrangere (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, admins can't do that, so that is out. Etrangere, can you assure us that no one but yourself is using your account or has knowledge of your password?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've listed these two pages authored by Etrangere for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball

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.

---

Talk page unprotected, then reprotected, email blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Talk page unprotected by Mjroots and prevented from using email function by TBSDY. However, due to WP:SUICIDE, the user page has now been protected again.

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs) has contacted me with the request to have his user talk page unprotected. This user was community-banned the other day and then had his talk page locked because he made comments mentioning suicide that led people to think he was mentally unstable. He now wishes to appeal his ban, and while I don't see this as particularly likely to succeed (and I understand the ban appeals subcommittee unblock-en list may already have turned him down), he certainly sounds stable and rational enough that those suicide concerns appear moot, so I see no strong reason to deny him the talk page further.

He being a Greek user I'm not supposed to take action myself, so I'll ask here if anybody would grant him the favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For the relevant discussions see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he offered any particular justification for unblocking his access to the talk page? In all honesty, this user has come up a lot recently and the community's consensus was pretty strong. No unblock request posted there could reasonably be acted upon by an administrator without at least first deferring to the community, and in that regard perhaps the appropriate course of action would be to open the request here, but I'll say flat out right now I personally see nothing to justify an unbanning simply for temporal reasons. Perhaps a few months from now, but not now. And, while I cannot speak on behalf of the community as a whole, if the community does in fact agree with me that it is too early to consider an unbanning, then I don't see a reason to unblock the talk page either based on the circumstances that led to that event. If there was any rationale on WGB's part, though, I think it should be noted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way thus far at least six admins/user have received an email with a request to unblock him, what in my eyes is a clear repetition of his previous behaviour and additionally suggests no change in his attitude. As he has done already with his notifications of bureaucrats, I would assume that he intends to sent this email to admins till such time as he has reached his aim. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I have no dog in this fight, obviously; as far as I am concerned anybody is welcome to close this and consider the request denied, if people feel the consensus is clear. My own view is there's little harm in him having the talk page, where he can make requests and argue his case in a transparent way, which would take away the incentive for the e-mail admin shopping. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why there's another checkbox in the block UI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow the talk page access, on the strict understanding that it will be blocked again if the talk page is not used constructively. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As per the discussion at ANI linked to above, I see no reason why this unblocking should be considered for at least a month or two (although probably nearer 6 months). As for the e-mails to admins, I have sent (through Wikipedia e-mail user) advice to WGB not to contact any more admins about this, as this will risk the loss of Wiki e-mail rights. I have also suggested that he reads the 'standard offer' carefully - and that a discussion regarding his unblocking will be initiated in time. I have also said that if he continues to contact admins about unblocking, he is risking the block going from indefinite (i.e. with no fixed time set) to infinite. Hopefully he will use common sense and refrain from emailing admins. I would support allowing him his talk page access back - if he is disruptive there again, then he can have it removed again - in which case he also loses access to Wikipedia mail as well -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose, for now. The user has been repeatedly explained why his behavior was considered disruptive, yet, he has shown no sign of understanding. The reasoning of the user is that his mistake was to nominate himself at WP:RFA, when it was his attitude after being declined what was really considered disruptive. If he demonstrates an understanding of how the chain of events led to his blocking, I would support unprotecting his talk page. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock of talk page. It is not onerous to allow WGB the opportunity to talk things through with any editor willing to help him understand where he stands and how he can restore his standing with the community, and I don't believe there is any compelling reason this should be done off-wiki. The disruption potential at his own talk page is contained, and talk page access can be removed again at the drop of a hat. MLauba (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know how many people he has contacted via email, as I have also been contacted. However, as he has been blocked and his user talk page protected, I guess that he took this course of action is not unreasonable. Perhaps we should unprotect his user page? Or is there an email address I'm not aware of that we can refer him to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the unblock-en e-mail list. Apparently he's already tried that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Right then. I'm restricting his on-email wiki access as he already knew about that email address. More examples of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He emailed me as well, before he was asked to stop. He claims he will abide by our 'site policies', but does he understand them? I guess I wouldn't oppose letting him use his talk page to convince us. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He also e-mailed me, received on 18th at 18:22 hrs. System put the e-mail in my spam box . Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also received an e-mail from him a few days ago. Ucucha 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—why don't we allow him use of his talkpage, but block email access? He's been effectively spamming tens of editors and (I think) most of the bureaucrats about this (talkpage-spammed all the bureaucrats, my mistake), despite being repeatedly turned down. If he has talkpage access, everything's open, so we can withdraw his ability to email. How's that sound? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support talk page unprotection. It will probably be several months before the consensus moves towards unblocking him completely, but I see no harm in restoring his access to his talk page- it's something we allow the most egregious vandals and trolls. Besides, it can be taken away again without any faff. HJMitchell You rang? 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now unprotected WGBs talk page. The e-mail restriction can stay for now. Any abuse of the talk page by WGB and the privilege can be revoked by any admin without further ado. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Going by posts here and on his talk page one can see he's sent, at least, more than half a dozen emails to admins in the last day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I'm AGFing here - he knows that admins have the tools to unblock him, so as he couldn't leave messages on his talk page, he's contacting admins in the hope that one of them will. Hopefully, he'll read the messages on his talk page and realise that (a) he can post there now; (b) he won't be unblocked in the immediate future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed him to let him know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I had previously blocked access to this page per WP:SUICIDE. No one a) thought to consult me or b) even brought up the reason it was protected. Excellent work, guys. Tan | 39 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you note this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In the protection note and on the talk page, as one normally would. Here. Tan | 39 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that... it looks like Gwen might have accidentally removed your suicide notice. I'm going to reprotect and restore your comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but FPAS mentioned it in the very opening post to this thread, and also mentioned he believe the user to be stable, which very much influenced at least my vote to unblock the talk page. To this otherwise uninvolved administrator, it starts looking like we're playing bureaucratic games with the user. I don't think re-protecting the talk page is warranted at present. MLauba (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Start a straw poll to find consensus that this user is "stable", and I almost guarantee you it will fail. I don't think unprotecting the talk page was warranted. The bureaucratic game was to unprotect the talk page while keeping him blocked and disabling email; what was that for? This situation was handled appropriately until this thread. Tan | 39 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep that page protected. I think we should all cool it - nobody was playing a game over how to deal with this editor, indeed all I see is a desire to be fair towards him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not being argumentative, but beyond the one mention he made when initially threatened with a block, has WGB made any other mentions of suicide? None of the messages that he sent me had any indication of such feelings - but as I'm not an admin, I've not heard from him recently. Has anyone had any further mentions? The reason I'm asking is, how long do we assume that he has suicidal feelings - as I say, none of the communications I've seen after that one have shown any indications. Also, with no talk page access and no e-mail access, how is WGB supposed to ask for the block to be lifted in the future? If he contacts ArbCom, they will look at the discussion here, and say that they can't lift it as it was a community decision, so it seems to me that he has no way of contacting anyone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From my communications from him, I also got the impression that the is no longer unstable. Ucucha 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm neutral as to unprotecting the page. I'm not aware of any later threats and I see no need for leaving a link to a suicide counseling service on that talk page (if anything, I think it's unhelpful to both the user and the project). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He has already sent an email to the the unblock address, and was denied. He won't be unblocked, at least not any time soon. I don't think there is a problem here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think blocking + talk page protection + e-mail disabled is an excellent sock knitting system, hence the suggestion to unprotect the talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there consensus to change the block like this in the first place? I don't understand how an admin can change it with just 3 clear supports when there are opposes to it as well. Especially when this comes only about a week after his block and eventual unblock request (which was denied with consensus clearly against it). This is not the same as overturning another admin's decision. A wider discussion should take place before we try to change something that was decided by the community. What's the hurry? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Only concern about the suicide threat. As always, I put my actions forward to the general admin community. If they were in error, please feel free to reverse. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ChamalN, there were more supports than opposes when I allowed WGB access to his talk page. I thought I spelled it out clearly enough that allowing such access was a privilege and not a right and that abuse of the talk page would lead to it being re-blocked. If I made an error in my actions I apologise. Even admins can make a mistake! As with all my administrative actions, I'm open to reasonable discussion and persuasion if anyone feels that my action was not correct. I notice from the talk page history that WGB did not edit his talk page before the block was re-imposed. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

E-mail from WGB

Here is the latest (you can see my first e-mail to him today, and my reply to his response to that):

FW: Your emails to admins

From: Phantomsteve Sent: 19 January 2010 18:48 To: 'Apollo' Subject: RE: Your emails to admins WGB, Firstly: I cannot allow you to edit your user page. I am not an admin, as I've told you in the past. Secondly: You did threaten to kill yourself when you were first blocked. Guidelines normally indicate that the account of a person who does this is blocked, with no editing allowed to their talk page. No one has said that you threatened to kill yourself today - all of the references are to your previous threat Thirdly, your access to email through Wikipedia has been removed because you contacted multiple admins. Fourthly, no one is going to contact the police - you aren't threatening to kill yourself, so there is no cause for the police to be contacted with your location. READ the advice on your talk page. READ the standard offer. I see that you have done editing on other Wikipedias: - Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia.org) - 11 edits - last edit 10 April 2009 - Croatian Wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org) - 3 edits - last edit 5 April 2009 - French Wikipedia (fr.wikipedia.org) - 27 edits - last edit 10 April 2009 - Italian Wikipedia (it.wikipedia.org) - 18 edits - last edit 10 January 2010 - Spanish Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org) - 34 edits - last edit 5 April 2009 I also see that you have an account on commons (commons.wikimedia.org), but that doesn't have any edits. If you go to one of the other Wikipedias (you are only blocked on the English one), you can sort out getting a Unified login (all the accounts will be linked) - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#How_to_unify_your_accounts for details. (To see the list that I used to find your contributions, go to http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wiki+Greek+Basketball) If I was you, I would continue editing on the other Wikipedias (also, you can edit at the Greek Wikipedia at el.wikipedia.org) - your block is *only* on the English Wikipedia. Regards, Phantomsteve ________________________________ From: Apollo Sent: 19 January 2010 17:36 To: Phantomsteve Subject: Re: Your emails to admins Can you please allow me to edit my user talk page? They blocked my email and they still won't allow me access to my user talk page. Mjroots the admin granted me access to edit my talk page and then two other admin took it off and claimed I threatened to kill myself and that this gave them the right to permanently remove any access to my talk page. I did NOT do anything like that. How can they say I threatened to kill myself just today when that happened weeks ago? You know that this is not true and you know that they are lying and treating me unfairly and that they are abusing their positions as admin. Can you please give me back my user talk page access and tell them to stop saying I am threatening to kill myself when they are lying about it. If the police show up to my house because those admin made up a lie that I threatened suicide then I will take the proper procedures to deal with them. --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Phantomsteve wrote: From: Phantomsteve Subject: Your emails to admins To: "Wiki Greek Basketball" Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 3:18 AM I would strongly suggest that you stop sending e-mails to admins asking to be unblocked. This is for two reasons: Firstly, following the community discussion, no admin would even consider thinking about it for at least another month (if not longer - I'd probably say nearer to 6 months) Secondly, if you continue to e-mail admins, then you are risking losing your e-mail rights on Wikipedia. Should this happen, the only way in which you would be able to communicate would be to send an e-mail through normal e-mail systems (i.e. not through Wikipedia) to ArbCom - and they would not overturn a block so overwhelmingly backed by the community. My advice would be to read the 'standard offer' linked to on your talk page, and just wait. In time, a discussion will be restarted regarding your possible unblocking. If you continue to badger the admins, you will risk putting yourself in the position where your indefinite block (i.e. with no specific time scale) will become an infinite block (i.e. no chance of being unblocked). I hope that you will pay attention to this advice - it really is for you own good. If you choose to ignore it, then that is your right, but I think I am only saying what you have probably seen on ANI and on your talk page. Regards, Phantomsteve

-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think WGB's talk page (protected or not) is more fit for this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I can't put anything on WGB's talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What I should have said is, WGB is only forum shopping and trying to keep things stirred up. There's no need to post his emails here, but I know you're being helpful and I'd be startled if anyone thought otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• And here I thought by posting a simple note on his talk page I could avoid yet another long ANI thread in this subject... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

...forum shopping much? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with userpage

Closing Discussion for obvious reasons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Diicbtv2otwtdod23

This one is on a page move vandalism spree with threats against an editors family. Needs blocked and the pages returned to their proper places. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've voablocked this vandal - but would appreciate some assistance in undoing his vandalism. The redirects needs unpicking. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done the honors of revoking tp and email - I've seen this git before, and am about ready to ask for a community ban for him. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the LeeD vandal who apparently got autoconfirmed on purpose to do what he did. I asked J.delanoy for a checkuser to see if he is on a new IP range. Currently 3 of his ranges are on a long term block. I believe the actual user is ScienceGolfFanatic but not 100% sure. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone threatening "Tewapack" is virtually guaranteed to be ScienceGolfFanatic unless he's got friends working with him now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Filter 273, LeeD Vandalism may need to be updated as well to reflect the edits made. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have adapted filter 273 to account for this. Please let me know if there's anything still being missed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually saw this as it was happening because I have several of the pages that were vandalized on my watchlist. He was already blocked before I was able to send a report to AIV, so my response was to look at the unusual sequence of early edits to his own userpage to see what they were and why he made them. It looks like he was trying to evade Filter 72, so I spent quite some time looking at 72 to see what possible changes could be made. However I can't see any easy changes to make other than to raise the limit even higher, which might be controversial. I agree with your changes to 273. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

something that bears watching

Resolved

Keanu217 (talk · contribs) looks like a spam account for 'Cheap Food for Hard Times' - I already reverted where it replaced the content on the doc pages for {{infobox}}, but I suspect it will try elsewhere and may start spawning new accounts. may need some looking into. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him and deleted his talk page as G11; as soon as I revert what remains of his still-standing promo edits I will place the spamblock template on his page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bosniak

Resolved

 – User topic-banned.  Sandstein  06:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosniak (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

User:Bosniak made a comment in the edit history of an article: "United States resolutions H.199 and S.134: here are both texts so Serb apologist cannot manipulate them anylonger".(Revision as of 02:05, 16 January 2010).

On the talk page of User:Bosniak I asked what (s)he meant.[24]. The reply is uncivil.[25] If this user was not aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia there might be some excuse for it, but User:Bosniak is already listed in the Enforcement section. As the attack is against me, I would appreciate it if another administrator would deal with it. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosniak has already been topic banned twice for this. The last one was for 6 months. Maybe another year off is needed? Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be sufficiently straightforward ethno-religious WP:BATTLE conduct that no WP:AE thread is needed. Per WP:ARBMAC#March 2008 - May 2008, Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already indefinitely topicbanned from Kosovo (to which he reacted with ban and block evasion, according to the enforcement log). Impressive block log, too. Unless other admins object, I'll extend that topic ban to all of the Balkans per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. I am also notifying Bosniak of this thread.  Sandstein  12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Three hours after closing time at the last chance saloon, the trusty janitor pointedly coughs as he sweeps round the last drunk.... Guy (Help!) 23:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Because of his continued, long-term misuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, which is prohibited (WP:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia), Bosniak (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely banned, under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, from the topic of the Balkans, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this ban covers edits to all pages, discussions and other content related to the topic (such as Balkans-related content in pages that are not themselves related to the Balkans). He is also reminded that any infringement of that ban, or any continued disruptive behavior, may lead to an indefinite block without further warning. This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  06:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at Public image of Barack Obama

Resolved

 – Semi'd for a week by Fastily. —DoRD (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been some IP-based disruption going on at Public image of Barack Obama over the last few days. Various soap-boxy edits have been made to this article (and one or two loosely related articles) by the following IPs (listed with example diffs):

• 76.66.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff1, diff2
• 76.66.195.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff1, diff2, diff3
• 76.66.201.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff1 (copies edits of other IPs), diff2 (and again)

It seems clear that these IPs are related. What would be the best course of action? Is semi-protection of the article the way to go, or should I bring this up at WP:SPI? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they're all Bell Canada addresses, it appears likely that they're the same person, so I'm not sure what else could be done at SPI. SProt, on the other hand, would hopefully stop it long enough for them to get bored with it. —DoRD (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Public image of Barack Obama semi-protected for a week. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just realized it's going to be a loooong week, though. —DoRD (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:J.delanoy

Resolved

 – I have blocked the IP per WP:DUCK. NW (Talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This user has apparently gone mad and is out of control on very random blocking sprees. For instance, in just the last few days alone, he has blocked countless accounts as "sockpuppets" of the same user. I see these bulk "checkuser blocks" very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons:

1. Some of these accounts haven't edited in a month or more. 2. Many of these accounts suggest very diverse editing styles. 3. The compilation of "sockpuppets" mixes in sets of vandal accounts (ie. Red Pistons Force), with accounts that have made less than three unconstrucutive edits, with accounts that have been around for almost a year and even accounts that in only very few edits have shown nothing but good faith for the project:

Special:Contributions/Classic_Clock Special:Contributions/Prince_of_English13

And then a user only a month old that has made hundreds of good edits and has created more articles in a matter of a week or two than most long-time users EVER do. 2 of those articles featured on the main page this month as DYKs:

Special:Contributions/Domestic_Cat

To be honest, whatever the checkuser says, a bit more common sense would seem critical here. Am I the only one who thinks this looks more like a random collection of accounts (despite the quacking of the RPF accounts with each other, that suggest no link to the master) that J.delanoy has just gone "ready, aim, fire" to than a legitimate category of sockpuppets? Many of these accounts are just far too diverse to be linked to each other.

And then there's even more problems. For instance, he takes the liberty to block a good faith contributor as a sockpuppet of MacotGuy:

01:49, 19 January 2010 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) blocked Baseball1015 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: MascotGuy)

The user had to request unblock to get unblocked as a blantantly unrelated account. J.delanoy did later unblock the user, but only after other administrators realised what he was doing. Now, yet another innocent victim has the a J.delanoy block log stain. Who's next?

A third issue is his dishonesty. He knew exactly who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.delanoy#Any_connection_to_... User:Blocky cuzco] was and when his lying was exposed he reverted as vandlaism possibly to cover up his actions.

Even assuming good faith there is just too much going on here to ignore. Note that this is merely a few selected examples of his recent behavoir. Soemthing must be done..--219.89.10.35 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I smell someone on a mission here, and it's not Delanoy. Nevermind; I've read some of the history here. Nevertheless, you still appear to have an axe to grind against Jdelanoy given all your comments above; would you rather a different CheckUser run you down this time? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I smell a blocked sockpuppet... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As winter progresses, we see that not all of the ducks have flown south. -- Atama頭 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I do smell a sock; however his comment about unblocking a user he initially hit thru a sockblock is indeed correct (though it can be chalked up to false-positives). Plaxico strikes again; there isn't anything actionable here even if complainant wasn't J.Delanoy's stalker. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno man, it just looks like he was getting all his ducks in a row. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request an administrator intervention and assistance in editing of wp: Family Foundation School

Resolved

 – Content issue already being addressed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from WT:AN —DoRD (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a continued issue on the "Family Foundation School" wikipedia article, generally surrounding negative issues that surround the school. Some of the editors have voiced their opinions that negative information about the school is not relevant to the article, but some other editors have voiced their opinion that allegations of abuse and the youth rights activism surrounding the school, specifically the abuse allegations, are necessary and relevant content that should be included in the article. Please have a neutral administrator review this article and mediate this article's content.

Thank you Flyboi9 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you probably meant this for wp:ANI, which would also not have been the correct venue. You already have a neutral administrator trying to help you Orlady (talk · contribs), and a neutral (though I confess annoying) editor, me, trying to help you. I have suggested wp:ELN and wp:RfC as avenues to gather support for your position, or guidance, or both. wp:dispute resolution is another good document.- Sinneed 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

False information on Scott Brown article (Senator)

Resolved

no action required at AN/I

Massachusetts senator Scott Brown's article is the target of some well meaninged but technical vandalism. They keep calling him Senator-elect. He is not. He is just the presumed winner and has been declared the winner by news organizations. However, the election is not certified. We can say multiple news organizations have declared him the winner but we cannot say he is the winner without using a crystal ball.

If Wikipedia was around in 1948, Wikipedia would have said that President Truman lost the election. Jimbo Wales said that we must get it right. Saying someone is the winner based on a very good hunch is not good enough. JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Coakley has called and conceded, so I have no reason to not call him senator-elect, or if you want, presumed senator-elect. SirFozzie (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

[26], JB50000, that is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:SELFREF, please do not insert material such as that in the future. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, MBisanz but it was a genuine effort to get it right. Coakley is not the election commissioner. There have been a few cases that the loser was so sore that he or she refused to call and concede. JB50000 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in any case, it is not vandalism to note the election results that have been reported, nor is it productive to call it vandalism. If you have an issue with the particular contents of Scott Brown, then Talk:Scott Brown is the place to raise those issues - not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

But bringing it here has gotten the article fixed. We now are reporting it correctly. I did not call it vandalism. I called it technical vandalism (not the same) and also said that people have good intentions but are putting predictions and stating them as fact. JB50000 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "technical vandalism" is still calling it vandalism. Don't do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, the Content noticeboard and BLP noticeboard are intended for raising issues like this. Don't feed the admins content issues, it only encourages them.  Skomorokh  04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to post over the tag, but I just noticed this. JB50000 posted also on my talk page, since I was one of the ones adding "senator-elect". I told him he was being overly pedantic, since if we went down that road, we'd have to wait until the electoral vote was counted in January to have called Obama "president elect" and we are certainly not going to wait 15 days until Massachusetts certifies Brown's totals to call him senator elect. JB50000 should also be cautioned to notify other people that issues in which they are involved are being discussed. That being said, the Brown article seems a fine one, and I know of at least one committed editor who plans to improve it further (not me).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification and review request of block of User:Craigy144 for copyright violations

Resolved

 – Block agreed to be good, Arbcom taking this forward

Craigy144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Following a series of entries on today's WP:CP listing, confirmed by previous investigations at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 19#One for you :) and User talk:Moonriddengirl#Dictionary of National Biography and copyright issues, I found that there is a long issue of content copied verbatim from the non-free Oxford Dictionary of National Biography attributed to the (partially PD) DNB from this user, going back at least one year - see for instance User talk:Craigy144#Copyright concerns and the corresponding Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth.

Considering Craigy144 has not edited since January 3rd, that there is an ongoing pattern, previous warnings that went unheeded, I have issued an indef block until Craigy144 responds to the concerns expressed on his talk page.

I request a review of the present course of action, I also further point out that User:Craigy144 is an admin, and that the exact same concerns about administrators keeping the bit when they display such troubling issues with our copyright policies were examined here just a few days ago, and would like further community input on this specific aspect as well. MLauba (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be quite a few copyright warnings... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in cleaning up these concerns on several occasions, the most recent being when it was brought to my attention on my talk page. I'm surprised and dismayed to discover that User:Craigy144 is an admin. He was notified of copyright problems on one article specifically twice: in November 2008 and in December 2009 and did not take any action about it. The second contributor subsequently brought up the problem at WP:CP, and that article has been deleted. People can inadvertently infringe based on a misunderstanding of copyright policy or law, but I don't believe we should have administrators who repeatedly violate copyright after notification of the problem and especially without responding to concerns about them. I don't believe we should have editors who do that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(five or six edit conflicts)I do think that Craigy144 should have his adminship removed. Trouble is, that's almost impossible to do here. Do we really want to go to Arbcom over this?! Or an appeal to our God and Creator? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I believe we need to do something. I cannot see how this contributor would not have realized he was violating copyright policy when he created the article Frances Anne Vane, Marchioness of Londonderry in February 2009. He had been very clearly notified of copyright concerns previously, especially here. (Please see the talk page for some examples; I am now in possession of the source article. There are more.) We've already received one complaint from a copyright holder about him (see Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth). What does it say about Wikipedia if we leave administrator tools with people who seem to be deliberately ignoring copyright policy? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are reading this, Craigy144, please resign. If not, there's always arbcom - has someone emailed them about this issue? (It's late over where I live). And besides, why is there not a CCI for this guy? MER-C 13:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that anybody has e-mailed him. I didn't file a CCI because I've been waiting for today when the first batch of CP listings came due for closure to give him an opportunity to respond. Had I recalled that I had dealt with him at Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth, long before we had a CCI, I wouldn't have waited, but the neverending hamster wheel of copyvio cleanup means details sometimes get lost. :/ As a general FYI (because I know you know already), CCI is seriously backlogged. I try to put time into at least one every day, but we could really use more help there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall email Arbcom. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job. :) I guess we'll see what happens. Loathe as I am to do so (another one?), I'll list him at WP:CCI after I make some more headway on today's listings at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The rationale for the block is spot on, as is justification for one generally. However, I feel that an indef block is a little over the top. Personally I've issued blocks for 1 or 2 weeks for similar issues. Unless there's a history of blocks for the behaviour, or unless the account is a clear vandalism only account, I think an indef as the first block for copyvio is excessive. Unless I'm missing something, I would support a request for a reduction of the block should they request one. NJA (t/c) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's meant to be permanent. MLauba in notifying at that user space indicated it was "until you do react to the above situation." Looking at the history of his talk page, Craigy144 seems to have a history of ignoring such notices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Fair enough. NJA (t/c) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing with indef is "is it necessary to protect Wikipedia?". Copyvios have the potential to damage Wikipedia. I would hope that Craigy read what has been said and makes a commitment to avoid future violations. When he does this, I'm sure that an unblock request would be taken seriously. Indef for multiple copy-vio and failure to respond to concerns about them is not unusual, in my opinion. I do think that removal af admin tools would be highly appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the last bit, as it currently stands that will only happen if he resigns the tools voluntarily or arbcom makes the decision to remove them. Whilst he definitely caused disruption and ignored the rules, he didn't really abuse the admin tools. That said, if given a vote, I'd elect for removal. Anyhow, shall we archive this? NJA (t/c) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to address your comments, I did pick "indef" because the editor has not had any activity since January 3rd, rather than some arbitrary timeframe that may very well be expired when he comes back. In practical terms, and for future reference, I have no reservations of the block being overturned the moment the user returns to editing, acknowledges and responds to the concerns, without, for that matter, requiring a specific further input from me. MLauba (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the key point to remember is that this is exactly why we have 'indefinite' and not 'permanent'. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the previous thread just last week, violating the copyright policy is fundamentally incompatible with adminship. I have asked Jimbo Wales if he would be willing to desysop Craigy. NW (Talk) 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that this is egregious. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Craigy144 suggests the arbitrators are looking at it. We can probably call this resolved, as far as this noticeboard is concerned. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Throughout the history of Liechtenstein article has undergone countless name changes, let me explain one thing: The correct pronunciation is the one that started, [ 'lɪç.tən.ʃtain], not [li: ç.ten.ʃtajn] much less [li: x.ten.ʃtajn]).

To begin, you must indicate where the accentuation of the word, that is, the hairline to the top ['---]. While in German the pronunciation of the group "ie" is a long and i closed ie [i:], in the case of the pronunciation of "Liechtenstein" is irregular and that group i is pronounced like short and open, that is [ɪ], probably because the country's name comes from the family of Liechtenstein, and as everyone knows, the German spelling of surnames is independent and has "permission" to depart from the German spelling rules (eg always "Goethe" never "Göthe"), so that although the" i "is short and closed is written as" ie ", the "ch" is pronounced [ç] if you are behind [i:] or [ɪ] as here, or after the "e", never as [x], a sound similar to the Spanish jota there when you go behind the vowels "a", "o", "u" (Achtung, Noch, Buch), the second "e" in "Liechtenstein "a" and relaxed, very soft and almost imperceptible (as in the usual language is deleted, indicating phonetically instead the "n" with a vertical stick below) which is indicated by the sign of the IPA [ə], not [e]. Ccrazymann (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While this is interesting, this doesn't sound like something that an admin needs to be involved in. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The protection for the article, if they follow the name changes would be possible?. Ccrazymann (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is move protected since 2008, and has actually not been moved more than once that I can see. I don't get your concerns, but if we're not understanding you and you're more comfortable in German, leave me a message on my talk page.

Dieses Artikel ist seit 2008 gegen Umbenennung geschützt, ich verstehe das Problem nicht ganz. Falls dies auf ein Sprachproblem zurückzuführen wäre, können Sie eine deutsche Nachricht auf meiner Diskussionsseite hinterlassen. MLauba (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it User:Ccrazymann refers not to a move of the article itself, but only to the pronunciation of the word "Liechtenstein" into the article's lead, which apparently was changed several times in the last year(s) (for example [27] - I haven't searched for more). If I'm right they want to adjust it as per their explanation above and then would like the article to be protected. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Phoe is what I meant, sorry if I did not express at all clear, since English is not my mother tongue, I could probably see better written in German, Spanish, Italian or Hungarian, but I found a lack of respect for the community to speak in another language. Wow perfect MLauba is very good find an administrator who speaks German. Ccrazymann (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jô - multiple edits from various IPs

This article has a long history of edits from today; I am curious and want to know how this is happening. I may not be in the right place, but because this is a very active noticeboard, I thought I could clue others into this and receive an answer! :-) Maybe the IPs are open proxies? Just curious, thanks. Schfifty3 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected 24 hours. WTF? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And by the use of the last word - I'm not dumb; I don't want to start an argument. I was just unsure where to bring this up in the first place. I think I should end this discussion. Perhaps Wikipedia really is a complicated environment, and now that this is resolved, I want to end discussion. Schfifty3 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have started happening about two days ago: a page starts getting an 'undue' amount of attention for no particular reason. HalfShadow 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, my WTF was "where the heck did all these editors come from?????" :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying that! We all have misunderstandings sometimes in our lives. :-) Thanks, Schfifty3 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's like an IP raid, but seems to be spontaneous. HalfShadow 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's almost as if he's in the news today... Holly25 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt

Resolved

 – Rescinded by Seregain (talk · contribs) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User agreed to mentorship, but has apparently not taken it very seriously[28][29] and continues to be disruptive.

SA continues to violate the WP:NPA policy:

• here, in which he apparently uses a crystal ball or some kind of mind-reading to determine my motivations for a deletion nomination, points out my religious beliefs for no good reason than to assume bad faith, once again brings up my first edit as if something sinister about my editing can be gleaned from it, blatantly lies about my editing of the Ken Ham article, and uses the edit summary "bad faith AFD started by evangelical POV pusher."
• here, in which he uses scare quotes to not-so-subtly imply that I am not a "True Editor^TM."
• here, in which he again attacks my religious beliefs and uses them to imply my editing has some sort of sinister bent.

Note: SA has engaged in these personal attacks against editors based upon their religious beliefs for weeks.

SA improperly removed my comments to an AfD discussion:

• here, with the summary of "rvmd disruptive, libelous comment with doesn't belong in AFD and is unverified"
• here, with the edit summary of "rmvd inappropriate comment - Jack Chick's "Christian Porn" is totally irrelevent to this AFD" (note that the edit also conveniently deletes a personal attack)

All while engaging in his own inappropriate, disruptive and libelous comments, ironically enough.

SA edits improperly:

• here, in which his edits had to be reverted for violating WP:RS (and he subsequently called it a "mistake")
• here, in which he continues to insist on re-inserting material irrelevant to a person's biography

SA has recently made a habit of targeting my edits recently under the guise of "fighting evangelical Christian fundamentalist spam" or whatever he calls it to give himself carte blanche to violate whatever guidelines and policies he wishes. I supported SA's mentorship and hoped he'd take it to heart, but that apparently isn't going to happen, particularly in light of these recent edits. SA has a serious chip on his shoulder that affects his edits here. Seregain (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive had my own run-ins with SA in the past. He has continuously nominated Userboxes for deletion in bad faith. And attacking those who vote "keep".--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue dude. Your definition of "bad faith" is that if the AFDs failed, than I must have made them in bad faith (or else they would have succeeded). That's absurd. AFDs fail all the time - that doesn't mean that every one of them was started with some "sekret agenda", it just means that the voters disagreed with me, and I respect that.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you saw the last AN/I about him, you'll know his likely response to this one will be pages of attacks against myself instead of actually addressing his own behavior. Seregain (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above posts are incorrect (as I explained in the earlier incident Seregain started) and are so juvenile that I'm not going to comment on them again.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This from an editor who has fewer than 200 edits, and managed a well-formed AFD with his first three. Duck, anyone? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. At this point he seems to be a WikiStalker with an evanglical Christian agenda. Here's a list of suspicious edits by Seregain that imply a fundamentalist Christian agenda (there have been others since then too, including his crazy AFD for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible).

Please do not throw around terms like "WikiStalker." That's a personal attack. Really, you need to back off. You were close to being blocked for this behavior before. Auntie E. (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I never came close to being blocked since all of Seregain's assertions were untrue (which I explained point by point in the previous AFD). He has actually used the "Wikistalker" label against me first, but now he just attempted to "out" me by linking to an offsite profile which he believes is mine and complaining here about a comment I made (which borders on disruption). At this point it's somewhat obvious that he's here simply to disrupt and push his extremist agenda (and very likely is a sockpuppet of a banned user, given he has only 200 edits and his 1st edit was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance, like Guy mentioned). I left you a comment on your talk page.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not the one posting at length on other websites about people's behavior here. Seregain (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is WP:EDITCOUNT a policy now? (Woah! That actually led somewhere. I had no idea when I typed it.) Anyway, AfD is a pretty simple process with clearly written instructions. Cutting and pasting is not difficult. Seregain (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New issue: SA has more than once deleted others' good faith and relevant contributions and replaced them with his own. An example is here. Seregain (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there's this, which has left me simply speechless. Seregain (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually leave you speechless, since you know that it's an accurate summary of your disruptive agenda. Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That last one is confusing. Did he get lost and think he was on his own talk page? Seriously, I don't even know if that was vandalism, that's almost like a stranger walking into your house, opening up the fridge, pulling out a drink, and then asking you if you want one. -- Atama頭 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that part of the edit was very strange, but I actually was referring more to his comment further down. Seregain (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That was probably an accident. Jclemens, whose page I had been watching, changed the header just in the previous edit. Either an edit conflict ignored by SuaveArt, or he edited the page from a old version or diff view. Anyway, Jclemens fixed it back later, and he did not assume it to be vandalism. Pcap ping 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some version of Hanlon's razor applies. The edit looks really strange without context, until you realize it just readded long-established text that I'd just changed in the previous two revisions. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE

I am rescinding this AN/I on the advice of others to disengage from the user. Seregain (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Constant vandalism from an individual on AT&T IPs

For the past month I have been dealing with an IP user who has constantly been removing all references from a series of articles I edit on a regular basis. I have reverted these every time but because the IPs are only related through the ISP (AT&T) and data center (Hayward, California) there cannot be a range block put in place. The following IPs have all been used by this individual, with the first one (and the case name) being the one used within the past hour.

• 75.36.129.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.202.57.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.200.101.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.204.77.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.205.26.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.205.24.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.204.79.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I never get results when I contact WP:ABUSE, and very often my reports to AIV get dismissed because I don't bother leaving a warning in these cases (I seriously do not expect IP editors to bother checking the talk page nor one that has been doing this to do anything in those regards).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it always the same few articles being targeted? Semiprotection might would solve that. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tbsdy lives appears to have semiprotected all of them. That's not really what I was looking for. I still think an abuse report should be filed. WP:ABUSE just isn't how I've gotten results.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been happening over a month long period. I figure that they'll get tired of it after seeing that they can't edit the articles for a month. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would still like something to be done in regards to contacting AT&T's abuse department.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection assistance urgently needed!

If any other admins are around, could you give me a hand clearing the HUGE (40+) WP:RPP requests please! Thanks. GedUK  08:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done a few. Man, there needs to be some sort of automated tool for this sort of thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for your and the other help that appeared! The follow up question is, how to we get a backlog at RPP to show on the admin backlog page, if it doesn't already. GedUK  10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this take care of that? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 11:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's manual (though I admit I forgot it today!), but i'm wondering if a bot can add it automatically. That's something I can take somewhere else for now though. GedUK  12:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We need some sort of bot that marks the pages that have already been protected (perhaps by admins who've seen the vandalism and protected, not looking at RFPP) as being "done". Something similar to the AIV bot who removes blocked users, but in this case it would just add a template to the correct sections. I went through last night and marked at least 4 sections as being already done.

@Tbsdy, Twinkle makes page protection a little bit quicker, if that's what you're after. :-) Killiondude (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask Anomie (talk · contribs), his bot already does something similar at WP:FFD with already deleted files. Regards SoWhy 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

James dalton bell, aftermath

Resolved

 – No admin attention needed at the moment. —DoRD (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have unlimited patience, and I am afraid that I may lose my cool with this user. I am doing my best to remain calm, short, and concise, my newest section on their talk page aside(which isn't short, but I did try to be concise).

I may have breached WP:CIVIL by asking them to stop throwing tantrums and act their age. If that comment is deemed uncivil(it is in the new section, btw), then I shall refactor it into something more acceptable, or, if I cannot find a suitable answer, I will outright delete it. Either way, I hearby request that an admin stop by and try to explain to this user what I, and two others had failed to do. They seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with them, and agrees with Gogo, is a meatpuppet of Gogo... But yes, please come, offer your 2 cents.. weigh in.. etc... Please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the above, I am not going to await approval or disapproval. As such, I have refactored my long reply to the user's talk page. I hope it is better than it once was.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to cease attempts at communicating with him. I know I have - I just don't have the time or inclination to read badly formatted, illogical and irrational screeds that tend to go on for pages all in one paragraph. Trust me on this one, he won't be unblocked therefore if we stop posting to his talk page then we don't have to concern ourselves with him any more. He is free to read Wikipedia, but not edit it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to continue to communicate with someone who refuses to get the point. Bell has been told the same thing over and over again by multiple editors at multiple venues. He's not a dumb guy - he just wants us to change our guidelines to suit his viewpoint. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the previous thread regarding Bell, further attempts at communication are only likely to rile him up even more. He's got a terminal case of hard headedness, and I doubt that another 1, 2, or 100 additional opinions will dissuade him of his misconceptions. —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, likewise, please see my answer here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's not asking for unblocks, stop talking to him and just talkblock him. There's no point in trying to open up a dialog with him; that's like selling garlic to Dracula. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of note, in this diff, Bell states: "You just admitted (for legal purposes) that your primary purpose is to make me (and other users) 'bow down' before the Almighty Administrators...". I'm not sure if that's an accusation of Wikilawyering, or if Bell is making a legal threat. Regardless, I don't think we need to support his soapboxing, and would suggest removing his talkpage privileges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Solution: Unwatchlist the talk page, ignore further rants. Guy has left a useful template about his options, no further discussion is needed. If an unblock request is made, an admin will deal with it then. If not, if a tree argues in the forest, and there's no one around to argue with it, is it a real argument? Talk page protection would not be a horrible travesty, but it's just unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, just drop it and find another user to help - one who might actually reward your efforts. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BjörnBergman

Resolved

 – BjörnBergman (talk · contribs) unblocked by Theresa knott (talk · contribs)NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BjörnBergman (talk · contribs) got blocked indefinitely for discussing (in Swedish, on his talk page) his 24-hour block on Wikipedia, as well as Swedish Wikipedia. He really would like his block removed and given a new chance to contribute to Wikipedia. My recommendation is that he is given the chance to do so. --Petter (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It would probably have been best to simply ask the blocking admin, Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who I've notified). –xeno^talk 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to ask Theresa the same thing when I saw the notice on the Talk page. GameOn (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I'll do the unblock. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible socks

Moved to WP:ANI

 – Astro$01 (talk · contribs) filed a report for 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

CaitlinQuinn1 (talk · contribs), Jibbyjaba (talk · contribs) and Bianca7479 (talk · contribs) are all SPAs that seem focused on rehabilitating the public image of Pit Bulls (see also List of people killed by dogs in the United States). All three accounts were created in the space of a few days and have only edited the two articles. Seems pretty duck-like to me. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Make these type of reports here please. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Gee, I would have if I could, but the systemic bias against IPs includes preventing us from initiating SPI cases (can't create pages). 98.248.32.44 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have submitted a report per procedure. Astro$01 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat over a CSD G11 on Eyetease Media

193.133.92.229 has made the legal threat "If you delete this, I will engage lawyers to discuss this matter further on grounds of discrimination against small businesses." on Talk:Eyetease Media over CSD G11 on Eyetease Media. Looking at the article CSD A7 may be more suitable, but I have left article as is and not going to under take any other actions until an Administrator can sort it out. In order not to inflame any thing further.--blue520 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as G11. I'm hesitant to block, though, because it's apparently a shared IP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was about to but you were there first. I did check up and found zilch except a cv for the guy running it, and that says it is launching in April. As non-notable as it gets. I'll watch the IP. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My money is on User:Eyetease personally... or one of his close associates. I believe a 24h anonblock for NLT is perfectly in order though. MLauba (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked, but for a week. I believed it really needed to be longer than 24 hours but I am concerned since it is a shared IP. I won't disagree if someone chooses to modify the settings. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked multiple times and has quite a lengthy warning list. Maybe it's time to file an abuse report with the ISP? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob: disruptive behaviour

Moved to WP:WQA

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I have had several unexpectedly unpleasant interactions with Off2riorob in recent days. Off2riorob responded to a BLP/N question concerning possible synthesis in a biography I had created. The editor who raised the complaint agreed, after discussion and presentation of additional sources, that the sources supported the original statement, yet Off2riorob not only continued to insist they did not, but also removed from the article a statement summarising an episode reported in about 10% of reliable sources on the subject and thus in accordance with weight and BLP.

Off2riorob then called the 31-year-old subject of another article I had written a "girl", nominated the article for deletion, and began to delete relevant and well-sourced information, writing "its rubbish". The user, who because of past problems has promised to avoid edit warring, repeatedly reverted (e.g., [30] and [31]) to maintain the deletions, made further deletions, including without edit summaries and attacked me personally ([32] and [33]) when I asked for talk page discussion of these deletions. My explanation of the editing environment at related articles (where several editors with strong personal interests in a particular illness usually dominate the editing) only prompted further attacks, along with a profession of pride for past behaviour resulting in blocks.

Considering:

• the user's prominence and potential influence at BLP/N,
• the user's extensive block history,
• a past promise not to edit war, contrasting with behaviour yesterday,
• several unexplained, unprovoked and surprisingly strongly worded personal attacks accusing me of agenda editing (the validity of which accusations I categorically reject)
• and a profession of pride for the user's block record,

I would like to request that others review the user's behaviour. I believe this user has done some good work at BLP/N, and has the potential to do more, but episodes such as this one are unpleasant and disruptive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that WP:WQA is a much better venue for a request for behavior review. Tan | 39 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IP:99.19.92.173

Resolved

 – Blocked for 3 months bu MuZemike (talk · contribs) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP:99.19.92.173 has been giving problems on the Johnny Test and List of Johnny Test characters articles. My problem with this IP began on January 15, when I ran across and removed several references that felt were unreliable as they used original research such as "Parody of Darth Vader" and didn't use any kind of source template. Shortly after the IP reverted my removal. So I removed them again and added in my edit summary that they were unreliable and not to add them again. So the following January 18, they resorted to blanking the article and adding "Knock if off Sarujo" in it's place, as seen here. After their attempts to add those sources failed, they began moving the main character section back to the main article and added a further information tag in it's place on January 19, which deemed as vandalism I restored back. So now they have resorted to tag the article for deletion on concerns that it fails crystal, cruft, and original. Claiming that they proposed that the article be merged back with the main article. However, records show that no such proposal was ever made. Instead, they have simply tried to move the main characters section into the main Johnny Test article without prior notice. Now keep in mind that I agree that the article is in bad shape, but it's issues can be treated some copy editing, and an outright deletion or a redirect is a harsh and unnecessary action. It has been pointed out that main articles on various media such as television and video games should always only focus on the series itself and not on it's stars ad characters. Yet it is becoming more and more clear to me that since the IP couldn't edit the article as it suited them, then they would just rather delete it. Which to me comes off as an attempt to "game the system".

It is my belief that this IP is also in reality the editor that previously went by the the name Warmpuppy and the socks Warmpuppy2, E-Asiegbu, and IP:66.99.23.194. As this IP appeared after the aforementioned editor was indefinitely blocked for the same shenanigans that this IP is engaged in. When I called them on this, they went and used strikethrough on the section of my comment that included the statement and responded with quote: "What Warmpuppy? That ship has sailed.", all of which can be seen here. So I informed them that I would report them. Following this, they removed the deletion proposal and them proceeded to edit my user page as seen here. I am also not the only one that shares in this belief. They have also vandalized the main article at least once as seen here. Their talk page has quite a few warnings from other editors on their actions. Sarujo (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me – blocked 3 months. –MuZemike 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trouble at McDonald's!

Resolved

 – Wiki's Big Mac (talk · contribs) referred elsewhere. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I don't know if this is the right place to write this or anything but i thought I would let you know.

There seems to be a programming error or something on the McDonalds page. At the top it says "view source" where it should say "edit this page" and the page cannot be edited.--Wiki's Big Mac (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been protected to prevent vandalism, see WP:PROT. – ukexpat (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That means the page is protected from any edits by new users, mostly like due to repeated vandalism. To try and request an unprotection you could post at WP:RFPP, but a better option would be to discuss possible changes on the articles talk page--Jac16888^Talk 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Probios and hoax article strumus

Resolved

 – I'm marking this one resolved. User was fooled by a "joke" in a supposedly reliable source. That should remind everyone to make sure there are multiple reliable sources for new articles, per WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Probios (talk · contribs) has created a new article called strumus, which purports to be about a part of the brain. As a neuroscientist, it was immediately obvious to me that the article is a hoax -- in addition to the "strumus", which does not exist, the article describes several other structures that don't exist, such as the "effluvium" and "trivium". I prodded the article and chastised the editor, who responded by removing the prod and claiming that a certain anatomy book describes these things. I don't have access to that book, but it doesn't really matter, none of this stuff exists. Probios has been around since 2007 but edits rarely; his talk page shows a history of vandalism and creation of bogus articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest immediate indefblock or permaban. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- First of all, I have done a shitload of work for wiki (en. and fi.), although I haven't always been logged in so that some others could see this. Second, I'm also a neuroscientist and I do have this book about the human brain that describes this region at its glossary, check it if in doubt. The book has been reviewed and according to it, did not have flawed information.
Third, my record of "vandalism" is based on an article about a black metal artist that -according to the first rumors that circulated @ IRC- was declared dead. I added this to wiki (erroneously?) thinking that a rapid response to events would be better than a slow and more certain one, even though it would be proven wrong at a later time point because this erroneous information would in that case exist only for a short period of time. If this would be proven to be the case -I thought- I would delete my edition. Before I had the time to do this, it was deleted by a black metal fan who gave me the "last warning". I have thereafter learned my lesson and refrained from updating wiki this way. OK, then the "bogus articles"... First one was about a physical theory that had hundreds of references at the journal of chaos, solitons and fractals. While the theory was new and suspiciously revolutionary (making the inventor a star at Egypt), I thought that it needed to be mentioned @ wiki. It was only later when the inventor of this theory was discredited as being the chief editor at the same journal and thus got his articles through without peer-review. However I still think that E-infinity theory should be mentioned here since there will be hundreds of future researchers who will be looking at these articles and should have a wiki-article to refer to. It should discredit the inventor but cite the ideas with the articles so that one could try to seek useful leads. The second "bogus article" was about a fictional virus during the H5N1 outbreak. It clearly stated that the virus in question was fictional and nothing else. I made it after a google search which revealed that some people believed the virus to be real. I just wanted to ease their stress by giving the facts.
Bottom line is that -according to a legitimate and accurate neuroscience book that I cited- strumus is a real, rarely mentioned region in the primate brain and that I edit wiki with only benevolent wishes. If Looie496 doesn't know about this region, he should read more and try to delete less. I hope this was enough to clear my record and prove that the article about strumus should not be deleted. Probios (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Update: the article has been deleted by Mjroots (details below). I propose that he would be corrected for this and the article restored, if possible. I can also write it again if I will be guaranteed that this ignorant act will not happen again. Strumus is so rarely mentioned in the literature nowadays that the wiki article could prove to be the only source of information about this possibly important structure of the human brain that is related to higher cortical functions.Probios (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
19:08, 19 January 2010 Mjroots (talk | contribs) deleted "Strumus" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax)

Probios has asked that the article be undeleted (I deleted it as a hoax). A Yahoo search for "strumus" + "brain" doesn't produce much to support the article being genuine. If any other admin thinks the article should be undeleted or userfied then I've no objection. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Probios's statement of intention to recreate the article, should the title be salted to prevent this while we deal with the issue? Alternative is to undelete and then AfD the article, salting if consensus is to delete. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The index of the fourth edition of the Nolte book that Probios claims to be his source is avaliable for view at Amazon (click on the cover image), and, contrary to Probios's assertion, there is no entry "Strumus" in that index. (Nor is there an entry for "effluvium" or "trivium".) Deor (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I claimed that the source would be the 6th edition @ the article. Also, I mentioned "glossary", not "index". Surely you understand the difference? If "yes", what's the problem, Deor? I have the 5th edition at my lap. Strumus can be found at the page 625.Probios (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that a word would be entered in the glossary and excluded from the index, since textbooks' glossaries normally include only words used in the body of the texts themselves, which would as a matter of course be indexed as well. I also find it hard to believe that the fourth and sixth editions differ so substantially. But as this is the administrators' noticeboard, I'll leave the matter to them. Deor (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- I wouldn't add the article before it is approved. I think it should be undeleted since this talk is still ongoing. You were too hasty, Mjroots. Please refer to the actual reference for the actual proof. Probios (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probius, it sounds to me like you need to stop creating articles on the basis of hearsay or single sources. Wait until you've got coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources before starting an article - and don't declare people dead because "I heard it on IRC". Try re-reading WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Fences&Windows 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, nice that you cared to join in and oppose the article and make me look ridiculous. As I said earlier, I have learned my lesson. Also, you shouldn't start to talk about things that you don't even know. I assume that you didn't have the time to check the validity of the information stated at the article before it got deleted. Probios (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- I have now sent an email to John Nolte, the author of the book that I cited. I also gave him a link to this discussion. Please restore the article for now and wait a while. Probios (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The really curious thing is that Probios has actually made a number of useful and perfectly correct edits to neuroscience articles over the months. It's unusual for a good editor to go off the rails like this; I don't understand it. But one way or another, there's no doubt that the "strumus" article was bogus from top to bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looie496 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a word in Probios's defense here. A hoax is a deliberate attempt at creating misinformation on Wikipedia. I don't think Probios did this, I think this was "jumping the gun" and writing an article based on a single source. It's just a mistake, and I don't want Probios to think that we're ganging up on him for it. On the other hand, I don't know what good the author of the book will do for us. Another source for the info is what we'd want, not more from the original source. -- Atama頭 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intentions to write bogus articles, or any misinformation for that matter. I really do believe that John Nolte wrote about an existing brain structure, even though it is not mentioned in the internet (excluding a Spanish translation of the glossary at a textbook). One possibility for this lack of info is that the structure has an alternative name, for example something that is not in Latin. Other reasons could be that the structure is included into some nearby region or is just so small and so obscure by function that it hasn't been studied much. If the article would be restored for a while, I could try to get Nolte to add his references to it, or give them to me. Active researchers usually reply within a day if the question is relevant and needs an answer. I think he could feel that it is his duty as the writer to straighten this fact out, but the references can be a hard to collect (as I feel as an owner of some 10000+ articles). Therefore, I anticipate that this question about the validity of the article would be resolved within a week or so; if not, I would not object the deletion of the article. Probios (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this continues to get weirder. I finally found the term, using Google Books, in a Spanish translation of the Nolte book. My Spanish isn't quite good enough to let me pin down the part of the brain in question, though -- but I'll keep trying. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(multiple ec) This is a very odd circumstance. Looking at the deleted article, my immediate instinct (as a biologist with an interest in neurological disorders) was that it was a well-written hoax. (Trivium? Part of the brain? Really? Cute.) On further investigation, Fences and Windows has found a putative Spanish translation of the textbook in question, which seems to actually contain exactly the content indicated: Google Books link. While my Spanish is quite rough, it is readily apparent that our article and that Spanish translation came from identically-worded sources. In other words, it is possible that this article is not a hoax, and is instead a word-for-word copyright violation. Either way, of course, Probios has some explaining to do.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no English-language source with employs these terms in the context of the brain anywhere in the scientific literature. For that matter, I can't find any other sources in any language which use these terms for portions of brain anatomy. Someone somewhere has screwed up badly, but I really can't tease out where. I would be very hesitant to recreate this article (with any content) unless it can be sourced more thoroughly than this. I am also inclined, unfortunately, to recommend a more thorough examination of Probios' contributions, as it would appear that the content here was not his own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can add that I had a look into the German medical dictionaries of my sister and found neither of the two terms, so if they're not hoaxes, they only could be local translations. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that it is a back-translation from the Spanish version, keeping all the Spanish terminology. Unfortunately the part of the brain in question is very complicated, and I can't quite figure out exactly what the "strumus" is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- OK, I got an answer from Nolte:
Sorry to have gotten you into this heated conversation, but strumus, effluvium, and trivium are all lame attempts at neuroanatomical humor. Most readers don't notice the strumus, but once a year or so I get an email from a medical student someplace in the world asking about it.
I added the text at almost word-for-word accuracy as it seemed so strange, I didn't find any information about it, and yet it existed at the glossary of a respected neuroscience book. I'm sorry that I took your time.
You can search my other texts for copyright violations all you want. The only time I have copy-pasted stuff was when I included (and cited) info about the inventor of E-infinity theory from his own page, and this has been deleted long ago. Probios (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it appears that this is indeed a hoax, not perpetrated by Probios, but upon Probios. —DoRD (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Urghh. I think Nolte deserves a good trouting for this one. Glad it's finally cleared up, though. Trying to make sense of the Spanish was driving me crazy -- the location it seemed to be describing for the strumus doesn't contain anything except empty space. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Nolte trouting, but I suggest that Probios is also in need of the same treatment. Probios, you are strongly cautioned to not create or change articles in the future unless you have verifiable sources. Okay? —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nolte is a reliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he can't be that reliable if he's in the business of inserting deliberately misleading into the glossaries of his books. That said, it wasn't unreasonable for Probius to assume that something he read in a textbook by a seemingly respected expert was reliable and verifiable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

The source is generally reliable, it's similar to a copyright trap or other fictitious entry. So WP:V would explicitly allow use of this information: "verifiability, not truth", remember? This is an excellent example of the difficulties we face when working with sources, and why multiple reliable sources are needed before one starts writing an article. Another example I've come across was Calverpeton: it looked like a hoax as I couldn't find sources, but it was started by an editor using a web directory of extinct species and that page had misspelled the name, it should have been Galverpeton. Fences&Windows 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Er... any reason why that redirect is still there? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to observe user behavior

User:Valkyrie Red has been a persistent problem on Battle of Gettysburg. User's contributions are limited to debating and edit warring on the subjects of casualties and the insertion of the adjective "decisive" into the infobox results parameter. (Tonight, he's deleting cited material from Turning point of the American Civil War.) Established and respected User:Hlj has tried beyond patience to deal firmly and correctly with this user, but I'm running out of good faith with this determined page disruptor. In the past, I've called on User:Gwen Gale and User:Juliancolton as uninvolved admins. I'm asking for a fresh set of eyes to help observe my own biases in this process. BusterD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given Valkyrie Red two weeks off; there seems to be a firm consensus against the edits they are repeatedly making. Just one minor point, if you don't mind - you shouldn't really be describing their edits as vandalism (per your latest edit summary). Edit-warring, yes; disruptive, yes; but not vandalism as defined at WP:VANDAL :) Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I lost my temper a bit when the user blanked sourced copy as described above. Appreciate the feedback. IMHO this user is such a dedicated disruptor, a content ban seems the most likely outcome. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable :) If their disruption resumes when the block expires, a topic ban might definitely be worth considering. EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy-User:Mrchenchen

Anyone else think it's odd that this users first and only edit is a correctly formatted quote to this article? Here's the diff [34] Anyone else hear quacking I guess is what i'm asking, if not, I apologize. Going to go notify them now. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Supposing for a second that he's a true newbie, what's you opinion of the quality of the edit? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit itself seems fine, the other circumstances, especially considering the notoriety of that article, seemed fishy. If it's a sock of a banned user, which if my memory serves me there are quit a few people banned from that article, would it be worth knowing? I was merely asking if I was the only one suspicous, if so, my apologies. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For a brand-new redlink to go to a specific article and pick up (?) where a sock left off (?) is indeed suspicious. But that's why I asked about the edit. Are there any other name editors or IP's that have posted that edit previously? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. It's the reason I posted here, I thought someone more knowlegable of the article and the situation there might know what to do. I don't want to bite a newbie or accuse an innocent person of de facto being a sock, but it seemed a little strange. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the account is not being disruptive, then let's not concern ourselves too much. IMO, the only time to be concerned about sock-puppets is when they cause disruption. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that certain well known members or ex-members of Wikipedia have alternate accounts they haven't disclosed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PeshawarPat

Unresolved

 – ANI is not for hashing out disputes, rather that's what relevant talk pages are for. Disruption has ended for now, and should it resume report it at the appropriate venue (ie WP:AN3, WP:AIV, or directly to an admin who's aware of the situation but is otherwise uninvolved. NJA (t/c) 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

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

Fresh off the block edit warring, they begin the very same thing across multiple related articles, for the exact same term. They have obviously learned nothing from their previous block, and looking over their contribs, all I really see is an SPA whose purpose is to push their own POV. Another editor suggested an indef block.. such may be too harsh, it may not, but certainly, something needs to be done. Please discuss. Pesh has been notified of this discussion, as have others who were involved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I submitted Pesh for the initial edit warring report and was surprised to see him back doing the same thing this evening fresh off his block. I am also the editor who suggested the above-mentioned indef block, which may indeed be too harsh, too quick, but I am very concerned about this editor's activity, which does seem to be 100% concerned with pushing a single POV regardless of consensus. It's the editor's willful disregarding of consensus that concerns me far more than his POV -- indeed, I don't altogether disagree with some of his edits, and there are some that I don't really think are non-neutral. I will leave it to less involved persons to have a more balanced opinion on what resolution is appropriate. I am perhaps only "involved" on the outskirts -- I have not had any direct contact with Pesh -- but I am still concerned that I am too close to the issue to have a perfectly balanced opinion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we paste the previous conversation from 3RR in lieu of repeating ourselves? PeshawarPat (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's skip that step, I've just reviewed it. PeshawarPat, you show signs of persistent edit-warring and you're at the cusp of a 3-day block (unless someone else makes it longer). You need to discuss your proposed edits on article talk pages and you sure need to stop reverting everyone in sight. Consensus is not formed by seeing who's the most determined to get their way. Franamax (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, it does not bear repeating, and the content of your edits isn't really in question; it's your behavior concerning those edits. It doesn't matter if they were fact or opinion, what matters is that you were edit warring in your POV clearly against consensus, against several editors, just after you got off the block for the same.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the admins simply look at this user's contrib to see they're obviously pushing a POV, reverting edits by all editors and avoiding a consensus on all articles. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am surpised this link issue hasn't come up before. Perhaps it has? Some editors have made their minds up, no matter what I would say on this issue. Still, the POV issue, specifically "Homosexual Agenda" I don't see that as a POV. Another person (not me) could turn around and say "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and cannot exist, as it has never existed. Actually, I wanted to move on to other topics, but this ended up taking up a few hours of my evening. Point taken on the edit warring- can we discuss the actual content?

One editor repeatedly saying "gay agenda" doesn't exist, what is the proof of that? This is a circular argument-the page itself lists SSM. Where you agree or not, SSM is perceived as part of the gay agenda. I don't know if that is an inflamatory word to gays, but it is in regular media. My perception is that the editors on these articles are gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) and are protective of this article. But like it or not, it is part of SSM. PeshawarPat (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pesh, that is all completely immaterial to this conversation, which concerns your edit-warring and not your personal opinions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The editors on these articles are gay." Wow. I think we've just seen our first instance of WP:EVERYBODYSGAY. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Within the last couple days I've been implicitly accused both of being gay and of being an employee of the La Brea Tar Pits. It's getting to be a sticky situation. Ginseng hits it on the head, namely that the guy is intent on pushing his personal opinions in these articles. He only started (under that ID anyway) a couple of days ago. Looks like it's going to be a short ride unless he gets a clue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That's a content issue and we have those cool article talk pages, RFCs and proposals to handle that. Your perception of other editors as being gay is rather alarming, do they type in pink letters or something? Regardless, for the purposes of an admin board, the issue is edit-warring, which you have been doing. Whether you agree or not, it's time to stop. Franamax (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The "bomb" in my sig is actually kinda pink-ish, I just noticed. Maybe this is all my fault. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase- many editors seem to be proponents of SSM, based upon the # of edits they have on SSM and other gay rights issues. Then again, without seeing the content of my edits, people could think of that of me as well. I read your message on the edit changes. Maybe we can come to a consensus on the adding of the link? PeshawarPat (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the opposition you have seen so far, I don't see that happening.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Having some interest or curiosity in something doesn't make someone a proponent - otherwise I wouldn't have been caught dead editing the Sarah Palin article last year. Ideally, you shouldn't be able to detect someone's political slant by their editorial content. If you can cite evidence that someone is actively promoting a "gay agenda" in those articles, i.e. pushing the opposite viewpoint as yourself, you should either present it or drop that claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No gnseng, it is must be my gay ass signature. The problem I see is pat adding the gay agenda to articles on same-sex marriage, which should only have links to marriage related articles. pat saying it is a gay agenda is his/her point of view. The fact that your kids see the same-sex marriage article that isn't anti-gay is in fact your responsibility to control what your kids see, not Wikipedia to go with the conservative anti-gay agenda. How is linking to the gay agenda neutral? CTJF83 chat 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-gay agenda". The tables turn. Well put. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

pat explain this to me, you want to add a link to an anti-gay made up theory, but do you see any links to pro gay articles, such as GLADD, National Equality March, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Out & Equal, or Queer Nation? Clearly not, so I'll support your anti-gay link, as long as we include all these pro gay links too. CTJF83 chat 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Requesting Admin action

Hi. There is a problem with user Gibnews attitude. Himself, me and other editors have been tensely discussing Gibraltar-related articles for some time already. This editor has usually resorted to ad hominem arguments, focusing in the contributors he disagrees with instead of in the actual content of editions or articles. Dissenting editors have constantly been described as 'Spanish', and both 'Spain' or the 'Spanish Government' have been pointlessly vilified quite often as well. Here are some diffs to illustrate my statement:1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6-

He has been asked more than once to refrain from this kind of uncivil behaviour. In fact, a moratorium concerning the disputed articles was agreed amongst the editors involved in the ongoing discussions "with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the editors". However, today I've seen this, and I feel that it is enough already. This can't go on forever. You may very well agree with Gibnews' positions, or mine, or neither. But this reiterated conduct is unacceptable. So long, there have been several attempts to engage with this particular editor in civil debate, the latter being the aforementioned 'moratorium' (to my knowledge -I am not the only editor involved here-).

Thus, I request Admin action as a last alternative. --Cremallera (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There always has been a problem with his attitude - mainly that he has one POV on a highly polarised issue and other people have the opposite POV. You want dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The diffs predate the moratorium and the diff you've just posted isn't a problem from what I can see. Gibnews does have an attitude problem, made worse when he is baited. Which he most certainly has by editors that include Cremallera. I can confidently predict the usual suspects will be along presently to demand his head.

The atmosphere on Gibraltar articles was getting quite poisonous, which is why Narson quite sensibly proposed a moratorium to cool emotions. DR is currently being tried, so I really wonder why Cremallera has suddenly appeared to make this post out of left field. Justin talk 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can provide post-moratorium diffs also. The latter I've provided is, in fact. However, you admit he has an attitude problem as well. And he has done nothing to put an end to it, even with past and current dispute resolution attempts. PS: do you really see no problem in modifying another editor's comment to state that his IP belongs to 'Telefonica Espana'? It is quite serious actually. --Cremallera (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see Gibnews appending to the comment much the same way that a person would put a SPA template at the end of a person's comment in an AfD. I wouldn't call that "modifying another editor's comment"; that's a pretty harsh bit of hyperbole there. On the other hand, it wasn't necessary and certainly escalates the nationalist problems, which is a problem that Gibnews has (and others who edit those articles). That's one reason to have a moratorium, pointing out who is "pro-Spain" and "pro-Gibraltar" and constantly referencing it derails any productive discussion. Justin is absolutely correct in that Gib was baited though. Honestly, I'd totally give him a pass in that pointing out that the editor is editing from a Spanish ISP is the worst comment he made in response to an SPA (sock?) trying to stoke the nationalist fires. -- Atama頭 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He was discussing with an IP (Firethingol, I guess) who hasn't attacked him personally and whose immediately prior comments have been labelled as racist and demeaning by Gibnews himself... He wasn't precisely baited, in my opinion.
Anyway, how many more times should he get a pass for that, Atama? You know that he's been doing this repeatedly and for a long time already. He's been asked to refrain plenty of times as well. It is not an isolated case by any means, and I agree with you that this conduct is certainly intended to derail any productive discussion. Last, but not least, constantly profiling other editors by their putative nationalities is a racist attitude. I pointed it out before to no tangible gain, so I don't see the point in giving him a pass just another time. I am already sick of it. --Cremallera (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You might like to visit Gibnews on YouTube and observe some of the appalling racial abuse heaped in Gibnews' direction by a person calling themselves Firethingol. I have to admit I like Gibnews, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, he is overly nationalistic in many ways but he at least speaks his mind openly so you know where he is coming from. I also observe that if you butt heads with the guy, he'll butt straight back. However, if you approach him reasonably and don't scream and rant about POV, or accuse him of a racist attitude he is direct but reasonable in return - something you should know about after you stopped screaming POV and discussed the Tireless incident in a reasonable manner. His attitude toward Spain is understandable given the history of the way Spain has acted since the '60s and I speak as someone who is half-Spanish who finds the attitude of a now democratic Spain towards Gibraltar uncomfortable. Sometimes the perspective of how others see us makes uncomfortable reading but that doesn't make it racism. I don't see his conduct as intended to derail discussions, his conduct is usually a response to being provoked. I see it as counter productive to run here, saying look at what Gibnews has done now and conveniently omitting the conduct of the editor that provoked the response in the first place. Equally counter productive is combing his contributions to find things to complain about. Is this the 3rd thread on AN/I aimed at sanctioning Gibnews in as many months?

What interesting about the diff you've just supplied is that it relates to yet another thread aimed at sanctioning Gibnews. I say interesting because it seemed to be counter productive to that aim in that several commentators recognised the attitude of the person making the report as being problematic in disrupting articles to make a point. Equally that you were tag teaming with the same editor and there was a WP:Battleground mentality developing. When that comment was made, you instantly attempted to turn the comments into a racial issue. You didn't take on good faith the comments on your own behaviour were problematic.

None of which is intended to justify the problematic aspects of Gibnews' behaviour but what does act as a counter point is that he is a very productive editor, who has contributed much in terms of imagery and is very knowledgable about a limited subject. If you wish him to refrain, then my suggestion is to avoid provocation and to equally condemn the people who provoke him in the first place. Constantly focusing on one aspect of the problem and myopically ignoring the other side of the coin won't help.

As regards Atamas comments, yes I think there is a sock at work trying to stoke the nationalist fires again and to derail the DR that is currently underway. I could make an educated guess at who is doing it and my personal suspicion is that the person responsible is looking to stymy DR to push things to arbcom. Equally as Atama has quite reasonably pointed out in his mediation efforts, the behaviour of all of the editors on Gibraltar related articles has been unhelpful for quite some time. Narson's attempt at a moratorium to cool tempers doesn't appear to have worked as the first edits following its end were baiting Gibnews again. What needs to happen is to allow DR to run its course, if there is any admin action required it would be to stop the IP activities intended to derail it. I don't see demands for Gibnews' head to be helpful. Justin talk 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the first AN/I thread I start. The other ones I know of were posted by Ecemaml and Gibnews himself. In the first place, please stop the discourse concerning my attempts to turn his comments into a racial issue. He has been profiling dissenting editors as 'Spanish' for months. I've provided several diffs. To repeatedly describe or address people by their ethnicity is racist. And, myopically or not, I just can't ignore it. Neither you should, in my opinion.
On the other hand, what are you suggesting exactly? To just endure the reams of offensive comments he keeps writing over and over, despite previous multiple requests, AN/I threads, moratoriums and the like? What exactly are WP policies for, then? --Cremallera (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems my suggestion to stop reducing everything to racial and ethnic lines is going right over your head. You don't recognise the problematic aspects of your own behaviour or the people on the same side of the dividing line as yourself. Brushing this under the carpet is unhelpful. As Atama observed if this goes to arbcom, no one will come out of it with any credit. And several independent observers have pointed this out to you, perhaps listening to them would help. Just a suggestion. To avoid the risk of another AN/I thread degenerating into a tendentious mess, this will be my last comment here. Un abrazo. Justin talk 10:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE

1. I have not raised the matter of FireintheGol on Youtube as firstly I can't be sure its the same entity, and secondly I blocked him/her from posting further abusive comments there, and Wikipedia is another thing.

2. I did not consider that the IP user who left an unsigned comment was that particular editor anyway as FireintheGol writes coherent English What you are complaining about is

• I will not remove, I will put it in Gibraltar position, which is the section that must have Gibraltarians opinion, regards 81.39.209.75 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) [IP=Telefonica de Espana]

Where I added to an unsigned comment which signbot had added the IP that it had originated from telefonica Espana. Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else. There has been no further comment excepting it seems to have upset Cremallera.

3. In relation to my two warnings that FireintheGol has made racist comments, This and This where he claims he is not being racist about Gibraltarians because we are not 'a race' I politely referred him to the wikipedia article which explains why that assumption is wrong. HOWEVER as we seem to be having a reasonable dialogue, and its Cremallera who is complaining here, I question the motives for this complaint. Looks like harassment to me. --Gibnews (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but have you modified the title of the section?
First of all, whether an IP belongs to 'Telefonica' or not is not useful information. I wholeheartedly think that this should be clear already, given your experience in Wikipedia and the previous queries. What the IP said may be relevant (or not), just like other contributions are to be considered by focusing on their actual content, regardless of your opinion on whether the editor who wrote them is 'Spanish' or not.
Secondly, I'm not even getting into your issues with FireintheGol neither here nor in Youtube. That's your bussiness, as long as you behave in a normal fashion, which you don't so far.
And finally, my posts here are the first ones since the moratorium was agreed to, the 22 December 2009, so it hardly looks like 'harrassment'. What does look just like it are your reiterated comments on other editors, namely concerning their POV, nationality or alleged nationalism. And, since you've agreed to refrain from this kind of attitude here, yet you engage on it, I have no further option that to request for external help. --Cremallera (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with altering the title of the section here to something appropriate, after all it IS a complaint about Gibnews, whats the problem with that? As its on ANI 'requesting admin action' is a bit vague whats your problem?.

Yes we had a moratorium, if you read what you have cited it expired last year, indeed one of the other editors broke it first. Thats all it was, you are making up the rest.

This complaint is pure harassment, but lets see what others think. You have said enough and as have I. --Gibnews (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting through all of the other complaints, I believe I see what the core problem is here. Gibnews stated, "Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else." No, it most certainly is not. Viewing editors through such a prism is a very dangerous thing. To label one person as Gibraltarian and another as Spanish is very unhelpful. Gibnews, I hate to say this but if you continue to approach the articles with such an attitude you're going to eventually find yourself in very hot water. Such attitudes tend to bring topic bans, because they are very divisive and prevent any hope of useful collaboration or participation in consensus-building. Fireinthegol is just as guilty of doing this, with such statements as "that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian", but seeing as how that editor is probably a sockpuppet you're bringing yourself down to the level of a banned editor. The proper reaction to such talk should be to ask the person if Gibraltarian opinions are automatically invalid as reliable sources because they are Gibraltarian, not to comment in kind. As to the comments about Signbot, Signbot only signs comments, it doesn't label editors as being a particular nationality. You really need to stop that mentality, and if you can't, perhaps you should stay away from Gibraltar-related articles. -- Atama頭 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous editor was Spanish, indeed they might be Romanian or Martian however the ISP used by the anonymous editor was Telefonica Espana and that was my ONLY comment on the subject, except for here. However there does seem to be an ongoing problem that due to the intransigent attitude of the Spanish government and its irredentist claim, currently being pushed by the PP opposition trying to wrong foot the incumbent PSOE prior to an election in Spain, that a number of editors from that country seem to want to rewrite Gibraltar wikipedia pages in line with the totally negative Spanish view of the territory and its inhabitants. Tactics include Filibustering on the talk pages, engaging in edit wars, and taking disputes to every available area and article. I'm sick to death about arguments over whether an obscure town in Spain should feature on the Gibraltar page, tens of thousands of bytes and countless hours have gone down the drain. Although arguments on the Internet are preferable to cannon balls and sieges, after 306 years and 99% of the Gibraltar population rejecting any Spanish involvement in our country, enough is enough. And a Wikipedia which contains a substantive amount of lies irrelevancies and propaganda is worthless. Goodnight. --Gibnews (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See, personally I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles in order to clear out some of this, but knowing those involved it would result in a sock fest. The nationalist accusations are, and I agree with Atama here, one of the most unhelpful things coming from either 'side' (I also dislike the concept of there only being two sides). It results in this concept that 'Oh, he is British/Spanish, he must really be biased and can be ignored' and that isn't good. The attempt at a moratorium worked in a way, in that it seems to have reduced the ad hominem attacks for a short period, but there was baiting from various parties almost straight after it ended and now we are back to the same position. I do not want to take part in that talk page as it is and I am watching some good editors or potentially good editors head into a bad spiral entering it. DR needs to be followed through to the end now. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama yes the nationalist tendencies on both sides needs to be tackled, equally the baiting issue does as well. I'd also suggest that people need to recognise bad behaviour on all sides of the coin not just the one they favour. Part of the problem is only labelling one person, when the problematic behaviour is endemic among a number. In the latter I would include my own tendency to rise to the bait. Justin talk 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Justin, I spent some time with most of the editors who regularly work on the Gibraltar articles over the course of the mediation, and I think I saw nationalist behavior come up from everyone now and then. My biggest concern is this... You acknowledge that labeling editors along nationalist lines is a problem. Cremarella certainly does. Imalbornoz seems to as well, from what I see on Talk:Gibraltar. I'm not sure about Ecemaml right now. But Gibnews doesn't seem to be acknowledging it. That's what has me concerned, not that Gibnews is doing what he's doing, but that he doesn't see what's wrong with what he's doing. -- Atama頭 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all the editors you mention adopt a national view about the subject, and the Government of Spain spends a large amount of money generating adverse propaganda which influences their views. --Gibnews (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem began when Gibnews wanted to put this in the introduction: "Spain continues with political harassement despite improved relations". The only reference to state this severe accusation was an opinion column. I said that his reference was only an opinion column by a Gibraltarian, to say that his statement was based on an opinion and possibly not neutral opinion because Gibraltarian journalists talking about Spain never have a favourable thing to say. Gibnews answered that I was racist. Racist?

I personally read an article in which an Spanish politician said: "Gibraltarian authorities must stop insulting Spain". So if, based on that, I write in the introduction: "Gibraltarian authorities continue insulting Spain despite improved relations" it cannot be considered a good edit despite having a reference. Someone will tell me: "That is an opinion by a Spaniard, not a fact". It is not racism, it is trying to stop POV pushing.

What I personally think is that Gibnews wants to continue with his POV pushing in the article, so he calls other people racist and spaniards to spoil their activities.

I cannot find Gibnews channel on youtube, I would like to look at it to see if the harassement is true.

I think that Gibnews has to assume that Spanish arguments are not always based on fairy tales and have the right to be included on Wikipedia the same way Gibraltarian claims or arguments do.

Also, he always uses the discussion as a forum to express his ideas. Fireinthegol (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all: yes this was as partisan as the minutemen. To edit war in order to publish this statement "Gibraltarians remain suspicious of the Spanish Government which continues with political harassment", moreover when it is based upon a sports article which is supportive of a particular position is a blatant POV abuse. To call you racist for pointing that out wasn't helpful either. And it is a weird word to be used by Gibnews, who is openly prejudiced against all things spanish (here's a diff showing another disturbing anti-spanish rant, written a few hours ago here in the AN/I thread).

However, prior invectives can't justify statements such as these (the "unfair tax schemes" bit is not neutral either). Two wrongs do not make a right.

Last, but not least: Gibnews, you've been asked several times in this very page to stop vilifying Spain, the Spanish government and other editors regardless of them being brainwashed by 'Spanish propaganda'. Your behaviour is noxious to civilized debate. You should be blocked. --Cremallera (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that both should be blocked if there are any blocks to be handed out, thats the bit you just don't seem to get. Justin talk 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't get it. That's it. Look, I'll be the first advocating for a block on both editors, provided that their behaviour is similar. Tell me, has User talk:Fireinthegol indulged dozens of times in personal attacks directed to other contributors? Has he calumniated for several months already any country or made slanderous remarks about its government? Not really, don't you think? --Cremallera (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Written defamation is called Libel, and neither I nor wikipedia engage in it. If Spain does bad things in relation to Gibraltarians, its reasonable to describe it. Editing it out, or banning people for including sourced material supporting that is censorship. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. The UEFA situation is widely reported - The Spanish football association has been ordered by its government to threaten to withdraw if Gibraltar was admitted (which is legally required) That is a political act of harassment. Where a reference does not use the word 'Unfair' introducing it is the POV of the editor and wrong, his current edit removing that is factually correct. So complaining has been productive and produced a more factual page. Someone else pointed it out before me and was ignored.

Its naive to claim I am against all things Spanish I visit Spain regularly, indeed was there yesterday seeing friends.

PS: Gibraltar journalists report the news about Spain in a neutral manner. --Gibnews (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it is logical that Spain oposses the Gibraltar entrance to UEFA, because Spain does not recognize Gibraltar as a country. Imagine a match Spain vs Gibraltar, it would be similar to giving up the claim to sovereignty. It is not political harassement, it is being consistent with your claims. But I think that now, the article expresses this well, it says that Gibrltarians see this as political harassement, not that political harassement is being produced as a fact. On regard to the word "unfair" to describe the taxes that are being phased out, it is not meant to be offensive or anything. It is used to describe taxes that can distort "fair" competition, so unfair refers to "not fair" competition taxes. This is he reason why they are being phased out, because there are not fair. It is even used in economy of Gibraltar. But well, now the article has other wording to avoid using "unfair". I don't think that Gibnews should be blocked, but he should try to avoid seeing spanish editors as a kind of evil imperialistic editors. Fireinthegol (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly don't, indeed Justin is Spanish. Our mutual exchanges have been productive and the compromises we have reached make for a better article. Indeed you have been more reasonable than others who argue tendatiously and simply will not compromise. This is not the place to go into the UEFA business anyone interested can read about it here. A similar case of political situation existed with the telephones, which was resolved under the Cordoba agreement. That Gibraltarians distrust the Government of Spain is well established, even by Sr Moratinos. Given the history and policies its quite understandable. You yourself added that Spain wants to block importing rubble incase we use it to reclaim land its hardly surprising we consider its every action politically motivated. --Gibnews (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If Gibraltarians distrust Spanish government is not necesarily because the Spanish government is evil, like you want to state in the articles' introduction. You are always stating that Spanish government is evil, it is your opinion. And please if you don't want the UEFA issue to be discussed here, don't begin to talk about your opinion on the subject. It's okay to say that Gibraltarians distrust spain, but its not okay to try to justify it at all costs. Justin I would like to know why I should be blocked. I also want to know where I harassed Gibnews in youtube. I also would want to know why am I racist. Fireinthegol (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you ask a sample of Gibraltarians what they think. I have not expressed an opinion on UEFA the link given explains the situation. Nobody is suggesting blocking you here, its me that is the target, although putting that in the title upset the OP for some reason. I suspect this is going nowhere. Someone close it please. --Gibnews (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rule of inference

Resolved

 – User has agreed to pursue resolution at the proper forum. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a formal written request for action to be taken to stop User:EmilJ from repeatedly removing valid content from rule of inference. I recently, after much research, added a statement to the article "Every valid rule of inference is put forward as a logical truth and every logical truth can serve as a valid rule of inference." This statement is supported by a reference to one of the foremost experts on the topic and is the only one supported by references in the whole article. Emil seems to believe he has a counterexample in mind, however he does not, in fact. He needs to be told by people other than myself that he needs to stop. I am requesting that A) The content be replaced and B) Emil is explicitly told to stop vandalizing the page. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has had little discussion on the article talk page and does not require administrator intervention. Obtain consensus on the article's talk page instead of edit warring or running to an admin. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a sense in which nothing requires anything on WP. I think that some people outside of the fields of mathematics and philosophy should step in here in a purely leadership capacity. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should use the Village Pump, or some other appropriate forum. It says right up at the top of this page: "What this page is not: This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." and "Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) My approach in situations like this is to ask for input from a WikiProject -- in this case WikiProject Mathematics seems like the obvious place. If you can't establish consensus that way, appealing to ANI is probably useless. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay folks, I have heard you and understand. I am withdrawing my request here at "incidents". I appreciate your time and efforts. Thank you also Looie for good advice. I think WP:Philosophy is more appropriate for this issue and that is part of the bigger problem. I invite any correspondence from administrators watching incidents concerning my on-going issues with systemic bias from mathematics editors in logic articles. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seregain's disruption, POV-pushing, and WikiStalking

Going to bring this user's behavior and evangelcial-POV pushing here and let admins review it in it's own context, since this user continues to disrupt Wikipedia through POV-pushing and creating false AN/I threads on our earlier conflicts which contain intentional lies, misinformation, and (now) outing attempts against me on other website.

Sockpuppetry and attempt at "outing" other members

1. Seregain logged out of his account and made this personal attack using his IP ("Reverting censorship by disruptive troll). He admitted that his was him in these later edits 1, 2 "This was my edit. Neglected to log in.

2. In his latest disruptive AN/I comment, he attempted to "out" me by linking to an off-site (Wikipedia Review) profile which he believed to be me, complaining on Wikipedia because of a comment on Wikipedia Review which accused him of POV-pushing.

Suspicious/POV edits/outright trolling

1. He only has 200 edits, and (like Guy mentioned) his 1st edit was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance. This leads me to believe that he is a possible sockpuppet of a banned evanglical POV-pusher.

2. Soon after this AFD started, he removed a sourced entry about the Secular Student Alliance visiting Ham's "Creation Museum", using a deceptive edit summary. His summary stated that it was "in the wrong section", but he removed it entirely. After I added it to the correct section, he removed it again, this time giving the reason that it "doesn't belong in the article at all".

3. In Human papillomavirus (newer edit than original), Seregain inserts a claim (in an incorrect section) that "HPV vaccines will do little to reduce rates of cervical cancer" using Dr. Diane Harper (who apparently spoke at an anti-vaccination group's conference while delivering this statement) and the Catholic Exchange as sources (apparently to push an "abstinence-only POV". In the diff I linked, he also inappropriately reverted nearly 20 newer edits just to reinsert this dubious claim into the article after it was removed.

4.In Cervarix (newer edit than original , Seregain inserts the same claim he made in the HPV article, using Diane Harper as a source, claiming a "lead researcher comes out against Cervarix". Like in the HPV article, in the above diff he also inappropriately reverted multiple editors just to re-insert his questionable content after it was removed.

5. In Gardasil, Seregain removes text from the article which identifies Dr. Diane Harper with the anti-vaccination group National Vaccine Information Center.

6. In Carman (singer), he reverted a consensus-supported revision which was decided upon during a recent AFD.

7. In National Science Foundation, Seregain inserted a claim that "porn surfing is rampant at the National Science Foundation" (using the Moonie Times as a source).

8. In his latest AFD for The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Seregain showed a strong personal motive for wanting the article deleted, by attacking the owners of the article's sources personally (ex. He claimed that a source was "unreliable" because the owner of the source had criticized Jack Chick) and making otherwise disruptive and POV comments.

WikiLobbying

Seregain has frequently lobbyed other admins and members on their talk pages, such as SarekOfVulcan, Jclemens, and others to intervene at his earlier AN/I comments (while at the same time, he claimed that he only wanted the comments of "objective, uninvolved admins", therefore lying). I would be happy to provide specific links.

--SuaveArt (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked SuaveArt for 31 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. I welcome further admin review of this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request, as the block seems reasonable given the circumstances. I also asked SuaveArt to disengage entirely from interactions with Seregain, just and you and JClemens have asked Seregain to disengage from interaction with SuaveArt. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My (Seregain's) response

"Sockpuppetry"

• Point 1: I took a break after attempting to reach an agreement with you on the Left Behind: Eternal Forces article. I was not up for that headache. When I returned to editing, I failed to notice that I was no longer logged in. I made three edits under the IP in question, realized my error, admitted to it and apologized for it. It was a mistake and not an attempt to be deceptive. The edit summary was, admittedly, based upon your own choices for edit summaries and justifications (e.g. accusing people of censorship and being disruptive trolls).
• Point 2: Do you deny that is you? It's pretty obvious it is you. I don't think Wikipedia looks kindly on people who go to other websites to plot their targeting of other editors.

"Edits"

• Point 1: WP:EDITCOUNT is not policy and AfDs are quite simple to create.
• Point 2: The section had nothing to do with Ken Ham himself. I removed it as irrelevant to the article, which it was, so it was not "deceptive." In fact, an editor far more established and far more respected than you has since agreed with me[35].
• Points 3-5: I did not add any sourcing from the Catholic Exchange, as my edits prove. The sources I provided were the Philadelphia Bulletin and CBS News. I reverted nothing but your censorship of the relevant material. And as far as I know, Dr. Harper is not directly associated with any anti-vaccination groups.
• Point 6: A consensus of virtually one - i.e. you - is not a consensus. To wit:

07:29, 9 December 2009 Seregain (talk | contribs) (11,425 bytes) (rv to last good version by Bucksburg at 14:11, 15 October 2009) (undo) 03:07, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) m (5,310 bytes) (undo) 03:06, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) m (5,329 bytes) (undo) 03:05, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,402 bytes) (removed tags) (undo) 03:04, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,815 bytes) (broken ref) (undo) 03:02, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,978 bytes) (further cleanup) (undo) 02:56, 9 December 2009 Gongshow (talk | contribs) (10,785 bytes) (some cleanup) (undo) 01:43, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (11,781 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carman (singer). (TW)) (undo)

The first edit on the list is the reversion you point out and the last is your first edit to the article.

• Point 7: The Washington Times is not an unreliable sources, as you falsely claim. What the heck is "Moonie Times?"
• Point 8: The article lacked references establishing notability and no one was adding any despite it being tagged. Perhaps I should've given it more time, but I was not finding any reliable sources (and the fact that the new sources are either foreign language or very weak indicates a severe lack of reliable sources). The two sources I "attacked" were self-published by someone who is banned from Wikipedia. I never argued in any way, shape or form that a source was unreliable because of what they said about Jack Chick. I argued that the reference was trivial and pointed out the Jack Chick thing as something that was amusing. As far as your last assertion about me, I will simply ask you to consider the plank in your own eye.

"Wikilobbying"

• My comment to SarekOfVulcan was, in fact, in response to a comment he made first and he has stated that he did not see my comment on his talk page as anything you are trying to portray it as. My comment to Jclemens was due to the fact that he was mentoring you. He found nothing wrong with my comment, but clarified that his involvement would be as a neutral party. There have been no "others" regarding this accusation as is proven by my edit history.[36]

Your accusations are groundless. Seregain (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• So what was your previous account? There is no way in the world you're going to persuade me this account is your first experience of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty concerned by the following: "The edit summary was, admittedly, based upon your own choices for edit summaries and justifications (e.g. accusing people of censorship and being disruptive trolls)." This is not only a very childish response, but completely against WP:POINT. I endorse your 31 hour block. When you come back, please learn to edit in a more civil manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seregain wasn't blocked, SuaveArt was. Auntie E. (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disengagement injunction

I just left a warning on both users' talk pages to disengage. I suggest that if either chooses to ignore this they be treated to a WP:TROUT, with escalating slaps up to and including the full-on killer whale treatment. Meanwhile I think those of us on the sidelines could usefully take a long hard look at the contributions of both parties. I see significant cause for concern in one, I am less sure about the other. See here for some discussion of this, as you'll see from the talk page history he seems none too keen on having other people read that, much good may it do him. I vote that the first of them to start commenting on the other wins a kewpie doll. What say? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse as common sense and in line with what I've said to both of them. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good idea, and really there's been too much drama about these two editors lately. -- Atama頭 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - My removal of your warning has nothing to do with being "none too keen on having other people read that." I don't need a warning regarding something I already agreed to. Seregain (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You have the right to remove stuff from your talk page. Guy was in the wrong to repeatedly reinsert it. SuaveArt as well, both editors are reminded to abide by WP:HUSH (although in SA's case, the disengage agreement renders that moot). -- Atama頭 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "repeatedly reinserting it", I was trying to have a conversation, which is hard if one party insists on deleting what you say and then replying in a different place. The conversation was necessary since Seregain appeared to be under the impression that any injunction should apply to me, preventing me from commenting here on Seregain's problematic behaviour. It don't work like that. You don't get to choose to have your case discussed only by those who are sympathetic to you. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He can delete anything he likes from his talkpage. Might I suggest that you just respond where he does, instead of baiting him? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is unnecessary, the conversation was over yesterday. Of course, if Seregain really wants to aggressively assert his innocence on one of the most watched user talk pages on the project I don't especially care, but I rather thought the attention would be unwelcome to him. Somebody might want to educate the obvious sockpuppet on the true meaning of harassmenat, though. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have a better grasp than you do, since you were in violation of the harassment policy as I cited. Reinserting text onto an editor's talk page or user page after they've removed it is a violation. It doesn't matter if you are attempting to have a conversation, if you put back information that an editor has tried to remove, you are being disruptive. Don't do that again, at Seregain's user pages or any other editor's user pages. -- Atama頭 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd AGF re: the sock accusations unless the editor is disruptive. If I may quote Tsbdy further down: "If the account is not being disruptive, then let's not concern ourselves too much. IMO, the only time to be concerned about sock-puppets is when they cause disruption." Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So would I. The editor is disruptive. A fundamentalist POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

user:Enax99 was allowed to skate and is now back with their hoax edits again

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion concerning Enax99 (talk · contribs) was about how, even though he had a final vandalism warning on his Talk page, and yet continued to vandalize, he wasn't going to be blocked because he wasn't vandalzing at that very instant. Well, guess what? He's back, and continues to insert provably false information into articles. Since he isn't at this very instant vandalizing, does that mean he gets to continue? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through the users contributions and they havent editerd for the last two days. When they start editing again and they are being constructive I dont see why the user couldnt edit here but I am sure that this will be backed up if the user then starts to vandalise then they will be blocked. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV, and hope that this time you get an admin that will put a stop to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So the answer is, "yes, he gets to skate yet again". Thanks. I won't bother to revert any more of his hoax edits again. I understand why User:Woogee gave up on his attempts to get this constant vandal blocked. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is "blocked for two weeks". Suggest you wait more than 10 minutes next time before starting with the snark. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, the answer is "Please assume good faith while the situation is investigated." Enax99 has been blocked now (by SarekOfVulcan) for a two weeks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not the issue. Patience or lack thereof, is the issue. Sometimes an admin will jump on it right away. But other times no one's watching. AIV and/or ANI can sit "backlogged", sometimes for an hour or two. Speaking of AGF, the IP was trying to report damage to wikipedia and was getting impatient. Don't hassle him for wanting to get a problem fixed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the user involved has now been blocked for two weeks. Subtle vandalism is becoming a serious problem; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. It's a huge time drain to catch and fix such edits. A hard line on this sort of thing is appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but time must be taken to properly investigate the issue to make sure a good understanding of it is in hand before making any block decisions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'll add, though, that AIV isn't the route for that sort of vandalism because it's not obvious, i.e. it isn't obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I do agree, of course, that sneaky vandalism is not to be tolerated. —DoRD (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on which admin you get. Some admins watching AIV will analyze the situation and take appropriate action. In the original situation, the admin was new and was being cautious about blocking. Nothing wrong with that. And the "hasn't edited for a couple of days" argument is good for IP's because they can float. But a registered user whose only activity is vandalism should get blocked even if he hasn't edited for 2 days. Note edited for 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, maybe no block. But 2 days, yes, especially if he has a number of entries already. One-time drive-bys, maybe not. It's always a judgment call and it's also subject to the approach taken by a specific admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there are 6-day-and-above gaps in the contribution history, I didn't think that anything under 2 weeks was likely to be meaningful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much more likely to catch him. And if he does it again after his block expires, then a stronger message would be next. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note, I saw this late but per my prior pledge I would have definitely blocked this editor, had Sarek not beat me to it. -- Atama頭 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, seeing as how every single edit from this editor has been problematic since the first one, if this editor continues this behavior after this block expires I'd support an indef block. -- Atama頭 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Which raises a question in my logical but somewhat warped mind: Which condition is worse? To be indefinitely blocked? Or to be definitely blocked? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

why are you concerned about my or the IP's patience? Repeatedly declining to block a repeat vandal who has been given a final warning yet continues to post hoaxes, would try anybody's patience. And why do you accuse the IP of failure to be patient, when they were told When they start editing again and they are being constructive I dont see why the user couldnt edit here? In other words, they just get to keep vandalizing because nobody can catch them in the act, and nobody would block them. But thanks for the two week block, though it should have been indefinite. Woogee (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Patience only in the sense of "don't expect the user to be blocked within 10 minutes of the post." Sometimes no admins are watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• For some strange reason, after reading over this topic the term 'shiny van hitch' comes to mind. I'm sure that must be an error on my part; perhaps I'm mis-thinking it. HalfShadow 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Scott MacDonald self blocking to avoid a block

Resolved

 – No administrator intervention necessary.

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.

---

This thread has been archived to avoid it being archived.

---

Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) self blocked himself yesterday and then unblocked himself today.[37]

Another administrator, Rdm2376, who was performing the same types of deletions,[38] was blocked three times, therefore it can be argued that Scott MacDonald was avoiding a block by self-blocking himself.

In the recent User:Cremepuff222 case this same issue came up. User:Cremepuff222 blocked himself and unblocked himself.[39]

User:TreasuryTag wrote: "[User:Cremepuff222] also abused his admin tools by...blocking himself for fun." 16:23, 5 January 2010.[40]

User:Wehwalt blocked Cremepuff222 stated with the stated reason: "User not allowed to unblock himself" (after Cremepuff222 blocked himself) 13:30, 17 December 2009.[41]

Now, I strongly felt like these self blocks were okay and harmless, but in this case, the administrator was probably going to be blocked but wasn't because of his self-block.

Interested in the communities opinion on this.

Is there any arbcoms which address this issue? Ikip 22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

THROW IT UP ON THE WALL, SEE IF IT STICKS! This is in front of ArbCom. Hipocrite (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looks like an admin playing silly buggers because he doesn't think admins should be blocked for being disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I advise Scott self-medicate instead. But it's a free country.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• ;) Jack Merridew 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SOMEBODY's playing silly buggers, but it's not Doc. This is a spurious request and should be closed and archived forthwith. Ikip needs trouting. Again. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trout-close this thread, please. JBsupreme (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done ^diff Jack Merridew 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I have heard from the group who emphatically endorse this administrators disruptive behavior, (except for maybe Duncan) no suprise about their collective reaction at all, I would love to hear from other editors. Ikip 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As an "other editor", I think there's little to hope. What's the point in asking for process? Or consensus? Don't you know that from today, it's WP:IAR all the way down? I'd love to say "I am sarcastic", but unfortunately it's exactly what is happening, Ikip. Black days these are. --Cyclopia^talk 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip is the last person to be criticising other people for using pre-emptive selfblocks to avoid proper blocks. – Steel 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User talk:Zhoroscop

Resolved

 – Appropriate links given to user, talk page protected NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is under an indefinite, global block for spam across multiple projects. Today he started putting {{unblock}} requests on his talkpage; after the third one is declined I protected the page. While the editor is useless and will never be unblocked, I still do feel that I should leave him some sort of message, out of fairness, explaining "this is why your talkpage was protected; if you want to appeal your block you may use e-mail (but be aware that if you abuse this privilege and make repeated requests without understanding the reasons for your block, your e-mail privileges will be revoked)." I just don't remember who exactly I should tell him to e-mail...is it ArbCom?

I'm about to be away from the computer for a while, so if anyone else wants to leave a message in my place feel free to. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Zhoroscop suggesting he write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for any further appeals. In my opinion you were correct to shut off further unresponsive unblock requests from this user. On the question of full protection of Talk, I have noticed that many admins would now reblock the user with talk page access disabled instead of full-protecting their Talk. You asked about appealing to Arbcom. My impression is that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is needed only for difficult questions, though any blocked user may apply there if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the unblock requests were made from IPs, which is why I chose to protect instead of re-blocking.

Thanks for adding the message; I had forgotten about the unblock-en e-mail account. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dickensfest

Resolved

 – Blocked by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), forwarded to WP:CHK by Dusti (talk · contribs)

Where do I start? attacking a user via AFD's twice because he didn't like the articles. Now, is his user name a violation? It's basically Dick Fest (no puns intended). Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a username violation. –xeno^talk 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like a bad-hand sock account. If anyone has an idea of the likely puppetmaster, a CU may be useful; else we can just see how the account edits from here on. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Socky, socky... –MuZemike 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. I believe it is User:Torkmann, but User:Dalejenkins is another possibility. Could someone forward this on to a checkuser? I would, but I have to run. NW (Talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks and vandalism by IP editor

I've become the focus of the alleged head of the International Sport Combat Federation as User:75.5.253.232 because I nominated the article about his org for deletion. Actually, it has been deleted twice because, it simply had almost no coverage by reliable sources. Any found was trivial. Anyway, aside from repeatedly holding me personally responsible, he has steadily refused to read and follow the policies I pointed him to. He came right out and said he doesn't have time to do it (although later claims he did read them, but still doesn't seem to grasp them). Admittedly, after having him blame me personal enough times and hearing the same question over and over, I did that links to youtube "don't mean shit". However, his latest diatribe was nothing but a personal attack. [42]. When it starts out with "Niteshift36, you are such a TOOL!", you kind of know it's not going to be productive. Twice, this editor has gone into closed AfD discussion and added long posts about how nobody who !voted delete knows what they are talking about etc. And that has been his general theme all along: "We're notable, you're just too ignorant to know it". I've explained the notability requirements in detail. I've brought the COI policy to his attention, as well as what constitutes a reliable source. Instead of trying to comply with that, the editor goes on a rant. Nrmally, I'd take this to WQA, but coupled with this being a WP:SPA, with an obvious COI who has stated that he has no intention of reading applicable policies, let alone follow them....I decided here was a better place to address it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report the IP to WP:AIV if the disruptive edits continue. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode making personal attacks

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.

---

In responses related to the unref BLP deletion threads, Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a few personal attacks on me, the first listed in response to my response that he stop after the prior ones: [43] [44] [45] [46]

...and one stunningly inappropriate suggestion: [47]

The overall incident there is certainly not going to be helped by it escalating into personal attacks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or by distraction with irrelevant AN/I sideshows about sharp elbows. There's nothing really to this particular report in the grand scheme of things. How many of those deleted BLPs did you want userified so you can fix them? ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not personal attacks. Grow a pair. Viridae^Talk 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

George, I have access to Infotrac and am willing to help you find references for any of those deleted BLPs that you are currently trying to find sources for if you don't have the time to get down to your local library. Just let me know. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments were not very civil, but the overall situation is certainly not going to be helped by it escalating here to ANI simply because some infelicitous remarks were directed at an admin. A lot of heated things have been said in the last 24 hours or so, and it's best to let them go for the most part. There's no admin action to take here, and this is not the place to discuss userfication and sourcing of deleted articles. Next person who comes to this thread should close it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing per Bigtimepeace; feel free to undo/move it to WP:WQA (if you really want to), etc. NW (Talk) 05:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Proposal regarding incivility on BLP issue

Leaving the above section closed because we shouldn't single out one editor here - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to invest in a large WP:TROUT farm here. In the scheme of things, rudeness during the Wiki equivalent of a policy coup is not a huge deal. In fact, the entire BLP issue is not a big deal - it will merit at most a few blog posts by total wiki-wonks. I doubt many of the 50,000+ subjects of these articles will even notice. But the fact that there is widespread incivility on this issue doesn't mean it's okay to engage. I think we should encourage cooperative editing here, not insults. I've been on the receiving end of this particular editor's impassioned comments so I've got a conflict in recommending what to do here, but as a general rule an admonishment is in order at the very least when people get too uncivil, if it can be done in a way to calm rather than inflame. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think a few of the calmer sorts should watch Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and clerk the hell out of it if this sort of sourness turns up there. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The coversation did seem to take a sharp nosedive into unpleasentness somewhere along the way, didn't it? Never quite realised how complex (and emotional) things seem to get on the Wiki. But yeah, a couple of calm and neutral eyes over on the RFC would hopefully help a lot. - Tainted Conformity ^SCREAM 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Selkirk

Selkirk is currently the subject of low-level edit warring regarding the inclusion of a Scottish Gaelic name for the town in the article. Discussion, (seemingly fruitless at present) can be found here. Some assistance in resolving the dispute and (perhaps) temporary page protection until a reasonable solution can be determined may be useful. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User warned and told to discuss on article talk page. No point in semi-protection being applied as user will shortly be autoconfirmed. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ip on Talk:Crucifixion in the arts

Ip is making disruption on this talk page. Admin help please to warn? Warnings were issued to IP today. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple IPs there. The one to which History2007 is referring is User:150.135.210.16, who has been rather incivil and prone to edit warring. May blow over on its own, but it's understandable that History2007 would feel put upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History, you really shouldn't be removing someone else's comments from a talk page as you did here. That's to be done only to comments that clearly do not address the issue of improving the article. Also, the IP has every right to remove comments from his talk page once he's read them. You really haven't got any business reverting those removals as you did here and here. You've been around long enough to know better than that. Both of these actions are far more serious misconduct than anything the IP has done. To behave that way while suggesting that the IP be blocked as you did here and here suggests that you'd be well advised to pay a little more attention to the beam in your own eye. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn bogus "vandalism" claims & out of policy "warning" threats

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

I concur with daTheisen - this has gone to hell in a handbasket. The reporting user should be cautious with the sock allegations, but if a concern about the other user still exists, please see WP:WQA. —DoRD (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Despite several requests to stop practices that are in direct violation of WP:VAND, WP:SOCKS, WP:TE, and WP:AGF,for which User:William S. Saturn has already received repeated warnings and been blocked on several occasions, this user persists in:

1) Claiming that legitimate edits with which he disagrees are "vandalism", simply because he disagrees with them. This is textbook WP:TE. It is also obviously a false claim, immediately rejected by any review of WP:VAND. It is also a clear violation of WP:AGF: [[48]], [[49]].

It is also particularly ironic given that this same editor himself used identical language in a WikiNews article just days earlier. The headline was "Republican leads race to fill Ted Kennedy's vacated US Senate seat": [[50]]. The irony (and double-standard) is clear, given that the edit that User:William S. Saturn claimed was "vandalism" in the Scott Brown article is the statement that Brown was succeeding Ted Kennedy's seat! Awkward.

2) Deleting notice on his own talk page that his actions & practices constitute clear violations of Wiki policies: [[51]].

3) Vandalizing another editor's talk pages on at least two occasions: [[52]] [[53]].

4) Using a sock account User:EATC to "get around" 3RR violations: [[54]] [[55]] [[56]] [[57]].

5) Issuing bogus "warnings" on another editor's talk pages that do not adher to Wiki policies regarding warnings: [[58]].

Someone really needs to firmly & forcefully remind this editor that this site is not his own personal playground for peddling his partisan agendas, and if he persists in behaving like it is, his toy will be taken away from him. He has been warned and blocked before. In one instance, the block was removed by a sympathetic admin. Obviously that did nothing to get the message to sink in. Obviously, its time for a wake-up call that will finally stick. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown is, in fact, succeeding Kirk and not Kennedy. Kirk succeeded Kennedy by being appointed and is a sitting Senator. However, Saturn's labeling of your factually incorrect edit as "vandalism" is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a very secondary concern, but concerning point 2, removing warnings/notices from one's own talk page is explicitly permitted. It is assumed a user who does so has read and understood the notice. See WP:User page. Considering this, I'd say point 2 is moot. - Vianello (Talk) 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. You can delete anything you want from you user page, on the assumption they've been read, except for one thing: Rejected unblock requests while you're still blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as IP-identifying tags under a certain category whose name I forget and which is increasingly tangential to this. - Vianello (Talk) 06:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, typically schools and such, because an IP user does not "own" his page to the degree a registered user does, because an IP could be many users. It's connected with the reason that IP's are never indef-blocked - although if they're connected with schools they can get put on ice for months at a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please block this troll? The edit he made was not vandalism until he kept inserting it after he was told that he was wrong. He then accuses the editors that reverted the vandalism as being sockpuppets of each other. I've only been editing since 2007, I don't see how I can have a sockpuppet that was created in 2006. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

X4n6 (talk · contribs) has a rather curious, sporadic editing history under that ID - going back 3 1/2 years, yet only covering about 3 screens worth of contrib list, with long gaps in between periods of editing. If that's truly the only editing he's ever done here, then he might not know what all the rules are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with Baseball Bugs' conclusion that Brown is succeeding Kirk. Kirk was never elected, so it could never be Kirk's term. He was merely a governor-appointed, temporary, seatwarmer until a special election could be held. An asterisk at best. It's clearly Kennedy's term that Brown is completing, proven by the fact that it will expire exactly on the day that Kennedy's term would have expired.

I also accounted for any ambiguity in my edit, with the word (death): [[59]], and the article itself does mention Kirk. But to suggest that it was Kirk's "term" - which is exactly what is being suggested, is obviously dead wrong.

But yes, while this may be fodder for a spirited debate on the technicalities, you're absolutely right about one thing - it comes nowhere near the threshold for being accused of being "vandalism". Even though you and I disagree about the technicalities, Baseball Bugs, even we both see that attack for the utter ridiculousness that it is. Thanks for the support. And thanks for the clarification on #2. My experience was different, but as you and Vianello both agree, I have no reason to question your understanding of the policy. But that only addresses one complaint out of five. Thanks again to both of you. X4n6 (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And William S. Saturn excuses are weak and desperate. I certainly know enough about the rules to know what constitutes edit warring and what constitutes vandalism, and what constitutes good faith editing. I also know enough to know that vandalism is content based, and good faith disagreements are expressly NOT vandalism. If the editor in question doesn't know that basic fact, then perhaps he should read the rules before he ignorantly accuses others of violating them. Maybe it would also have saved him from being blocked last week - exactly for committing 3RR abuses. X4n6 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to post a good-faith but incorrect edit. It could be considered vandalism if you repeatedly post something on a user talk page on the grounds he's not allowed to delete it - but if you didn't know that rule, it's still a good-faith edit. If you know the rule, then it's vandalism, or possibly harassment. Regarding Kirk vs. Kennedy, yes, it was "Ted Kennedy's vacated seat", but it's not currently "vacated"; this guy Kirk has it until Brown is sworn in. By comparison, for precedent, there is the Senator Norm Coleman article. He was elected to the Senate after Paul Wellstone died. You could say he took over Wellstone's "vacated" seat. However, he actually succeeded Dean Barkley, not Wellstone, and the article points out that Barkley preceded him. As with Teddy, Barkley was appointed by the governor as an interim. Barkley would come back to haunt Coleman by running as a third party candidate in 2008, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've gotten yourself confused regarding the series of events. Not even the troll in question has tried to accuse me of repeatedly posting something on his user talk page that he is not allowed to delete. Nope. He's claiming that factual information I posted in an article constitutes vandalism. His problem is that good faith says it's not. It also says that you don't go throwing the word "vandalism" around, and threatening to block accts because you think that's the way to intimidate editors you don't agree with. So he fails on both counts. As well as the other two abuses I've catalogued above.

Second, as regards "Ted Kennedy's vacated seat", that's your term, but it suits my argument. It was Ted Kennedy's vacated seat. Not Paul Kirk's. So who does the newly elected senator succeed? The last person to be elected: Ted Kennedy. You make an interesting point about Norm Coleman, but you forgot what happened next. That seat actually remained "vacant" for the several months that Coleman contested the results in his bid against Franken. That seat was literally vacant from Nov 4, 2008 to July 7, 2009. Probably the only way to accurately list the "succeeding" section in the Brown article would be to list BOTH Kennedy AND Kirk. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another similar situation is Roland Burris, who was not elected either, he was appointed by Governor Blago in one of his last acts before being booted from office. Yet Burris is in fact the junior Senator from Illinois. Any of these guys could have run during the next election if they wanted to. Just because they weren't elected, and didn't run in the next election, doesn't mean they're not Senators. They became Senators through the means prescribed in their respective states' constitutions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that Kirk & Burris were not senators. But they are appointed caretakers, not elected officials. For the purpose of our discussion, and in answering the question, it's really that not any more complicated than that. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The two harassment-only accounts that sprang up for a few minutes and then disappeared (both since indef'd) might not be connected with the complainant in this section; they could be a troll who seeks to impeach the complainant, as happened to Axmann8 by a bunch of impostor accounts last summer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also pretty laughable that within minutes of my launching a sockpuppet complaint against User:William S. Saturn, he launched a retaliatory sockpuppet complaint against me. HA! Clearly no points for originality there. So despite the fact that I haven't used my account in literally months, I guess one day I knew I would want regular socks to attack User: William S. Saturn?! Good thing I can think years ahead, huh? It would be funny if it weren't so damn desperate and pathetic. And such a transparently stupid lie. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The accounts were created today. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At 6:17 and 6:34, meaning that they were created whilst this thread was ongoing, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would take a checkuser to be certain, but I don't think Saturn and EATC are the same editor. There is some overlap in their interests, but not all that much. Their focuses are different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll only know for sure with a checkuser. Even you admitted the overlap. X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You sure are arrogant to think that I'd build up two accounts for over three years without any interaction just to revert your insertion of false information into an article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, the arrogance found here is all yours. So are all the lies. You are arrogant in assuming that I have nothing better to do than establish two sock accounts to respond to you. Really?? Why? When I'm obviously quite capable of dealing with the likes of you on this one account.

You are also arrogant in issuing empty threats when you & your sad little agenda don't get their way. Apparently, making empty threats is easier for you than actually having to defend ignorance.

But you are also incredibly arrogant in believing that I would be the least bit intimidated by either you or all the compulsive lies you obviously have to tell to try to get your way. Or the fact that you exhibit absolutely no conscience while telling such obvious lies. How sad to be you. X4n6 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This could qualify for WP:LAME. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reset button, please. Common sense makes me encourage the original user file at WP:WQA since this imploded to no productive ends whatsoever. It's been evaluated and noted that though the templated user was using factually incorrect information in edits, that this isn't vandalism in any way shape or form either and doesn't justify much of any of the above diffs, but also noticed that no opposing diffs were given so I don't know if there's another side to review or not. If the problem is ongoing incivility that the posting user seems to insinuate is borderline hounding at this point--whatever-- it can head there and deal exclusively with those aspects. Socks are socks, but (I feel so absurd saying this) we all know that anything that gets dragged out as this already has spirals into a WP:TLDR blob of text garble, and that nothing will ever actually come in terms of concrete outside opinions given. When there's a legitimate concern with an editor, this only means another incident swept under the rug so that we can go through this next time.

Consider the original complaint forked to an obtuse backward angle and split into WQA-able civility concern and SPI sock complaints. Handle them there please, and nothing is going to get accomplished with more increasingly-less-professional chatter in this section. If one or both parties still have issues this would seem like a pretty by-the-book RfC/U filing, but no one wants to waste time there either. ...Sorry to be a buzzkill (really, I am, but we know better). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

John Bright School

Resolved

 – Operating name of school does appear to be "Ysgol John Bright", so move completed. –xeno^talk 14:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a cut-and-paste attempt to change the name. Needs a history merge or something. 98.248.41.72 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no history at the pasted-location, so I just reverted the redirect and redirected the pasted one. I have no opinions as to which name it should actually be under. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict/mistake

Resolved

I know this edit is two days old, but I'm worried that some of the material it removed was not restored. The edit in question.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed [60], thanks. –xeno^talk 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category help needed

help! the following category is acting really weird. Category:The Holocaust and United Kingdom never seen anything like this before! appreciate any help. thanks!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

well now it seems ok. before, some weird code seemed to come up, and the category didn't load. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged

Resolved

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

Resolved

 – Previously LAz17 was blocked. There have been accusations of sock-puppetry against Ex13. However, Ex13 is a checkuser on the Croatian Wikipedia so it seems unlikely he would be engaging in sock-puppetry. Furthermore, this is largely a content dispute. LAz17, please do not remove this resolved tag like you did here. Let another uninvolved admin do this if they feel that this is not resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

[61] edit warring between 2 or more users with no basis in the actual subject (railways) - but seemingly based upon nationalist conflicts. One of the editors self reported the issue here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#serious_problem. This issue has nothing to do with wikiprojectrailways, and clearly both editors are not working right - I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other.

The primary editors involved are User:LAz17 and User:Ex13. Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to mention that above statement I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other. is neither true or correct. How to work productively with user (LAz17) who is calling everybody who does not agree with him nationalist? It has to be noted that the same user (LAz17) is blocked repeatedly because of his abusive behaviour. I hope that puts some things in the right place/perspective. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. LAz17 has had big trouble with permanent conflict and personal attacks over a different issue, and I had to topic-ban him under WP:ARBMAC from certain issues recently. Hoped to keep him out of trouble but that doesn't seem to have worked out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the past... Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia. I assumed that it was closed and let it be. Then after some time user ex13 reopened the can of worms.

Shortfatlad proposed the idea that both templates be used - I suppose that this can be a simple solution. User ex13 has had a problem with this though - but that was in the framework of the discussion of "this one or that one", and he was against that one.

FPaS, I do not believe that there are any personal attacks going on right now. User ex13 has been previously banned on wikipedia and from what I understand, he has given user Direktor much grief. User Direktor in particular is important in this issue as he was involved from the beginning - and he was on my side.

This issue however should not be difficult at all to fix. And your words describe me as if I am some sort of animal??!? (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

FPaS, I went to look for mediation to help in the dispute. I saw that the dispute will go nowhere with me and him. Therefore I seeked help. I wanted this resolved. Why do you think that I am some sort of troll? If I was interested in edit-warring I would not have seeked help. As for Shortfatlad, I strongly condemn how you worded this - on the wiki rail project I asked for help. Hence I am looking for solutions in order to stop the issue. (LAz17 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

But... I often see such disputes going off with totally unnecessary nonsense talk. My experience with the maps was that I was led to believe that one map has to be deleted, not that "the better one replaces the poorer one". So, lets cut down on the these unnecessary stuff and get to the points.

1) I made a Yugoslav Urban Rail Article, which Direktor helped improve.

2) In response, nationalist croat, user ex13, created a croatia tram thing and decided that the thing to do would be to replace the yugoslav rail template with it.

so... what now? I find it bothering that ex13 has a problem with the yugoslav rail one. I think that the solution would be to redirect his croat tram, or to have both as shortfatlad suggested. If there are other possibilities please bring them up. If there are other ideas please bring them up. How hard can it be to resolve this simple issue? This is probably as simple as simplicity gets, no? (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

The solution would be to have both templates. Both do what they say on the tin. {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} covers all countries which formerly made up Yugoslavia, {{Trams in Croatia}} covers tram in modern Croatia. LAz17 - there are no nationalist Croats on Wikipedia, only editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From a rail transport point of view here is what should be standard practice:

• {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} should cover only things that were in operation when the political entity yugoslavia existed. (just as "XXX in the former soviet union" does) - thus sections such as "planned trams in croatia" are not 100% correctly placed in that template; though basically acceptable. templates for each separate state would be preferable)
• {{Trams in Croatia}} should cover only things in the modern political entity called croatia, if there is a historical political entity called croatia that had trams then this could be a separate list in that template.
• There is no reason why {{Trams in Serbia}} ,{{Trams in Slovenia}} etc should not be created, this is what Ex13 should make instead of trying to re-purpose the yugoslavian template. (I mentioned this to Ex13)
• Alternatively you could have templates by geography, and have subsections in those templates by chronology.

However none of this will work until both contributors agree to work along the same lines - so you'll need to reach an agreement. It doesn't look like user:DIREKTOR is actually interested in the tram system articles - I would strongly advise not to invite friends to contribute to the debate as this makes it seem like a continuation of previous editor conflicts.

Is that ok?Shortfatlad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these tram systems in Croatia were built during the Austro-Hungaria. Do we need the template {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Austro-Hungaria}} also? Can I make the template {{Urban Rail transportation in SouthEast Europe}}? Where is the limit?

We have a problem if LAz17 continues calling me nationalist. What kind of nationalism is when someone talk about trams and railways? (Am i nationalist because croatian trams??) Also he accused me that i'm sockpuppet. I'm CU on hr:wiki. I do not want to play with sockspuppets. LAz17 had major problems with his rude behavior, and as I see he is blocked right now.--Ex13 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SFL - here are some issues...

1) The croatian tram template, if it should go under what you said, would lose quite a few of its links. Two systems were never part of a croatian entity - but part of Italy. Another one was part of Croatia only a short time- after the transfer of land from italy. Similarly, the ex-ussr metro template includes systems built after the USSR ceased to exist. I think that the best way to go about this would be to include systems in the geographic region.

2) The yugoslav rail article includes rail things that are more than just trams. There is no planned trams section in croatia there. But, as we can see, the USSR template includes planned metros, so I figure why not include it?

3) Trams in Slovenia, Trams in Bosnia, and such would be "too small". It's ridiculous to have only one or two tram systems in the template. This is why it is necessary to have it as the former yugoslavia.

4) I see only two possible solutions. One, to redirect the croatian tram article. Or, to use both croat tram and yugoslav rail on the same pages. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).

Apologies for my lack of involvement in this, I should've notified people I'm on a prolonged WikiBreak... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like trams by geography is the best way to proceed. I note that the template "trams in croatia" includes tram types which is a good idea and could be incorporated into other templates. Whether or not there are multiple templates, various, or only one is something that can be worked out. Since multiple countries are involved I suggest discussing at Trams_in_Europe. (Which can have relevent templates added if wanted) It might be worth looking at how is has been done for other countries - some have lists, others deal with all urban transportation in one article. Expanding articles is probably more important at this point. I would recommend making sure that the categories are good first before worrying about templates eg see Category:Tram transport by country. (Only croatia seems to be categorised at present) - if there are no more edit conflict issues then this should be continued at a suitable talk page. I will put Trams in Europe on watch. Hopefully there should be people there who may be able to help more than I can.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What you said just now does not make much sense. On top of that, it is ridiculous to have Bosnian tram systems - a template with only ONE system. So, I take it that I may put the yugoslav rail template into the croat rail articles. At any rate, the tram in pula is not more croatian than it is yugoslav. (LAz17 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)).

It's not an issue of either/or - there can be both templates - but I think you need to discuss with the other editors involved to sort out the duplication of links in the two templates, and hopefully work out a good solution. I suggested the talk page of Trams in Europe as a place to do that. (which is why it is now on my watch list.) Shortfatlad (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that an involved editor (LAz17) has decided to remove my resolved tag. I am restoring. This content issue shouldn't be being discussed here anyway. If an administrator feels that I'm wrong, then please remove it again. However, I don't believe that one of the disputing parties should be doing this here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Resolved

 – full prot for 3 days. Work it out on talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an edit war brewing on Creation_according_to_Genesis with various warnings issued on: User_talk:Ben_Tillman#Creation_according_to_Genesis_3RR. Please intervene to revert a POV edit war. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're making a fool of yourself. Ben (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit war, there are one or two editors seeking to overturn a long established consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually user Ben has been doing too many reverts and now personal attacks. If there is no edit war, can I revert him? History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this comment on my talk page, I actually said "long established consensus" (see above) and it's dealt with at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I have nothing further to add. – ukexpat (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

To Wikipedia administrators: Please note that the above comment by Ben was a "direct and unprovoked personal attack" on me. By Wikipedia rules this can not be allowed to continue. Please take appropriate action against the offending party. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is that Ben is continuing his perpetual practice of labeling everything Biblical as a "myth", i.e. as "untrue". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Ben needs to be reverted so he will learn not to ignore 3 revert situations and not to issue personal attacks here. This requires admin action. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If he has broken the 3 revert rule, the best thing is to take him to WP:3RR and report him for edit warring. That doesn't preclude an admin from doing something about it here, but it's the more formal process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post diffs of the personal attacks? Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait... in reference to the personal attack again (making a fool). Ben: Stop that. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

k :( Ben (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict ad nauseum) Knock it off both of you (not you Bugs). This is already being discussed in an RfC on the article talk page. That's the appropriate place for this. Take it back to the talk page, work it out like mature people, and then abide by consensus...even if you don't agree with it. History: I don't read that as a personal attack, a slightly barbed suggestion, but not an outright attack. Ben: labelling something is "myth" is just as NPOV as not labelling it as such. Not everyone is going to agree with your assessment of it as myth, and if consensus and references are against you, then either find better references or take your seat and follow consensus. Frmatt (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Key question: whose version gets displayed while the debate continues? The debate is cyclic and Ben seems to enjoy these debates. Hence unless there is action, he will continue reverts. Can I revert him now? Does he have more revert authority than other people? History2007 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

( → Frmatt) It's all on the talk page, sources and cited policy. I'm not going to rehash it here. Ben (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on full protect for 3 days. Get an appeal at WP:RFPP if you folks can get it worked out by then. Otherwise, the RfC should help a bit. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was unfair to protect the page while it was on Ben's version. Encourages his type of behavior. After 3 days he must be reverted. History2007 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you both need to be a little more congenial; work it out on the talk page. As for whose version I protected on, see m:Wrong Version ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has discouraged Ben yet. He's bound and determined to push that "myth" POV, at any cost. Trying to work it out on the talk page is futile. That's why I stopped fighting him on the Noah article - it was like dealing with a mule, or my grandmother. Eventually other editors will have had enough and there will arise a consensus to banish him. But that might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not an admin Bugs? Anytime now mate, I'm sure of it. Ben (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never been interested in being an admin, and you couldn't pay me enough to take the job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. Have you considered WP:MedCom, WP:MedCab, WP:3O or something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs)

It's a content dispute, but it's more than that, it's a philosophical dispute. For a long time now, Ben has tried to label everything Biblical a "myth", i.e. a "fairy tale". While denying it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is one of the troops and just came in guns blazing (see his recent edit history). My level of congeniality wrt to History2007 isn't a high priority at the moment, though I'm happy to discuss things on the article talk page with him. Thanks for everyone's time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me end by reminding every editor who's wandering across this thread that Wikipedia is a consensus-driven project, and that congeniality is a requirement, not an option. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must suggest that it would be best for Nefariousski (talk · contribs) to voluntarily ban himself from future discussion on this topic, on the grounds of ignorance. In this reversion,[62] he made the statement, "There's no Genesis 2." He's apparently unaware that the Bible books are divided into chapters (1, 2, 3, etc.) I'm guessing even Ben knows that's not a myth. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He's even wrong about the movie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that you're insulting someone not involved in this thread, in a section called Personal Attacks? Just checking. --King Öomie 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski was involved in the edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha I love how I'm getting mentioned in this "personal attacks" listing. And for the record the whole Genesis 1 / 2 issue was one of context referring to there being no second book of Genesis and the IP editor not citing in standard chapter:verse format being confusing.Nefariousski (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was perfectly clear to me, at first glance, what the editor was getting at. However, it's explained a little better in the article now. Genesis 1 has one creation story, Genesis 2 has a different creation story, with about 3 lines from one chapter extending into the other chapter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it too late to call WP:LAME on this? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread's a little stale, but Bugs, I insist you withdraw that personal attack on your grandmother. And the mule. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

She'd be the first to admit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who would? Your grandma or the mule? Before you answer, remember WP:BLP violations are a serious matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mules can't file libel cases. And if grandma files a libel case, I'll get back to you, as it would be newsworthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as well they can't; every time one got called a jackass, they'd sue... HalfShadow 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on whether they were proud of their donkey heritage. However, they might take offense at being called a "half-breed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TROUT required

GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making rather a nuisance of himself over his advocacy of a factoid sourced from a primary source and not covered in any reliable independent sources (see Talk:WrestleMania_23#RfC).

• reversal of the burden of evidence
• " still no valid opposition" (exceptionally rude given that there is actually rather a lot of opposition stated, he just appears not to like it)
• forum shopping
• forum shopping
• [63][64][65][66][67][68] edit-warring to include the source as reliable in a related style-guide.

We recently topic-banned an IP for a similar campaign of obduracy. I think this editor needs to just stay away until the RfC is over. As an aside, I still cannot really understand why it so fantastically important to include this figure, and yet not one single reliable independent source discusses it. Wrestling is weird. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought everything in wrestling was fake? Should this be any different? (Joke.) -- Atama頭 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the first time that editor has gotten into a similar clash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right but I have wasted way too much of my time on this fool already so I really can't bring myself to dredge it all out (and it would look vindictive anyway). I have to learn the Monteverdi Vespers and a stack of other early music including Jesu, meine Freude for concerts at Douai Abbey plus several lesser pieces including solos for Mozart's Missa Brevis K.259 and some of Vaughan Williams' Songs of Travel. Time to stop all this troll-wrestling and get back to rehearsal. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, just coming back from a rehearsal of Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied here, and having to learn the madrigal version of the Lamento di Arianna, I can certainly empathise with your plight :-) But, you know: "Lass den Satan wittern / Lass den Feind erbittern / Ob es itzt gleich kracht und blitzt" – just let him talk. The RfC is working out fine; once that is closed with a clear consensus, we can and will then firmly ask him to step away from the dead horse. Until then, "es ist nun nichts Verdammliches an denen". And watch out for that "Tobe Welt und springe" passage, it's a nasty bugger (assuming you're a bass) :-) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know singet quite well, we performed that last year also at Douai. And yes, I am a bass (bass 1, a bass-baritone really). My favourite thing to sing in the bath right now is Schubert's Winterreise. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, from pro-wrestling to Bach in one thread! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"You must notify any user that you discuss." Apparently, the rules at ANI don't mean any more to you than the policy on Verifiability; the policy on Civil that prohibits users from calling other users a dick, a fool, an idiot, and a fuckwit; the policy on Wikihounding; and the policy on Original Research, which would prevent users from declaring information unworthy of inclusion because it ends with a 7 instead of a 3. Yes, folks...that truly is a key point of his argument. And I'm the one who needs a trout? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because you are yet to prove your point in fact. And despite many invites to do so, you continue to whack a dead trout instead of doing do, claiming WP:V has been fulfilled, when in fact it hasn't because the figure concerned is unproven and wrong anyway. Not to mention WP:GAME and forum shopping by this user AND causing a user to leave Wikipedia sometime back for similar policy pushing - in spite of the fact that it appears that it got admin support that time. Whilst Guy might have been a bit out of line with his language, I will defend him on the grounds of provocation. I disagree with Future Perfect though - the RfC is stuck in a rut, and Gary is the reason for that. !! Justa Punk !! 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is only unfulfilled if (1) you ignore the fact that Verifiability requires publication in a reliable source rather than conclusive proof of accuracy, (2) you misunderstand the issue altogether and fail to see that the issue at hand is not the number itself at all, but rather the fact that a different number what stated, or (3) both. And if requesting clarification on the Original Research noticeboard on a possible misunderstanding of original research is forum shopping, what does that make this thread? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The case for WP:GAME rests. Along with whacking a dead trout. !! Justa Punk !! 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is disappointing that once again you are arguing your (widely disputed) content point rather than addressing your problematic behaviour. I understand that this is characteristic, as is your tendency to misrepresent the arguments of others (in this case about the validity of stating an estimate to five significant figures, a higher degree of precision than the figures on which it's based). Guy (Help!) 12:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Persistent non-static IP vandal

There's been an ongoing problem with a persistent IP vandal that's been going on for at least 8 months. What we've got is a non-static anon who likes to shuffle around the "personnel" sections in articles about his favorite bands and albums in order to place his favorite members at the top of the lists, among other obnoxious behavior, despite being constantly reverted & warned by numerous other editors. Here's the earliest example I could find (May 2009), and here's the most recent (today). Hidden messages have been added to the articles asking these lists to be kept in alpabetical order, but the editor simply removes them. There have been dozens of such edits across a handful of articles from a number of IPs. Here's a list of most of the offenders:

• 81.129.5.163 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.10.20 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.71.171 (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.184.82 (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.185.175 (talk · contribs)
• 86.134.250.163 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.32.244 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.33.6 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.34.91 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.34.103 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.38.3 (talk · contribs)
• 86.136.38.40 (talk · contribs)
• 86.141.136.98 (talk · contribs)
• 86.142.103.29 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.21.142 (talk · contribs)
• 86.149.155.75 (talk · contribs)
• 86.152.56.61 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.223.12 (talk · contribs)
• 86.156.85.82 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.233.55 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.235.20 (talk · contribs)
• 86.162.208.48 (talk · contribs)
• 86.165.134.186 (talk · contribs)
• 86.167.225.106 (talk · contribs)
• 86.165.134.194 (talk · contribs)
• 86.172.104.9 (talk · contribs)
• 86.172.105.235 (talk · contribs)
• 88.112.96.224 (talk · contribs)
• 217.42.224.119 (talk · contribs)
• 217.44.65.71 (talk · contribs)

Common sense says these are all the same person, as the edits are nearly all identical and to the same articles. No edit summaries are ever left, and warnings on talk pages, in edit summaries, and in hidden article text are ignored. Here are some of the main articles affected:

• 21st Century Breakdown
• The Blackout (band)
• Hollywood Undead
• Foxboro Hot Tubs
• Sum 41
• The Network
• 21st Century Breakdown (song)
• Trivium (band)
• The F-Ups
• 21 Guns (song)
• East Jesus Nowhere

Also note this clear act of vandalism after being reverted & warned. Not sure what the best course of action is. Article semi-protection has been tried a couple of times, but the anon just resumes after protection expires. Blocking likely won't help either, due to the number of IPs and the fact that they aren't static. We could try semi-protecting all the affected articles, but it's more than a few so I don't know how the community feels about that. And rangeblocks probably aren't a viable solution either as the IPs seems to span a wide range. What can be done? I was going to bring this to AIV but it seems like too complex a problem for that page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of prolonged, persistent disruption, a long-term or even indefinite semi can get these buggers out of your hair, especially given that shorter periods have failed. A rangeblock on the 86's seems feasible (but I don't know enough about IPs to make that call). I've semi'd many of the articles above; I did not protect some of them as they were either fallow or there would be collateral IP damage from a semi. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this IllaZilla. I'm glad to see some of these articles finally indef'd after so much abuse. And thanks a bunch for the protections, Jeremy. Timmeh 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't thank me just yet; like I said I had to leave some of them unprotected because they were fallow (no edits for a week or more) or there were helpful IPs whom would be hit by a semi. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection is the answer until we finally get flagged revisions in place. Oh, pipe dreams. JBsupreme (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd've preferred a rangeblock, but since I'm not knowledgeable in them I semi'd the articles instead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With the sole exception of 88.112.96.224 (which is for the ISP Elisa ADSL), these are all IPs for BTCentralPlus. I don't think a rangeblock on these would be wise :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request by Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely on January 2, 2010. The user now requests to be unblocked.

Short background:

• The user has mostly edited on pages on casualties of the war in Afghanistan.
• In at least one case, he has misrepresented a source. He has not responded to postings informing him about this adequately.
• He was blocked for "Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username".
• He has continued to edit using IPs. (I have been involved in seeking protection for page he edited.)

• While the edit in which he misrepresented the source was not typical of his edits, the major problem is that the user apparently does not understand what the specific issue is.
• His behaviour is, as far as I can see, not that of an editor who would be intent on introducing false information in a deceptive way. (Rather, it seems a bit confused.)
• The user has agreed to change his username.
• UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs), a 1179-edit sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), has accused the user of several wrongdoings. However, Top Gun was indefinitely blocked for "lying about sources, and a whole lot of other sins", and I'm not sure whether the accusations of his sockpuppet are true.

The blocking administrator has been contacted. See User talk:Mifter#About user Mujahid1947.

I have no experience in handling blocked editors, and I am not an administrator. My feeling is that the indefinite block was somewhat disproportionate, and he should have been blocked temporarily. I don't know exactly how to assess the case at present, as it has become more complicated. Can someone review the user's request, and make a decision, possibly asking the user for further clarification.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Mujahid" a valid User name? Woogee (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? It's a real name - I know two or three Mujahids personally. Bettia (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Other discussion on this User talk:Mifter#Name_issue and here, I am perfectly fine with the user being unblocked, as this appears to be more or a less a case of a newbie making some mistakes while being ignorant about our policies and not a vandal. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This name may be questionable since it's very close to Mujahideem (or various spellings) , which is a term being used for certain Afghan rebels. Given where this contributor is working, this could become a problem.

I'd ask for a different username. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has now indicated that he would seek to change his username to Gameboy1947. See User talk:Mujahid1947#Mujahid1947 → Gameboy1947 and the section above on that page.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Changing username#Mujahid1947 .E2.86.92 Gameboy1947.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MySpace vandalism

Resolved

A non-autoconfirmed user somehow managed to vandalize MySpace. I cannot undo the edit with my new account.--Can't sleep, clown will treat me (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind.--Can't sleep, clown will treat me (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're really you? Welcome back! --TS 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, indeed. By the way, you are a "confirmed" user now, and should be able to edit semi-protected pages. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there some sort of off-wiki verification involved? Might be a good idea to point that out somewhere if so. --Onorem♠Dil 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think verification is needed. If this is the same user as User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, I would have expected the edits by User:Phonephonephonecat to Stephanie Berto to be reverted; instead a {{fact}} template was added to an edit that was probably vandalism and clearly a violation of WP:BLP. snigbrook (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some verification would be useful. Can someone who knows CSCWEM from his previous tenure, email him ? Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask him to make a confirmation edit from his old username? (Unless he scrambled his password/email...) The Thing _{Vandalize me} 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man... you left? Welcome back! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard

This AfD is in need of some cool heads due to WP:COI#Financial issues and generally bad faith atmosphere. The article itself has been fully protected due to edit warring. Pcap ping 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also related to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:TonyTheTiger compensated editing, fwiw. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:76.91.189.163 reported at AIV, but somebody neds to block them quickly

Resolved

See 76.91.189.163 (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Massive undoing of another editor's edits. They need a quick block and all of their edits reverted, really fast. Woogee (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. (Edit-warring block for 31 hrs) I would note that some of their past edits were constructive and thus talking to the user is advised. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ko interwiki links removed by Jyusin

Resolved

 – Legitimate edits, but suspicious-looking without edit summaries. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A large number of ko interwiki links seem to have been removed by Jyusin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A check of a few showed that the interwikis were legit ? Wizzy…☎ 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• User notified as required. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little early to bring this to AN/I - the links were removed about 8 hours ago, so I'm guessing that the user isn't online now. Let's give them a chance to respond on their talkpage first. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little hasty - I figured they should be restored, it would be painful for me to do it, and the Big Buttons belong to you guys (I presume there is a Big Button for mass rollback of one editor). Wizzy…☎ 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. {{sofixit}}, I guess... Guy (Help!) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK#Mass rollbacks... But I've never done it before and I'd hesitate to experiment. -- Atama頭 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the potential for damage with that script has always kept me from wanting to use it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would note that while he doesn't have an active talk page, all of the users who have come to talk to him have done so about doing damage to Korean articles. Could be an issue for this editor., and he only lists as very minor english ability while not listing what his native language is.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my guess. Some IP added the links to the top of the lists and not in correct "alphabetical" order. - maybe he's just reverting that and waits for a bot to do the job correctly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should probably write to this editor (in Korean) and ask him what he was doing. Would probably be more useful than sitting here and speculating, but unfortunately I don't have a whit of ability in that language. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

I've invited him here in Korean. I can't carry on an extensive conversation with him, but I can do that much.--Crossmr (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. But now I feel they are unnecessary edits.--Jyusin (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see bots are re-adding the inter-wiki links, so case closed. Wizzy…☎ 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It does look like it's time to close this, but to Jyusin: Please use edit summaries in the future, especially when making unusual edits such as these. No harm done, but it would have been much easier to determine your intent with a descriptive edit summary. Thanks. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with IP address 94.193.135.142

As referred from WP:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142. Rapido (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the one being accussed, I would like to remind you he deleted my editing on the user EdJohstons talk page, which demonstrates his problem causing behaviour, and stress first hand look at the situation as Rapido displays alot POV, even when reporting and accusing people. He often uses the word "attack" to describe what are editorial criticisms and criticisms made against his editing and rapid reverting style. He often, despite me stating I am an static IP user, and am 1 person, refers to me as "they" and accusess a mob editing. Discussion on the matter can be found at these places:

The Original 3RR report made by Rapido:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

EdJohnstons user page who kindly protected the BBC Television page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#I_have_commented_on_Rapido.27s_false_claims_under_his_report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Rapido_has_removed_my_links_on_your_talk_page

The article:

History and proof of Rapido's uncoperative editing style:

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

Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute

I would also liked to remind you, Cunando, replied in the discussion that he agree's Rapido's sourcing is weak.

Rapid's discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rapido

Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Rapido was advised "Just ignore him (me, the IP user). He has no standing to raise any stink over a content (non-)issue. IP editors sling ridiculous threats like this all the time. --King Öomie 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" showing the attitude of some editors and suggestion made by some --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

Admins, please make your mind up about who is causing the disruption. Since they like posting links, here is the one that shows the IP editor was blocked for breaking the 3RR [69] Rapido (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And Rapido, what is your problem, why to refer to me as they? I don't get you. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is seriously asking what my problem is? Rapido (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments that breach either of the two policies, either for assuming bad faith, including claiming that I did something that I didn't, or vice versa, or pure personal attacks: [70] inaccurate editing and sourcing; [71] accuses User:Ash of ly[ing], accuses me of trying to systematically ban [them], arrogance, show[ing] a non-compliance attitude, showing systematic bullying, claims there are talk pages, logs and discussion [that] show background collaboration between Rapido, Ash and others for collective POV editing and banning of an IP user, and accusing both Ash and myself of false accusations and mob based systematic attempts; [72] same accusations; [73] false claims; [74] trying to make me look bad, and thinks I am a mob, he is lying; [75] deceptive editing; [76] seems to have a long history of edit wars; [77] problem causing behaviour, displays alot POV, accusess [sic] a mob editing, uncoperative [sic] editing; [78] same accusations; [79] same accusations; [80] an arrogant user, what is wrong with his cognition, [81] same accusations; [82] same accusations; [83] what is your problem; [84] I'm tired of your lying, and exagerrations; [85] you [have] written this lie; [86] attempting to make this a personal war, plus same accusations; [87] arrogance, haven't participated on the discussion page (I have); [88] a report troll, disruptive and problematic - that's from their editing until 2000 GMT to-day, anyway. There may be more to add later. Rapido (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To Admin: Why my reply below includes bold typeface will be justified in the end. Please read and thank you for your time. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are being a troll and diverting attention away from the real issue. I bet you will call me calling you a troll an attack again? Right? Wikipedia article definition of a troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or OFF-TOPIC messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response"... you sure did provoke my emotional response. Carry on calling my criticisms attacks. And quoting out of context is not going to help you neither. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And you certainly didn't help considering im a fairly new editor, by sparking an edit war, remaining silent when I ask for your view or input, and forcing me into a 3RR systematically. Call this an attack too if you want, you do it everywhere on everypage. And they are not "policies", they are guides, to help people here get along, something I would like to do with you, but you make it hard because you never assumed "good faith" where I did. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An example of tabloid style mis-quotation by Rapido. Rapido quotes: "What is wrong with his cognition" from this sentence: "I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page". Alot of POV, even in quotations, I learned long time ago it is wrong to misquote in English lessons, so not im going to start the same game your playing and not engage in your trolling.--94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry Rapido, lets leave it here, and let the Admins have a look themselves. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since you wrote "there may be more to add later" should I help you? Ive put them in bold, "quote" them too. I like your quoting style, I might use it one day too when I have a personal grudge on someone. Want to quote that too? (To Admin: I'm trying to show you how he is manipulating the story (Rapido: quote that) --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments from between 2000 and 2100 to-day: [89] being a troll, diverting attention away from the real issue; [90] same accusations; [91] quoting out of context; [92] tabloid style mis-quotation, Alot of POV, your trolling, im going to start the same game your playing; [93] sparking an edit war, forcing me into a 3RR systematically, you do it everywhere on everypage, you never assumed "good faith"; [94] he is manipulating the story. Rapido (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote I'm not going to start the game your playing, why do you keep mis quoting? Original "so not im going to start the same game your playing and not engage in..." --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but using random bolding of your statements rarely results in anyone taking any more notice of your claims than they would anyway. 86.143.125.78 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How else do you suggest for me to explain the misquotations? Im open for suggestion. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Explanation for non-psychic) It seems the bolding is there to explain how the editor is being misquoted. (by example) - seems vaguegly WP:POINT but I imagine the head is getting too hot to notice.

• Comment - it would have been easier to simply explain how you were being misquoted.
• Comment - the numerous edit diffs supplied by the other editor show little.
• Comment - perhaps you both could stop, press reset button, and not get into edit war again - specifically request clarification other other users edits you do not understand.
• Comment - it's difficult to see anything other than two editors arguing/fighting/failing to get along in all the above edits. I doubt anyone has the time to sort out a problem both of you have created.
• Comment - if either editor is truly in the wrong I imagine it will rapidly become visible if one of the editors stops fighting back.

It would be better if both of you stopped and hopefully don't return to this thread. best wishes.Shortfatlad (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - From the top of this page: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion." Appears you've both finally stepped back and stopped screaming at each other in this thread, but this really isn't how to handle an ANI. For one thing, it's basically impossible to figure out what the actual issue is here, now that it's been so muddied. Seems more or less like a personal dispute, which isn't an ANI issue. But, really, I can't possibly be certain given the nature of this "discussion." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been posted on my talk page. IDK what to say lmao Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing thread

I cannot make out what is being disputed here. Is it just me? If others are confused also, I'm seriously considering archiving the thread and forcing the reporters to post a summary of the issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To assist those who are baffled by the above, the issue is how to describe the jamming of a BBC satellite TV signal to prevent it from being received in Iran. I refer you to WP:AN3#User:94.193.135.142 reported by User:Rapido (Result: 24h). The article in dispute was BBC Persian Television. See here for a typical revert. Rapido's version said:

...other BBC services, and those of other broadcasters were experiencing interference due to a jamming signal, confirmed to originate from within Iran.

The IP has been indignant at the suggestion that Iranians could have had anything to do with blocking the BBC's signal. His version said:

...other BBC services, and those of other broadcasters were experiencing interference due to a jamming signal. The BBC stated it's technicians beleive the jamming signal to originate from Iran, though providing no technical proof or evidence. .

I underlined the words in dispute. Personally, I find fault with both versions. Rapido's word "confirmed" is based on a statement from Eutelsat, the BBC's satellite provider, which hardly shows independent confirmation. The IP's phrase "providing no technical proof or evidence" sounds like editorializing by Wikipedia. Admins are not expected to referee content disputes. We assume that editors who have a dispute will follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Though Rapido seems to make some newbie mistakes, the IP is getting closer to tendentious editing, complaining at Talk:BBC Persian Television about the BBC's service being run by Bahais, but not providing any reliable source that asserts this fact or states that it affects the quality of BBC's coverage. One idea for solving this is to keep both editors on a very short leash when the protection expires on BBC Persian Television. We could let them know that even a single revert that does not follow from a talk page agreement may lead to a block. I would welcome any other ideas for calming this down. If necessary we should consider an editing restriction, for example a 1RR/day limit on both editors on articles relevant to Iran, for a period of time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that is much clearer now. It sounds like they need a 1RR editing restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, while you rightly identified the editing dispute, you have not addressed the continued personal attacks or assumption of bad faith eminating from the IP editor. Even when I raise a complaint on WP:WQA or here regarding the issue... the IP editor continues the attacks on these pages rather than desisting - the whole point of reporting the incident on these pages was to try and have the attacks stopped, not continued! I do have to point out one thing regarding the edits tho'... you say Eutelsat is the BBC's satellite provider, which is true; however they are also the satellite provider for the Iranian government channels [95]; as well as channels (private and governmental) from all around the world; until recently it was an intergovernmental organisation. I can imagine that Eutelsat would be the only party able to know where the jamming was originating from, as I doubt anyone else has access to their control centres where they can identify the location of uplinks to their satellites. Rapido (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

IP's racist comments on talk:Atheism

Pretty self-explanatory: In this dif, 86.123.168.47 (talk) included the gem "Muslims go to mosques ,pray ,beat up their wives ,blow up ,etc" I'm not sure what policy is concerning IP editors making satements such as this, and whether it should be treated as mere vandalism or something more serious. Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Muslim" a race? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

also why would policy for IP addresses be different than for the rest of us? Beach drifter (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Vandalism front, we are much more lenient with IP vandals than we are with registered users who vandalize. I wasn't sure if this would be seen as vandalism, hate speech, or what have you, so I wasn't aware what policies would apply. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are more lenient, then why was this user blocked with no warning for simply poor judgement? I can find no other edits to support a block. Beach drifter (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Their "poor" judgement is likely to seriously piss off a billion or so people. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake again. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the real concern, then why not just remove the offending material and warn the IP? I think that is what a vast majority of editors would do. Beach drifter (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block, doesn't matter if it's directed at a race, religious group, sexual orientation or gender, using Wikipedia to promote hate is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP was making an example, with a very poor choice of wording. I'd think a strong warning would be more appropriate. Beach drifter (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed some of her other edits; it doesn't look like she's an anti-Muslim edit-warrior, just someone who expressed herself poorly when trying to communicate that idea. In context, it reads more as an unsuccessful attempt at humor than as hate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. His comments called into question his editing (see last contrib). It's only a 31h block. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the diffs for the harassment? Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's up above. "Harassment" isn't the issue here, though. It's more the personal attack, or at least the very real potential thereof. Furthermore, it calls into question the edits in those areas. I believe I made a note of this in the block log, but I may not have. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just have a few concerns. Mainly that this really appears to be poor taste on behalf of the IP. It was an example on a talk page, it was not directed towards anyone in the least. There was one edit afterwards in that area, which I understand is the cause for concern, but I can't understand how that warrants a block, especially with absolutely no communication taking place with the IP. The editor has made some actual contributions. I also don't think that the perceived 'potential for a personal attack' is good reason for a block, again especially without any communication. At the very least tell the editor what is going on. Your block log did not say anything that they would understand. Beach drifter (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, point noted... made a comment to the user's talk. Hopefully we'll get a reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Beach drifter (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fisher: I'm tempted to agree, but that's still in spectacularly poor taste. Also, your point on the label "racist" is well-taken. What would be more appropriate? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Self evident inadaquate mental functions propogated through stereotypical depictions of xenophobic sentiment". It kinda rolls of the tongue, donchathink? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "bigotry". -- Atama頭 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the word we use for it around here. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Human Rights Believer ignoring a ban (NEEDED QUICK REACTION)

This cropped up on my watchlist here (in fact it was HRB's removal that I noticed). The user was topic banned by Nuclear Warfare here. I am notifying HRB about this thread. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The user removed this thread (which was restored), and left a mesage on my talk page saying "problem solved. go away and annoy someone else". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User violate:

• 3RR 4th edit
• Topic ban, as agreed above
• Deleted this thread with "pointless verbiage" --Tadija (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor is blocked for 12 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As the editor saw fit to make unfounded accusations in the form of a personal attack, this has now been extended to 24 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've warned him that any further breach of the topic ban will be met with an indef block. He's now making accusations of sockpuppetry on his talk page. Warned that bad faith accusations at WP:SPI will be seen as WP:DE. Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

After seeing that he removed a thread from here about himself, I have reviewed this editors contributions thus far. While it saddens me to have to do this, I have indefinitely blocked this editor. I would appreciate other admins review this block, please comment here if they believe that it is out of order. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good block - user isn't going to learn. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I'm all for giving users ample chances to reform, but this doesn't give me much hope. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I was about to question how the user went from a 12 hour block to an indef without any further infractions, then I reviewed their contributions. Ill-suited to Wikipedia. Good block. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I accidentally overwrote someone else's edit (diving into the history to see if I can correct). But I have accepted the unblock request and reinstated the 12 hour block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

U+FFFD chars at end of each field in interwiki list

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue, referred to WP:BUGS. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for posting here, I’m no too sure of who can fix this.

I recently noticed that the API for Wikipedia adds U+FFFD (they eventually show up like question marks in a little diamond) at the end of all strings returned by the following API request:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=interwikimap

My bot bumped on this on en.wikipedia.org and was unable to get the interwiki list from the site.

Strangely enough this seems to happen only here as other Wikipedia wikis don't exhibit this behaviour. A few examples:

• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=interwikimap
• http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=interwikimap
• http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=interwikimap

My guess is that the database table “interwiki” contains extra characters after each field, on my MediaWiki server this is what I see:

mysql> desc interwiki ;
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field     | Type          | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| iw_prefix | varbinary(32) | NO   | PRI | NULL    |       |
| iw_url    | blob          | NO   |     | NULL    |       |
| iw_local  | tinyint(1)    | NO   |     | NULL    |       |
| iw_url    | tinyint(1)    | NO   |     | NULL    |       |
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+

you can confirm that all “prefix” fields in the XML returned by en.wikipedia.org are exactly 32 characters long.

Maybe an admin can edit the interwiki list and remove these extra characters from the returned XML, I don’t really know if/how this table can be edited by MediaWiki.

Thank, Regards, Bub's (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. But while we are admins, we can't assist with technical issues on the site. Try Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:21818 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

{{resolved|···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}} I've scratched that resolved tag per the user's edits, which I shall post my opinion on below;— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

There appears to be an ongoing edit-war on this talk page involving multiple parties. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Incident concluded. The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I blocked Proofreader for a week for reverting several times, he has had a recent 72 hour block for edit warring as well that I took into account when determining this block length. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nod, but there were multiple other parties involved in the disruption of the page... Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could protect it, but it's a talk page and everyone else only reverted once. MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now at User_talk:Proofreader77, he's requesting review for an unblock... Cirt (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And that has now been declined by Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And they have requested another one, which I have commented on. I suggest any reviewing admins read this comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock. If he makes another unblock request, best to lock the page for the duration of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

indef?

This user continues to post copyright violations to their page.. they have stalked my edits, and, from the recent post regarding those edits, it appears as if they aren't taking this seriously at all, more like it is some game or debate. I don't see any evidence at all that they are going to stop their problematic edits after this all is over, therefore, I request that an indef block be considered, or, a longer block. For the version I refer to, please see this link. Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the user's contributions, I see little benefit to the project. I do see a sarcastic, idiotic tone in almost any discussion, a touch of MYSPACE, and currently a misuse of talk page by a blocked user. Grsz¹¹ 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest locking Proofreader77's talk page for the duration of the current block and would advise Daedalus969 in particualr to, quite frankly, move on. HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor is now attacking the difficulties I had of using {{tl}}, {{tlp}} and {{tlx}}.

• Support - An indef block, per the above. We don't need someone like this here. Before I was asking that it be considered. Now I'm requesting it be put in place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note, evidence of stalking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJMitchell's advice. (No opinion on the suggestion, tho.) —DoRD (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More stalking. They wouldn't really know of my edits unless they were watching my contributions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. —DoRD (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no irony. I'm watching their page after they insulted me earlier.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And you would not have known that if you had not been monitoring Proof's page. Although a relatively new user, I noticed when I came in that there are no doors on the toilets. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading it right that Proofreader feels he shouldn't be blocked because he allegedly donated $1,000 to WMF? According to him, it would benefit MBizanz to know that fact. Is that some kind of attack, legal threat, I don't know what, but it sure is stupid. Grsz¹¹ 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not made any impression whatsoever. I'm sad if Proofreader77 thinks that a donations (and a quite large donation at that!) can sway opinion. I'm considering blocking indefinitely and protecting the talk page. I don't think we want someone who is willing to do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You should check the edit summary here where they completely misrepresent what you say. You are clearly considering indefing him for his attitude, not any amount he has donated anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Proofreader, and think he's useful for all his minor faults, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I think it's something I'd say about someone I don't like too, so it might be of some use here. He's not adding more {{unblock}} notices; he's not insulting anyone; he hasn't readded the Youtube links; the only thing he's doing is not showing contrition. If you don't like what he's saying, unwatchlist the page. Let's not manufacture imagined legal threats, or start blocking for "attitude". We block for disruption; that isn't happening here. If it happens after unblocking, deal with it then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader has gotten a rough deal here. His comments at the Request for Comment were deleted because two or three editors thought they had an inappropriately whimsical form. Who's to say ...? It kind of defeats the purpose of an RfC to delete comments one doesn't like.

Proofreader complained about it later on, on the RfC talk page, and suggested that the RfC should be "nullified" because of "procedural fouls". His complaint was repeatedly hatted, and yes, he went up to 3RR (but not beyond) to remove the hat template. A 1-week block for that, without warning or any attempt to get him to desist, is harsh.

I am not saying Proofreader77 was "right" to ask for the RfC to be declared invalid, or to edit-war about the hat. But the whole sequence of events is a bit unfriendly and excessively authoritarian. As it is, feelings have been hurt, for no good reason, and a whole cycle of negativity started. We should learn to handle these situations better, with a bit more diplomacy, and give people more leeway to express themselves the way they want to at RfCs. --JN466 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A unique editor, and I mean that politely. From the diffs given I can understand a block. However, from contributions I've seen and what I've had in my few talkpage posts from the user, I'm damn near 100% sure they're not trying to act with any ill will or malice. It seems common for them to follow contributions of users they've recently interacted with, be it a "good" or "bad" case. I do that plenty as a check-ups on users I've given advice to in discussions (um. everyone does that, right? I honestly don't know.) ... In this case it's never to harass or disrupt, but something of a desire to stay on top of a situation and be able to respond. Paranoid maybe, and kind of creepy at times? Maybe. But I've still got to say it's in good faith.

Issues? High socializing I could see. This editor has been under unofficial sanctions before on lengths of posts in the Wikipedia namespace and overuse of talk pages, and in both cases shaped up from what I can see, so there's a history of working with community wishes. It's very possible I'll regret saying this, but I think this is a one-off streak sparked by... ok, I don't know. Some specific social flare-up involving the RfC? Make it a month(?)' block for that to blow away (note: entirely unofficial opinion), but indef would seem cruel as this is a user with a lot of Wikipedia knowhow that does come in handy in discussions. Give conditions asking for more community work maybe? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had dealings with Proof in the past. Both negative and positive, frankly the 1000 dollars shouting is a little old. However he does have a point, he is here for the project. Not all contributers are article writers. I think a Indef block is ABSURD at this point. He could have been warned for edit warring, this didn't require a week block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The donation could refer to a case from a few months ago when I'd first seen this user. Someone had posted legal threats on Jimbo's talk page, received an indefinite block and used unblock reasons of being a $40,000 donor. The user was unblocked not for this claim, but it did look incredibly strange. I even posted at ANI because the user was canvassing XfD !votes using the same claim to editor talkpages. It was collectively asinine, ending in this, which despite violations no blocks ever come and it's an example, for better or worse, of people that have heavily pushed the line without consequence versus snap blocks and actions on others. In other words, it's all attempted irony. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on. From what I've seen, Proofreader77 seems to have got a bit of a raw deal and the block was perhaps a little harsh, but not unfair or grossly disproportionate considering he has recent blocks. I will reiterate my view above that the way to resolve this with the least drama possible is simply to allow Proofreader77 to serve out the original block with the talk page locked and everybody should move on and let it go. Indef'ing him will achieve nothing. Continuing to debate this on aNI will achieve nothing but more drama. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just let it go. No reason to protect his page. nothing is innapropriate and he's limited there. Let him express his frustrations, he isn't attacking anyone or disrupting the pedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock for User:TH43 related ips?

User:TH43 was recently blocked for edit warring and vandalism and then found to be using sockpuppets. All of this has not derailed him from his task of purging the Law & Order and Jon & Kate Plus 8 articles of sources he considers unnecessary (he does not believe information needs to be referenced if it has come to pass). He has been coming back using a range of ip addresses that all being with 174.91.xx.xx. A list of the current suspected socks of this user can be found here. I would ask that this user be rangeblocked temporarily to see if we can curb the vandalism coming from him on a now daily basis using a slightly different ip. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Law & Order article. Malinaccier has semi-protected the Jon & Kate Plus 8 article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine and thank you, but it unfortunately only turns his attention to other articles, such as List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes and 7th Heaven, the first of which he removed references from without explanation[96] and the latter of which had a link to a separate article on DVDs added in violation of a WP:AFD discussion.[97][98] This person certainly seems to be the poster child for WP:DISRUPT. Redfarmer (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And he strikes again today. Removed references from List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes as IP 174.91.249.130. Redfarmer (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed on copyvio / promotional edits

Resolved

Gayatri23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created a large number of articles which are copyvios of bits of www.manipal.edu and elsewhere. All the newly created pages have been deleted, and I've reverted some copyvio additions to existing articles. The user's remaining unreverted edits contain some highly promotional stuff. Mcismanipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has also been making very similar edits.

I need to go offline now, so I'd appreciate some extra pairs of eyes checking these accounts' remaining contributions for copyvios and promotional edits, and also looking through the history of the articles in question for other accounts doing similar things - I only came across Mcismanipal by chance while looking at Gayatri23's edits, so I don't know if I've missed others. Thanks! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left a last warning to both accounts to cut it out, and I have also reverted some other blatant copyvios from existing articles. If they continue, and more copyvios show up after my warning, any admin should block. --Jayron32 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting and readding of talk page comments

Moved to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet issue at Talk:Biocentrism

I don't feel that this meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters, but I do strongly feel that there are sockpuppets at Talk:Biocentrism, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters said that in that case I should mention it here. There are numerous editors with 100 or less edits, or anonymous IP addresses that are all stating the same thing and have a similar writing style. Some of them even chose similar names -- User:Reviewer4 and User:Staff3 ... it seems likely to me that they are trying to make it look like the "consensus" is to oppose a page move, by artificially inflating the number of votes. I think it would be a good idea that all of the editors with low edit count should be investigated by someone with Checkuser privileges.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

An SPI was opened here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I hadn't even seen this notice here, but I had come across the move discussion at Talk:Biocentrism by chance and I noticed some quacking noise there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Enemyghost

Resolved

 – NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) was able to cite the addition that was previously uncited and reverted by Enemyghost (talk · contribs) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

New user Enemyghost has made persistent uncited additions to Heckler & Koch G36. Specifically, the users list in that article. The section he is editing has an edit banner stating that all additions need citations and warning that any additions without citations will be removed. He has also been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page] not to make additions without citations from a reliable source. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me look into it. Please do not violate WP:3RR NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at it and agreed with the justification for removing the unsourced content. The need for citations is pretty clearly defined both in edit summaries and in a comment at the top of the section, and the editor has provided no assertion to why it should be allowed without a citation, so I went ahead and removed it again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Given his persistence, the text will most likely be added back shortly. Apparently the same editor was adding similar text as an IP user (93.177.175.104) a few days ago, prior to his registration. ROG5728 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the source and added it. However, as it was unsourced before you were right to remove it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Stars4change

User:Stars4change continues to post edits to the talk pages of articles that are general discussion of topics despite repeated warnings on his/her talk page. A recent general discussion type posting was made to Talk:capitalism.[99] Note too that Stars created other new sections on this talk page below the current section most of which have been minimized. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with some of stars edits on talk pages. he appears to ask for permission to make some changes like Talk:Chiquita_Brands_International#Add links. he obviously does a bit of things wrongly, but not major disruption to articles. I may be wrong though. I will inform him of this thread. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And then another editor asks him not to use the talk page as a forum. That seems to be the general reaction among editors in a wide range of articles who have no connection with one another. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Stars4change continues to try to incite other users by making comments about slavery on various talk pages: User_talk:Stars4change#October_2009. At the very least, the user should be cautioned about trolling by an administrator. --JeffJ (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion went dead, Stars4change's talk page edits are out of control. As can be seen on their talk page, they have been warned in April, June, July, August, September, and November and as of today, December, yet these warnings have been completely ignored. This behavior can be seen at Talk:Slavery#Add_eight-hour_day, Talk:Automobile#Add_2_war_links, Talk:So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_(U.S._TV_series)#Do_losers_get_paid.3F, Talk:Criticisms_of_socialism#Criticisms_of_Capitalism, Talk:Capitalism#Private_property, here[100], here[101], here[102], Talk:Industrial_Revolution#Slavery_link_added, here[103], here[104], Talk:Communism#Book_.22Rogue_State.22, Talk:Corporation#Corporations_never_invent..._anything, here[105], Talk:Prostitution#Cause:_forced_to_need_money, here (based on the pattern)[106], Talk:When_Corporations_Rule_the_World#Forced_to_need_money, here[107], here[108]. To put this into perspective, all of those edits only date back to 20 October 2009, after this discussion had gone dead and been archived. They have been getting warnings on their talk page since 4 April 2009. Is it possible an admin can assist?--Abusing (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stars4change has made some positive contributions. I'll leave one last plea on their talk page, with a warning that the next time they use Wikipedia for a soapbox they'll be facing a block. -- Atama頭 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Stars4change has continued to use talk pages for soapboxing, despite a previous block and another "last warning" given on December 29, which they completely ignored. Examples of continued disruption after the warning can be seen here, here, here, and here in their own talk page. They have good contributions in the mainspace, but this can't be an excuse for their prolonged troublesome behavior. Enough is enough. Swarm^Talk 01:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Guy and Legal Threats

Resolved

• Michael Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.177.103.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This BLP was nominated for deletion, and had a spamectomy, by me. An IP has persisted in restoring the apparent spam content, and has removed the AfD tag. Could somebody uninvolved please have a look and issue appropriate warnings. I received a phone call from somebody related to the content the IP was adding, per caller ID, but did not get any message from them. Something is going on here, and help from uninvolved administrators would be useful. Thank you. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, spamectomy is the greatest word that I have heard all day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped. TNXMan 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood the AfD tag it said 'keep' and i assumed it meant keep the article. Will pay more attention to the tag in the future. Sorry for the inconvience. User talk:74.177.103.96 —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Hello IP editor. Either you or somebody claiming to be associated with Michael Guy has emailed me a very clear legal threat. (Copy available to any administrator who needs to verify.) If it is you, you'll need to retract that threat, or else you're going to be subject to a lengthy block per the no legal threats policy. It is not cool to try to cow another editor by threatening them with a lawsuit. I see that you've continued to engage in apparent self-promotion via Wikipedia. [109][110][111] You've obviously got some interest and energy, which is great. But you need to work with other editors, not jump to assumptions of bad faith, as you appear to have done in that email. I'm not competing with you for any SEO account, and I found your article because it popped up in Category:Search engine optimization consultants, a page that I occasionally patrol. The deletion discussion looks like the musical content will be merged into the band article, and the SEO stuff will be removed because it's not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. I have more than 25,000 edits, have pretty much seen every tactic that you could ever imagine, and am impervious to any threats. Why don't you just relax and learn how things work here, rather than getting steamed about our normal processes for managing articles. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not associated with any emails sent about the article. I have worked to improve it according to wiki standards. --74.177.103.96 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll assume the legal threat was sent by an imposter, possibly a banned editor looking to stir up trouble. The deletion discussion will sort out what content goes where. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have created my account so that I am differentiated from the other editor. I am really trying to improve the article but it seems that there are a few references that i need help citing can anyone please take a look and tell me why certain ones are duplicating? Just so that it is clear IP edits by 74.177.103.96 are mine --Magicus69 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help you. Leave any questions on my talk page. Also, please merge your comments with that IP's comments on the AfD page so that you are not accused of sock puppetry. One editor, one vote, is the rule. Best regards, Jehochman ^Brrr 14:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

POV edits at Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday

See this and other edits of Professional Assassin (talk · contribs) at Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday. I have just voted "keep" at the related AfD, but the article needs to be free of POV and hagiography. The editor should be warned, and be blocked if he continues this kind of editing, by someone who is not involved in discussion of the content and the AfD.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this section when I posted the section on gas chamber a few threads down. They're related. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming very hard to see Professional Assassin as anything but aan agresive and dismisive POV editor.Slatersteven (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been indef'd. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've explained my reasoning for this block at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User:Professional_Assassin. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at Gas chamber

Resolved

 – disruptive user indef'd

Professional Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor seems unalterably convinced that the Institute for Historical Review and David Irving should be regarded as reliable sources for the claim that Nazi Germany had no gas chambers. He is engaged in a slow edit war to keep the material in.[112][113][114][115][116][117]. The consensus view, supported by every other editor who has visited the page recently, is that the IHR and Irving are not reliable sources and that mentioning their views on this article, which deals with gas chambers generally, of which the Third Reich's gas chambers were only a part, constitutes undue weight. His response to having this explained to him is mainly a lot of schoolyard taunts and name-calling, which can be seen at this section of the talk page. The rest of his editing history demonstrates a similar agenda. He's been warned at his talk page. He has never said a word that would tend to indicate that he gets the message and wants to reform. I believe that Wikipedia's experience with editors of this sort is that they never reform, they're useless and harmful to the project, and the sooner they're indefinitely blocked the better. Would anyone care to do the honors? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have toi personly take issue with part of this. I did not say I did not consider the Institute for Historical Review unreliable, I alterd the text to reflect a fuller representation of the claims about letters that the IHR had claimed said that the gas chanbers did not exist. As such it is not true to say that all editors disagreed with thier use (thoujgh this would depend you your view of recently).Slatersteven (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I misrepresented your views. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor seems to be slowly edit-warring against consensus, but I think an indef block is very premature at this point. He's never been blocked before, and while the edit-warring is apparent he's not violating 3RR, is taking up the issue at the relevant talk pages (albeit not really listening to anybody conversing with him), and while I disagree with the content he's trying to include he's not flouting Wiki editing rules so egregiously as to justify an immediate indef block. I'd tend to side with a stern warning, a close eye on his contribs for further evidence of edit-warring (in which case a short-term block may be a good call), etc. Just my two cents. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. this tells everything, why this guy is so eager to see anyone who opposes his holocaust views to be blocked indefinitely. I suggest everyone to don't waste your time and simply ignore what he says. :))) Professional Assassin (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you should be blocked indefinitely. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What, you don't think Wikipedia should have an article on trictrac, PA? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with a block. Allowing holocaust deniers to edit Wikipedia tends to bring the project into disrepute. However, I don't know what trictrac is, so I'm not sure whether planning an article on the subject is a problem or not. I guess I'll wait and read it when it's finished. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This guy's worse than a Holocaust denier. He seems more like an out-and-out Hitler worshipper. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I went ahead and blocked? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way, he didn't come to build an encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the block settings to the hardest possible. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, fellas and ladies. Would it be safe to consider him de-facto banned? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, consensus was strong. Henceforth he shall be considered banned. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, looks like he's back using various IP's at Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday. Now I'm a "jewish propagandist". Can someone semi-protect the article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IP is blocked Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The now-blocked IP who used the "jewish propagandist" line is the most likely candidate for a PA sock; the other may just be a supporter, as their other edits don't match the profile nearly as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Eh, you should have left it. One trick pony, using proxies? It'd be shooting fish in a barrel. Every proxy he uses is a proxy nobody can use again. HalfShadow 01:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to drag this out with one request after another, but the birthday article is up for deletion. It's mainly the work of a now-banned Holocaust denier and Hitler acolyte. It's a pretty short article that probably ought to be merged into the Hitler article, anyway (if there's anything worthwhile in it). Maybe it ought to just be put out of it's misery. I'll try to keep an eye on Gas chamber for any IP funny business there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Orange Mike just declined that last request on the deletion page (fair enough), so I'm perfectly happy to have this thread closed and archived, unless anyone has anything else. Thanks again, guys and gals. It's a pleasure doing business with you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's now taunting me on my talk page from an IP. Could I get a semi for a week or so? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, can we leave it? Only this way we can just keep on whacking them until he runs out. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, if you think that will work. But aren't IP blocks usually short term? BTW, thanks for the revert. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I whacked the last one for two weeks. They might be proxies; if someone finds that they are then they will be indef'd. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They are from an anonymizing web proxy, yes, see [118] and [119]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you're giving long blocks to the proxies, here are two more he's used recently, both blocked now, but since they're anonymizing proxies (probably), best to get rid of em completely.

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

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

You guys are good. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done those two too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:IPB#Open_proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've explained my reasoning for this block at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User:Professional_Assassin. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Luciform

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

Obvious SPA; second edit is to inflame tempers on the already hotly disputed Goatse MedCab case. Appears to have registered just to troll the case, despite having no history of being a part of the dispute. What should we do, then? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They have no history of being part of the case, because that user is only making his/her second edit ever. One comment does not make an SPA problem, and should it not ever. I wouldn't Bite on this new user just yet. Its not uncommon for new users, who may have been following the discussions to decide to create an account in order to participate. If the new user continues then I would look further into the problem, but for now there seems to be no major need for intervention that I can tell. Of course thats just my opinion.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparent outings

See Talk:Tree shaping (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). LeadSongDog come howl 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think there's outing, Contact Oversight with the diffs immediately. Do NOT post stuff like this on AN/I as it tends to have a Streisand effect. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

StevenMario evading his indef block

StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on January 7 for disruptive editing relating to edit warring and constantly inserting unreferenced information into articles. Before his block, a previous investigation found that he frequently edited without logging in, always from IPs in the Atlanta area. StevenMario appears to be continuing this pattern, still editing from IPs from the same area and are editing the same articles with the same pattern that StevenMario followed. The 68.223.0.0/18 range has already been blocked by MuZemike, but today StevenMario returned on 68.219.194.174 - his latest forays have all been in the 68.219.x.x range... I'm afraid we may need a bigger block for this kid... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way - you'd need a formal checkuser done to confirm that they are the same user, and to determine if a second range block is necessary. As it is, the IPs you list here are too far apart to be blocked in one action (the most we can do is a /16 range, such as 12.12.*.*). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that route already - CheckUser was declined with the " Looks like a duck to me" reasoning - it's obvious it's him... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the ip, but I am not confident in my ability to correctly block the range. My technical skills... let's just say I try to know my limitations and respect them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You could always feed a list of IPs into a range block calculator, and just block that range using Special:Block. It's very simple :) NW (Talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... StevenMario returned today on IP 68.215.134.107 - for the record... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Killed it ... for 48 hours, anyway. Blueboy96 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All of his efforts are wasted, as they are getting reverted. If he continues to play this game, it might occur to him, as was explained to one notorious vandal who I won't name due to WP:DENY, that there's only one of him and many of us, so his continual attempts to do this will ultimately be fruitless.

And if not, maybe I should send my cousin Vito to Marietta, GA, to "explain" a few things to little Stevie. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block, BlueBoy - that'll last until he jumps to another one... but I didn't revert everything he did, BaseballBugs, as he made one valid edit, at least - but the kid has a serious jones for adding either unreferenced material or his own opinions. Hopefully all the IP roach-stomping will finally get through to him... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my name is StevenMario. I just want to let you know that I'll stop vandalizing. See here. 68.217.90.29 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits going against community consensus

Edits by Harleytarantina (talk · contribs) continue to be highly disruptive on at least two articles. The user has already been blocked twice; once for sockpuppetry, and once for edit warring.

At Chase Meridian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), consensus was reached in April 2009 to convert the article to a redirect. Starting in Jan 2010, the user and two IPs (which share the identical same article interests as the user) have been edit warring over restoring the content, with no discussion on the talk page nor in the edit summaries.

At Joker (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the user has been edit warring over the insertion of original research (no reliable sources, based upon fan-created assumptions). This edit warring continues the earlier edit warring by two other user-IDs that were used by this user in the past: Krlzh (talk · contribs) and Paulita1292 (talk · contribs). This content has been discussed repeatedly at:

• Talk:Joker (comics)#Batman Forever (yet again)
• Talk:Joker (comics)/Archive 3#Jack Napier in Batman Forever
• Talk:Joker (comics)/Archive 3#Batman Forever.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#IPs of blocked sockpuppet adding material against consensus on the Joker (comics) article
• User talk:Krlzh
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krlzh/Archive

The user was most recently blocked on Jan 20th for edit warring, then returned today to restore the same exact content yet again, with no new discussion. The community has been more than patient, with multiple editors attempting to explain the issues to the user. But the user has shown no respect for community consensus - insisting that any attempts to remove the info is an attempt to hide what the user views as "the truth", despite the lack of reliable sources. What is needed to establish a topic ban for this user? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: the user has been notified of this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's fairly easy to fix the problem with Chase Meridian. I've protected it with no protect time limit. The other one is less easy - I'll look into this a bit later. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, definitely looks like a problem on the Joker article. I've reverted that anon's edit as against consensus and I've semi-protected that page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you check Mad Hatter (comics) too please, he keeps adding some unsourced crap there about Robin Williams. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation at talk page

Page: Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Thegoodlocust has set up two discussion threads today on a discussion page both of which appear to be trolling and made comments not appropriate for a biography of a living person, including the discussion headings.[120][121] The editor has an extensive history of disruptive editing and that he is fully aware of WP policies. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have sources that list the guy as mentally ill and a dictator. Personally, I have little to no interest in the subject and I'm amazed that you people are defending the sanity of a guy who said the US used an earthquake weapon against Haiti. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Care to cite those sources?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They are all in the talk page. For the dictator one there were literally too many to mention - several of the big name ones include about.latinamericahistory, NBC, Fox and the Washington times. His own psychiatrist said he was capable of setting himself on fire and other psychiatrists have said he has NPD. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone's trying some mighty synthesis there. DUCK is not a reason to call someone insane. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Well, I was hoping I'd get help finding sources, instead a few Venezuelan's got ticked off at me. Anyway, his own psychiatrist said he'd set himself on fire given a chance, other psychiatrists have said he has NPD, and the guy has said and done a lot of crazy shit. Anyway, here are a couple more sources that mention his mental problems -- the Boston Globe and the Pittsburg Tribune (plus what I already had on the talk page). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this one: "Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez is losing altitude fast.". [122] That was written in an op-ed piece in Forbes by Roger F. Noriega, a senior State Department official from 2001 to 2005, is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC. He might qualify as an authority. I have little doubt I could find 10 reliable sources that call him a dictator. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• The Washington Times editorial board calls him a dictator: "Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez went beyond the pale when he accused the United States of causing the Haitian earthquake with a secret weapon fired by Navy ships as a test for a future subterranean attack on Iran." [123]. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Wall Street Journal: " They know how Venezuela's Hugo Chávez went from being democratically elected the first time, in 1998, to making himself dictator for life." [124] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff: Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez sent one plane with supplies - then accused America of "occupying" Haiti under the guise of helping. [125].

Can we just agree that reliable sources have called him a dictator? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet of Chile is called a dictator by Wikipedia and Chavez is worse. JB50000 (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• At least one reliable source, Newsweek, did an article about accusations of mental illness by his opponents. They printed this accusation: "He's a psychopath," claims Rafael Marin, secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Action party (AD). "He shifts from states of euphoria to deep depressions." The AD has every reason to dislike the man whose 1992 coup attempt triggered the eventual downfall of an AD presidency. But a psychopath? "Our psychiatrists," Marin insists, "have compared the psychiatric profiles of people like Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin and Ecuadorean President Abdala Bucaram," who was ousted in 1997 on ground of mental incompetence. AD believes there is an urgent need to activate Article 233 of Chavez's new Constitution. It provides for a president to be removed on ground of "permanent physical or mental incapacity, certified by a medical board appointed by the Supreme Court, and with the approval of the National Assembly." [126] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a content issue. I don't think we can call the threads trolling, there seems to be some substance behind the allegations. However, I would caution editors to be careful in referencing reliable sources for both the dictator and mental illness claims and don't give them undue weight in the article if they are more on the fringe. I'd also point out that if there is a dispute about the dictator tag that we don't explicitly call him a dictator, as this would mean that is our position, and would violate our neutrality policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comparison, there's the significant difference that Augusto Pinochet is no longer a living person. BLP and NPOV work together: call Chavez by his official title in the introduction, discuss the allegations later in the article. Be careful to stay on the safe line of WP:UNDUE. A good model to follow might be Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease several years after his presidency ended. There were critics who supposed he had that ailment before he left office: among other things, he gave a speech describing a World War II film he had acted in as if it were reality rather than fiction and he fell asleep in a meeting with the Pope. But overall, his actions as a president get a lot more space--and that's probably right because policy matters more than a leader's supposed mental state. Durova⁴⁰³ 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Now falling asleep is an indication of alzheimer's? Really? There is one small difference.... the "critics" in the Newsweek article are claiming it's a medical opinion by a doctor, not just supposition by political adversaries like Reagan's case was. I gave examples of the WSJ, Washington Times and Forbes. Not exactly a list of second-rate tabloids. And if Newsweek saw that the topic was important enough to do an article on the subject, we might want to consider it to be relevant. I'm not suggesting stating that it is fact, but a mention of the allegation, which was covered in depth, could be a reasonable addition. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll review the article text you'll note that specific instance is not mentioned there. It's a good indication of what to include and leave out. Regarding "Not exactly a list of second-rate tabloids", why are you rebutting arguments that no one here has asserted? That creates the impression of being a bit driven; if so it's a good time to back away. Durova⁴⁰³ 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IP "spamming" BNP blog in references

194.80.178.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding links to a BNP supporting blog in references for prospective candidates for the 2010 UK general election. My concerns are 1) a blog is not a reliable source for this type of material, 2) the blog itself proclaims its purpose as being to secure a BNP victory, so the links may be promoting a POV. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted a stiffly-worded memorandum, but they'd already got bored and buggered off before I did. To be frank, I have heard that there are lots of these people around, aiming to get candidates elected. This guy and this guy are rumoured to be among the most serious offenders. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Belchman

Resolved

 – User blocked 5 days and warned against continuing incivility. AniMate 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Belchman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for reasons best known to himself, has taken to insulting other users on ref desk, calling them "idiot" and "fool" and such as that. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. I advised him to retract, but as of a minute ago he had taken no action. Maybe someone with some actual muscle here could have a word with him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

His edits on January 18th and recently before that seem normal. He next edited 6 days later, and took on a belligerent tone, name-calling 2 editors (Bus Stop twice, then me twice). I invited him to come here and he simply deleted that invite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what good it will do, but I have issued a sternly worded final warning to cease and desist. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Big overreaction here. A civility block was in order, but indef is way over the top. AniMate 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the view that he clearly wasn't going to contribute nicely. However, I won't oppose in the slightest if you choose to reduce the block. It's a judgement call. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's got some decent contributions under his belt. I'm going to reduce to 24 hours, with the caveat that anymore incivility will result in increased blocks. AniMate 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at your last post on his talk page. I'll reblock for 5 days. AniMate 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily endorse that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what set that guy off. He makes the usual complaints against me, but he started by attacking Bus Stop, which made no sense. Maybe in the ensuing 5 days he can re-think his strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give him no more than 24 hours, if even that. I wasn't offended. I considered it intellectual jousting. These things happen. Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear him explain why he suddenly started calling you names, just because he got challenged on his original premise. Calling you an "idiot" and me a "fool" is not intellectual jousting, it's like he went off the deep end over something trivial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern over User:204.29.111.62

This I.P 204.29.111.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is very odd. The I.P is registered to the Alabama Supercomputer Network but the most intriguing part about this is that in the history of it's talk page has a link to a defacto banned user. It's blocked for a year at least for this project but not in the other wikis. I know that it is very unusual to list a school I.P address to be connected to a sockpuppeter but considering what he is capable of raises the question, should we be concerned over this? IconicBigBen (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing concerning there. I'm sure that it was probably only used a few times by him. Keeping the block isn't going to hurt anyone, so there is no reason to unblock. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Used or not, I don't like the idea of giving this guy a second area for possible evasion. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IconicBigBen doesn't look like a new user. Other edits (in addition to a sockpuppet template to the IP address and comments on this noticeboard) have included comments at AFD and SPI, areas the blocked user had previously contributed to. snigbrook (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: IconicBigBen has been blocked as a sock of User:Pickbothmanlol. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And of the IP address that he discussed. But if the IP is static, is it totally certain that it's just one guy? Probably, based on behavior, but I wonder. Maybe he was testing the system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

/b/ attack

Resolved

 – In Soviet Russia, Amerikan high sckool artickles vandalize YOU!! –MuZemike 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass vandalism occuring on Lubricant due to 4chan's /b/ Jarkeld (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

{{rfpp|s|3 days}} —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'd already protected it before you did. However, having looked at the history of the article I can see nothing but constant vandalism for several months, the article is asking for it really, therefore I've increased the protection time to 3 months--Jac16888^Talk 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that when the history finally popped up. Thanks for the quick reaction. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully with a break from the vandalism someone might get a chance to actually work on it. Actually I'm amazed its never been protected before now, its barely had any valid edits in months--Jac16888^Talk 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New attack at: Ianto Jones. Jarkeld (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bam!! i.e. done--Jac16888^Talk 02:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New attack at Russia. Jarkeld (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

blast, DorD beat me too it this time, that damned page is huge, very slow to load--Jac16888^Talk 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Is that agonizing slowness because of the server, simultaneous pageviews, or something about the page itself? Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Think it was that page, rest of the 'pedia seems fine, figured it was due to the 200,000k page--Jac16888^Talk 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another attack. Neuqua Valley High School. Jarkeld (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, me and DorD got it at the exact same time and length--Jac16888^Talk 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the NSFW thread: (I assume you know what goes here)/b/res/191437608 —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New attack at Desert Vista High School. What is the best way of preemptively stop these attacks?

• Best way to preemptively stop a /b/ attack is to get a mole in there to prot every article suggested. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

btw: thread 404'd. Jarkeld (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just keep blocking and protecting--Jac16888^Talk 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New thread at /b/res/191462747 . Jarkeld (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread 404'd. Jarkeld (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Θraētaona

I have attempted to create Θraētaona as a redirect to Fereydun, however the site is not allowing me to do so. Would an administrator mind doing this for me? Neelix (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I can't see why you could not do it. There is also WP:AFC for this kind of request or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (if it was protected). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The title blacklist has some fairly complicated prohibitions that attempt to catch titles using mixed scripts (like Greek and Latin, for example) in order to prevent the use of lookalike characters for vandalism. That is probably what caused it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:نسر برلين

I reversed the move to restore status quo. Further discussion should be on the article talk page Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This user has moved Hameur Bouazza to Aamir Bouazza, citing that it is his Arabic name, but has not provided any sources. Every single source on the page exclusively refers to him as "Hameur". Due to the complicated way that he has conducted this move, I am unable to reverse it, and the move page suggests that contact an admin. Could someone do the honours? A request has already been made by another user at WT:FOOTY. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I think the current version is correct. The old one would make sense in French, but this is the English Wikipedia. Crum375 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I don't speak Arabic, and my French is fairly modest, but I don't quite understand your point. We go by the common name, and in England his common name is the (French?) one. Regards, WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I think the issue is the way his name sounds. Since he is an Arab speaker in a country of French origin, he uses the French spelling (in the Latin alphabet) normally. But in English his name would be as is now spelled, which is how he would pronounce it. Crum375 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia uses whatever romanicized version of the name the subject chooses. So the page should rightly be at "Hameur Bouazza" if that is how the subject spells his name in the Latin alphabet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Also, the user who moved it should rightly be reprimanded for performing the move twice just so the page cannot be moved back to the version with "Hameur" as the given name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I agree that should be mentioned, but I'm assuming good faith; as far as I can tell English is this user's third language. It's most likely a phonetic mistake. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (ec) Except it would be misleading to English speakers, who would then automatically mispronounce his name. Both names should be available, so if someone searches for the French spelling they should get there, but when they land, they should see the correct pronunciation, along with the Arab version. Crum375 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I agree that should be mentioned, but I'm assuming good faith; as far as I can tell English is this user's third language. It's most likely a phonetic mistake. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC) It would only be misleading to Arabic speakers who are translating the name. Obviously one should be a redirect to the other, but a quick glance at the references shows that the primary destination is clear-cut, per WP:COMMONNAME. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (ec)It would be misleading to any English reader who wants to know his name, since they would automatically assume it's "Hameur" (pronounced like hammour or so), whereas it's really Aamir (or close to it). There is no mistake: the Hameur spelling is fine for French, but not for English. Crum375 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Then we provide the pronunciation but have the page located at preferred spelling of his own name. This is how it works for Japanese individuals who have names that certainly do not match the standard Japanese romanization methods. Wikipedia is not a tool to teach people how to read Arabic. We use the most common name. The fact that this happens to be the French approximation of the man's name does not mean anything. The fact is that نسر برلين moved the page to an intermediary title and then moved it again so he had an excuse to edit the original redirect once he moved it to his preferred title so the page could not be moved back is a dick move.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I would agree with you that the main article name should be his own preferred version of his name in English. The spelling I see is the one he uses in French. His own name is normally spelled in Arabic, so it becomes a transliteration issue. Crum375 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC) The subject of the article is French whose name was previously parsed as a Francophone method of writing his name in the Latin alphabet. That's as close to an English name as possible. The directly transliterated name is not the most common name, which would likely come after the fact that there is no English name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I do see a problem, however, with WP being the only one to spell is that way. So I would leave the French spelling unless he personally requests us to change it. Crum375 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Although when you put it like that, there seems to be conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. His common name in England is not the English name. Clearly the page should be speedily renamed per the extremely poor technique used to move it alone (else we are encouraging such behavior, good faith or not). But you raise an interesting question. Perhaps we should bring it up at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions? WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I believe that article subjects (persons or organizations) should have first say in the spelling of their name in a given language, esp. when it's a matter of transliteration. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I've started a thread here. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (ec) But is it a matter of transliteration? He was born in France and was a french national until changing his sporting nationality to Algerian via his parental eligibility. Surely his birth certificate is in french with Hameur Bouazza and if anything Aamir is a backformation from the arabic transliteration of the french name? Or am I being silly? Nanonic (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) What you're saying is that as a French speaker, he probably uses the French name anyway? WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Well, yeah. The only other forename I can find for him is Hamer (and even that could be a misspelling). Surely if he himself had expressed a preference in the past, it'd be written down somewhere? He's had 24 years to think it over. And with the majority of the evidence available on his name going with Hameur - that's all we can work with isn't it? Surely anything else would amount to original research? Nanonic (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC) The issue is that the move should not have been made in the first place. If French language sources that use the Latin alphabet refer to the individual as "Hameur" and not "Aamir", we should use "Hameur". WP:UE explicitly says "if there is a common English form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic". This should be extended to any name written in a Latinate alphabet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Can someone action the snail request at Hameur Bouazza? For the reasons Ryu has given about the double move, the discussion is irrelevant; a double move should be undone even if correct, due to double redirects. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Belchman

Resolved

 – User blocked 5 days and warned against continuing incivility. AniMate 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Belchman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for reasons best known to himself, has taken to insulting other users on ref desk, calling them "idiot" and "fool" and such as that. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. I advised him to retract, but as of a minute ago he had taken no action. Maybe someone with some actual muscle here could have a word with him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

His edits on January 18th and recently before that seem normal. He next edited 6 days later, and took on a belligerent tone, name-calling 2 editors (Bus Stop twice, then me twice). I invited him to come here and he simply deleted that invite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what good it will do, but I have issued a sternly worded final warning to cease and desist. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Big overreaction here. A civility block was in order, but indef is way over the top. AniMate 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the view that he clearly wasn't going to contribute nicely. However, I won't oppose in the slightest if you choose to reduce the block. It's a judgement call. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's got some decent contributions under his belt. I'm going to reduce to 24 hours, with the caveat that anymore incivility will result in increased blocks. AniMate 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at your last post on his talk page. I'll reblock for 5 days. AniMate 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily endorse that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what set that guy off. He makes the usual complaints against me, but he started by attacking Bus Stop, which made no sense. Maybe in the ensuing 5 days he can re-think his strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give him no more than 24 hours, if even that. I wasn't offended. I considered it intellectual jousting. These things happen. Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear him explain why he suddenly started calling you names, just because he got challenged on his original premise. Calling you an "idiot" and me a "fool" is not intellectual jousting, it's like he went off the deep end over something trivial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern over User:204.29.111.62

This I.P 204.29.111.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is very odd. The I.P is registered to the Alabama Supercomputer Network but the most intriguing part about this is that in the history of it's talk page has a link to a defacto banned user. It's blocked for a year at least for this project but not in the other wikis. I know that it is very unusual to list a school I.P address to be connected to a sockpuppeter but considering what he is capable of raises the question, should we be concerned over this? IconicBigBen (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing concerning there. I'm sure that it was probably only used a few times by him. Keeping the block isn't going to hurt anyone, so there is no reason to unblock. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Used or not, I don't like the idea of giving this guy a second area for possible evasion. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IconicBigBen doesn't look like a new user. Other edits (in addition to a sockpuppet template to the IP address and comments on this noticeboard) have included comments at AFD and SPI, areas the blocked user had previously contributed to. snigbrook (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: IconicBigBen has been blocked as a sock of User:Pickbothmanlol. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And of the IP address that he discussed. But if the IP is static, is it totally certain that it's just one guy? Probably, based on behavior, but I wonder. Maybe he was testing the system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

/b/ attack

Resolved

 – In Soviet Russia, Amerikan high sckool artickles vandalize YOU!! –MuZemike 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass vandalism occuring on Lubricant due to 4chan's /b/ Jarkeld (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

{{rfpp|s|3 days}} —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'd already protected it before you did. However, having looked at the history of the article I can see nothing but constant vandalism for several months, the article is asking for it really, therefore I've increased the protection time to 3 months--Jac16888^Talk 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that when the history finally popped up. Thanks for the quick reaction. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully with a break from the vandalism someone might get a chance to actually work on it. Actually I'm amazed its never been protected before now, its barely had any valid edits in months--Jac16888^Talk 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New attack at: Ianto Jones. Jarkeld (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bam!! i.e. done--Jac16888^Talk 02:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New attack at Russia. Jarkeld (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

blast, DorD beat me too it this time, that damned page is huge, very slow to load--Jac16888^Talk 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Is that agonizing slowness because of the server, simultaneous pageviews, or something about the page itself? Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Think it was that page, rest of the 'pedia seems fine, figured it was due to the 200,000k page--Jac16888^Talk 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another attack. Neuqua Valley High School. Jarkeld (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, me and DorD got it at the exact same time and length--Jac16888^Talk 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the NSFW thread: (I assume you know what goes here)/b/res/191437608 —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New attack at Desert Vista High School. What is the best way of preemptively stop these attacks?

• Best way to preemptively stop a /b/ attack is to get a mole in there to prot every article suggested. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

btw: thread 404'd. Jarkeld (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just keep blocking and protecting--Jac16888^Talk 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• New thread at /b/res/191462747 . Jarkeld (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread 404'd. Jarkeld (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Θraētaona

I have attempted to create Θraētaona as a redirect to Fereydun, however the site is not allowing me to do so. Would an administrator mind doing this for me? Neelix (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I can't see why you could not do it. There is also WP:AFC for this kind of request or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (if it was protected). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The title blacklist has some fairly complicated prohibitions that attempt to catch titles using mixed scripts (like Greek and Latin, for example) in order to prevent the use of lookalike characters for vandalism. That is probably what caused it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:نسر برلين

I reversed the move to restore status quo. Further discussion should be on the article talk page Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This user has moved Hameur Bouazza to Aamir Bouazza, citing that it is his Arabic name, but has not provided any sources. Every single source on the page exclusively refers to him as "Hameur". Due to the complicated way that he has conducted this move, I am unable to reverse it, and the move page suggests that contact an admin. Could someone do the honours? A request has already been made by another user at WT:FOOTY. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I think the current version is correct. The old one would make sense in French, but this is the English Wikipedia. Crum375 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I don't speak Arabic, and my French is fairly modest, but I don't quite understand your point. We go by the common name, and in England his common name is the (French?) one. Regards, WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I think the issue is the way his name sounds. Since he is an Arab speaker in a country of French origin, he uses the French spelling (in the Latin alphabet) normally. But in English his name would be as is now spelled, which is how he would pronounce it. Crum375 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia uses whatever romanicized version of the name the subject chooses. So the page should rightly be at "Hameur Bouazza" if that is how the subject spells his name in the Latin alphabet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Also, the user who moved it should rightly be reprimanded for performing the move twice just so the page cannot be moved back to the version with "Hameur" as the given name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I agree that should be mentioned, but I'm assuming good faith; as far as I can tell English is this user's third language. It's most likely a phonetic mistake. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (ec) Except it would be misleading to English speakers, who would then automatically mispronounce his name. Both names should be available, so if someone searches for the French spelling they should get there, but when they land, they should see the correct pronunciation, along with the Arab version. Crum375 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I agree that should be mentioned, but I'm assuming good faith; as far as I can tell English is this user's third language. It's most likely a phonetic mistake. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC) It would only be misleading to Arabic speakers who are translating the name. Obviously one should be a redirect to the other, but a quick glance at the references shows that the primary destination is clear-cut, per WP:COMMONNAME. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (ec)It would be misleading to any English reader who wants to know his name, since they would automatically assume it's "Hameur" (pronounced like hammour or so), whereas it's really Aamir (or close to it). There is no mistake: the Hameur spelling is fine for French, but not for English. Crum375 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Then we provide the pronunciation but have the page located at preferred spelling of his own name. This is how it works for Japanese individuals who have names that certainly do not match the standard Japanese romanization methods. Wikipedia is not a tool to teach people how to read Arabic. We use the most common name. The fact that this happens to be the French approximation of the man's name does not mean anything. The fact is that نسر برلين moved the page to an intermediary title and then moved it again so he had an excuse to edit the original redirect once he moved it to his preferred title so the page could not be moved back is a dick move.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I would agree with you that the main article name should be his own preferred version of his name in English. The spelling I see is the one he uses in French. His own name is normally spelled in Arabic, so it becomes a transliteration issue. Crum375 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC) The subject of the article is French whose name was previously parsed as a Francophone method of writing his name in the Latin alphabet. That's as close to an English name as possible. The directly transliterated name is not the most common name, which would likely come after the fact that there is no English name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I do see a problem, however, with WP being the only one to spell is that way. So I would leave the French spelling unless he personally requests us to change it. Crum375 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Although when you put it like that, there seems to be conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. His common name in England is not the English name. Clearly the page should be speedily renamed per the extremely poor technique used to move it alone (else we are encouraging such behavior, good faith or not). But you raise an interesting question. Perhaps we should bring it up at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions? WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I believe that article subjects (persons or organizations) should have first say in the spelling of their name in a given language, esp. when it's a matter of transliteration. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I've started a thread here. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (ec) But is it a matter of transliteration? He was born in France and was a french national until changing his sporting nationality to Algerian via his parental eligibility. Surely his birth certificate is in french with Hameur Bouazza and if anything Aamir is a backformation from the arabic transliteration of the french name? Or am I being silly? Nanonic (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) What you're saying is that as a French speaker, he probably uses the French name anyway? WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Well, yeah. The only other forename I can find for him is Hamer (and even that could be a misspelling). Surely if he himself had expressed a preference in the past, it'd be written down somewhere? He's had 24 years to think it over. And with the majority of the evidence available on his name going with Hameur - that's all we can work with isn't it? Surely anything else would amount to original research? Nanonic (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC) The issue is that the move should not have been made in the first place. If French language sources that use the Latin alphabet refer to the individual as "Hameur" and not "Aamir", we should use "Hameur". WP:UE explicitly says "if there is a common English form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic". This should be extended to any name written in a Latinate alphabet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Can someone action the snail request at Hameur Bouazza? For the reasons Ryu has given about the double move, the discussion is irrelevant; a double move should be undone even if correct, due to double redirects. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

I frankly don't care what happens at the BLP RfC anymore but this surely can't be the sort of behaviour we accept around here. MickMacNee already has an appaling block log. I'm out of here, when I log out in a minute I won't be able to log back in, but I suggest you do something about this sort of thing because the only people that will eventually be left on this project if this is tolerated are people like MickMacNee. Is that really what you want? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's leaders 'lead', not 'leave'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As will you, if you don't watch out. Go away. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Go away" oh the bitter irony. should we start a ANI thread about this too? Keep in mind the arbcom ruled this summer that the comment "go away" was one of three edit diffs prompting an editor to be officially warned. Ikip 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, I was out of line on that last sentence. I apologise. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more than ironic that all of this is going on during the Dramaout.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dramaout ended 6 hours, 19 minutes ago. --Jayron32 06:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

was going on. Woogee (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would prefer to see MickMacNee strike out the blatant personal attacks there, calling another person "incompetant" and making allusions that they should be shot in the head is probably a tad bit "over the top" and by tad bit, I mean "absofuckinglutely over the top". That has to stop, now. I will not block, but I would not oppose or object should another admin see this as a gross personal attack. --Jayron32 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MMN's harsh rhetoric shows no sign of stopping[127] I for one considered his earlier statement that editors mentioned above completely inappropriate, and part of an ongoing pattern. I'm heading off to bed right now, so I am not going to block and head off, but I would support a block by an uninvolved administrator. NW (Talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing this at a time earlier than 2:00 A.M local time, I can see that that post was not not at all a violation NPA. The rest of my comment still stands though. NW (Talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Full quote:

"*The Foundation has Section 230 immunity. All this talk of lawsuits is tedious b.s., the phantom lawsuit that will bring down Wikipedia if Something Is Not Done has been 'around the corner' ever since I've been here. It is activist propoganda, nothing more, nothing less. The reason the policy actualy exists, is one of ethics, not law. There is a difference. Namely, what you might think is ethical, others might not. As for arbcom making policy, what are people smoking if they genuinely believed before this motion that it was either community or indeed admin consensus that the simple existence of material, whatever it said, was 'contentious' as regards the BLP policy, or that under any previously imaginable interpretation of IAR/admin discretion/aggressive enforcement, this brief episode of Total War of the cabal against the community, was justified, let alone excusable. The wording of the motion is a pure retcon of the actual events. Go and read the evidence if anyone doubts it." 06:25, 23 January 2010.

Ikip 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Vyvyan, what evidence are you seeing that I am not concerning a block log? There is nothing on there that indicates that he was ever blocked for doing something wrong. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see anything imflamatory other than that of those two edits. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

_Ummm... this?? You don't see a pattern here? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was on the wrong page I guess. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who warned MickMacNee about this edit diff originally. The full quote (including the added oppose) is:

"*Oppose Most 'leaders' usually deliver eventually, or finally figure out that they themselves are the problem and step down, or ultimately they get shot in the back of the head. Failure after failure, for five years? You are no leader, you're incompetent."

The bottom line is general comments at a vague group of editors is usually not actionable as a personal attack. I am not aware of any times myself.

I was concerned that he was talking about leader, Bearian, who commented directly above him. He was not. I will ask MickMacNee to strike the comment again. Ikip 00:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Harsh rhetoric, but certainly no worse than some of the comments made by the BLP-deletionistas about the community in genreal. I do worry about the mentality of editors who cannot cope with strong criticism and come running for blocks when someone criticises them. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I also worry about the mentality and mental well-being in general of people who think that "Politicians talk, leaders act" warrants an indef block threat from Arthur Rubin (self-reverted in his defence but not retracted), trolling by Sandstein, trolling by Balloonman and references to physical violence by MickMacNee ("shot in the head", "bang, bang"). If this constitutes normal behaviour in your eyes then I pity you. I wasn't going to log back in but the failure to see a problem here was too much. That's the last you'll ever hear from me. I put up with the block threat and the trolling but not the physical violence remark. I will not put up with that and neither will any other sane person. If you continue to allow and reward the behaviour shown by MikMacNee you'll end up with nothing but people who're willing to put up with such behaviour. I ask again, is this really the sort of people you want to attract to this project? I sincerely hope not but I frankly don't care anymore. Goodbye. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

'Incompetent' is in no way a personal attack, but simply a judgement of leadership capability (in a venue specifically asking for opinions on said subject no less). The shot in the head part was out of line- and frankly a pretty immature comment. --M^ask? 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What in MickMacNee's post was anything other than a loud and perhaps colourful declaration of his own opinion? If Giano had posted the same piece nobody would blink an eyelid. This seems like a non-event and IMO should be closed as this board is only for incidents requiring administrative attention. Orderinchaos 08:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)