Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633

User:Cunibertus

A couple of days ago after reading a book written by university of Harvard professor John Fine I expanded the articles Sicani, Sicels and Ancient peoples of Italy and History of the Alps. Cunibertus then reverted me on Sicani and Ancient peoples of Italy and left a very disruptive article talkpage message saying is this intended to be fun or a vandalism ?. Later he even went so far as to say that only Albanian nationalist groups make such claims(although John Fine is a Harvard professor, so there might be a BLP violation here), reported me for vandalism [1] and on ANI [2] saying that I have initiated a campaign of Illyrization, although my edits aren't related to any racial purity claims but the opposite In 1300 BC the eastern Alps were settled by the Illyrian tribe of the Norici that later mixed with the native population.. Cunibertus apart from misusing the policy, making personal attacks(and possible BLP violations), didn't even inform me that he had reported me on all those boards.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have informed User:Z he cannot change unilaterally the meaning of a voice when there isn't a general consensus on the matter - specifically when he supports nationalistic oriented claims (illyricism in the specific) - and I invited him to improve eventually the voice Enotri where founded basis of illyrism exist or alternatively to present correctly the different theories about the origins of the sicilian ancient peoples he wanted to change unilaterally, best regards Cunibertus (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then bring your sources but you can't report people you disagree with for vandalism. Btw these edits are very disruptive [3][4] since you removed sourced content.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Z, but I asked you if you were kidding with your really surprising statements of illyrism, and you didn't replay me - so I supposed you were a teen-age vandal and not an effective user. about the Norici, I do not know what are you speaking about as it isn't in my watchlist, but knowing that the Norici were very probably a mixed people with a later celtic predominance (or may be a fully celtic people) who lived on the very celtic side of the celtic-illyric border I guess other people will soon ask you for explanations. btw, you should also distinguish between proto-illyrians and different meanings of illyrian as the name encompassing a 2,000 years long period and also different academical usages isn't very clear in many situations Cunibertus (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cunibertus please read WP:OR because these edits are considered disruptive[5][6].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The source for the claim "Most modern scholars believe that the Sicani were originally an Illyrian tribe that gained control of areas previously inhabited by native tribes." doesn't seem to back the statement. Hopefully you aren't working off a snipped and have a quote in context for this? How it his removal of that OR? Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, i'm confused. The source states "Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of an Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal "Mediterranean" population."

And the edit that thew OP added was "Most modern scholars believe that the Sicani were originally an Illyrian tribe that gained control of areas previously inhabited by native tribes." They match up. I see no OR here whatsoever. The OP's statement looks to be valid, as removal of his statement is pretty much just removing sourced content. Silverseren^C 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And I apparently get no response. ._. Silverseren^C 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To explain, the link used in the reference was this one. When you view it initially, it is cut off which is probably why Dougweller was confused. You have to click in the little box showing the scanned book page to see the rest of the reference, where you'll see that yes, the OP's information was backed up by the source.

To get back to the original matter... Cunibertus assumed that ZjarriRrethues was a vandal and was mistaken, and apologized above. I'd like to leave Cunibertus a strong reprimand about a failure to use edit summaries, especially when you are reverting someone else's edits it is extremely important to explain your reason for doing so. Anything else is a content dispute and shouldn't be handled here. -- Atama頭 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I notified about the revert on the talk page Talk:Sicani and User:ZjarriRrethues too directly because I am unexpert about the correct procedings to do it and for problems with my connection internet line who does not permit me complex operations. the content dispute is resolved as long as it is my concern with a more balanced edit thank also the mediation of a third user Cunibertus (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

walled garden of articles controlled by subject

The subject or someone claiming to be the subject Mic Neumann seems to have a walled garden of articles - Kung Faux, Mic Neumann, Tommy Boy Entertainment that he will not allow any clean-up or citation work to occur, he simply reverts to his preferred (and favourable version). Looking at this history, this has been going on for months if not years - I became aware of the problem as he has been trying to insert (unsourced) claims about his influence on the work of Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright and films such as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Communication with him is fragmented as he leaps from IP to IP, and I am at a bit of a blank how to proceed. It's pointless at the moment trying to clean-up the articles or fact-tag them as it's simply removed.

The IPs that I've come across (and I'm sure there are more) are:

68.36.175.168 68.36.173.50 68.81.1.107

Suggestions? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, one could always semi-protect all of the pages in question, make the valid and sourced edits :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably a good idea. I'm unhappy with an IP claiming to be someone and then claiming because they are that person they know more than anyone else about the articles. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• If he is claiming to be a living person of note, then request he self identify to the project or that he gets a name change. If he self identifies then he should stick to the talk pages of articles he has a citable conflict of interest with. When people are claiming to be someone we need to deal with it and not allow it to just continue on. He either identifies to the project or stops claiming to be that person. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He doesn't have an account so there is nothing to name change, he simply hops from IP to IP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Right thanks I missed that. I also saw the AFD and that article looks on its way to article heaven. It does seem to be hard to deal with these situations. The few similar I have been involved with seem to drag on for months. Semi protection of all the articles is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • He's just arrived for the 'evening shift' (or I guess the day shift for the other side of the water), so I guess we are in for more fun and games this evening. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • After he had removed the AfD tags a couple of times, I lost patience and semi-protected Mic Neumann for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Now editing as Squeezedot (talk · contribs) after being blocked as 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) - can someone take care of it or do I need to do a SPI? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Squeezedot blocked indef. WP:DUCK. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
              • • Whoa, wait -- we're blocking a named account indefinitely for evading an IP block????? Not a good idea.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • *Thinks* OK, that wasn't my smartest move. Will reduce to one week. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • It's fairly clear that these are all one single person, not least because xe has said so: See "I am Mic Neumann for Christ Sake ! - I created Kung Faux & Dubtitled & Popdetail & Co-founded Nylon Magazine & Tommy Boy Entertainment ! - I am the source !" and "who is going to know what the meaning of the Skull & Chopsticks logo means without me stating it, since only I know what it stands for ?". All of these accounts, with related names, writing the same content across multiple articles (we've just gained Dubtitled Entertainment created by Squeezedot, in place of Dubtitled created by Squeezdot), that is information only one person in the world is supposed to even know? I'd say that it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • "Now"? Now is relative. Notice that the original creator of some of these articles was Squeezdot (talk · contribs), note the spelling. I have no doubt that there's only one real person here, not least because 68.81.1.107 (talk · contribs) took over editing roughly 4 minutes after 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) left off, in addition to what I mentioned above. I've revoked the other IP address' editing privileges until after the end of the AFD discussions, given what it was doing. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to look at restricting this guy to a single account. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reasonable requirement. Got any canned wording handy we can opine on?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Squeezdot remains unblocked, note. So that's effectively what has happened. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, but Squeezedot is only blocked for a week now. So eventually he will be back to at least two accounts, and may well feel free to create more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • See this edit by 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) - clearly BLP vandalism. This IP has been around for 3 months now, clearly a static IP address, virtually every other edit just self-publicity, eg [7]. The other IP, 68.81.1.107 (talk · contribs), has been around since Nov 1 2009, also a static IP Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• But for the drama, I'd WP:SNOW close the AFD and salt. Once the article(s?) are gone, the disruption should cease as he goes off to do other things. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Faux isn't a snow closure. People are rising to the challenge. And Dubtitled/Dubtitled Entertainment aren't even nominated. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I was referring specifically to Mic Neumann. Agree, the others aren't so clear cut. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

TurnWorst unblock request

After this ANI thread, concerning a complaint of outing and the oversight of edits, I blocked TurnWorst (talk · contribs) for these legal threats.

I left a message, but (my bad) neglected to watch the page. He's responded a few days ago to that message (see User talk:TurnWorst), and more recently posted this on my talk page. I'm afraid I'm tired and really can't work out WTF to make of this, so I'm posting here for someone else (hopefully) to pick up. I leave it with others to decide what to do, I'll not object to anyone unblocking if it merits it.--Scott Mac 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards unblocking, as it looks like a valid withdrawal of said legal threat. Any other objections before I do that? –MuZemike 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If the user had only made a legal threat, I would agree that an unequivocal withdrawal of the threat would warrant unblocking. But in this case, the user emphasized that he actually filed a criminal complaint against another editor, based on that editor's edits, albeit the edits in question had to be oversighted and that we are told that the matter was subsequently resolved. Escalating an on-wiki dispute to the level of a criminal investigation obviously is not consistent with remaining an editor absent truly extraordinary circumstances, and I would think a rather more complete investigation would be required before we could consider unblocking. If, as appears here, confidential information would be involved in the investigation, the matter must be referred to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the account is a ten day old single purpose account, it is of itself of little value. The user has posted from an IP since the block and (although perhaps only once). Seems to me that he'll soon realise he can create another account. If it is deemed that the user should not edit, then that would need communicated clearly to him, and perhaps enforced by a checkuser if he doesn't comply. But, I honestly can decipher his posts, and am not sure whether this is serious or just a half-baked troll.--Scott Mac 00:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we direct the user to appeal said block to ArbCom if that is more appropriate in this case? If it is a "half-baked troll", then he either will not bother or is going to be "facing the music" as they say. –MuZemike 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just expanding on what was already said: this is indeed an SPA who engaged in only one thing, the AfD for an obviously notable person. I am sure you all looked at the other side also--this editor and User:Marwatt made a nice mess of things. Perhaps MuZemike's advice should be followed here. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's actually more Newyorkbrad's advice than mine :) –MuZemike 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing off-topic, insulting commentary from an AfD

Resolved

 – User banned from Art student scam, no consensus on topic ban.

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art student scam

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.

User imposed self ban on article, no consensus for topic ban

---

Mbz1 apparently does not like the way this AfD is trending, posting a comment denigrating those in favor of keeping it by labeling this and other articles as "Wikipedia's hall of shame of smearing Israel". This is trolling, and I called it as such in my attempt to remove it. It had nothing to do with the discussion of the article at hand, all it serves is to incite other editors in Israeli-Palestinian topic area, and this is an area that certainly doesn't need more fanning of the flames. Another editor attempted to remove this was well, but was reverted yet again.

I'd also note the reference to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which effectively turns Mbz1's screed into a thinly-veiled charge of antisemitism against other editors as well.

This needs a more authoritative hand to step in and remove the offending passage and caution this user against using AfDs for personal soapboxes and attacking other editors. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's comment on AfD

Mbz1 first made this comment on the AfD for Art student scam, which is clearly not appropriate and is skimming the line of NPA, as it can easily be construed as an attack on anyone who voted Keep in the AfD. Tarc then reverted the comment, with the edit summary of "rv: trolling. AfDs are to discuss whether or not to keep/delete/etc the article in question, not to make general, critical commentary of the subject area, or to disparage other editors".

Mbz1 then reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism, bring it to an/i, but do not touch other people comments", calling Tarc's revert vandalism, when NPA is quite clear in a user's capability to revert things that can be considered a personal attack.

Tarc reverted it back, edit summary of "re-read WP:NPA at your leisure".

Again, Mbz1 reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism", again calling something vandalism that clearly wasn't.

I then stepped in to revert it, with the edit summary of "This is definitely NPA".

Then, Mbz1 reverted it back again, for the third time, but re-phrased the comment this time, removing some of the NPA, but still keeping a comment that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Mbz1 then left this comment on my talk page. I'm not quite sure on what he means about trying to "hide the unwanted truth".

I will now go inform the other involved users about this discussion and leave this up to the community to discuss. Silverseren^C 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we made it at the same time. I'm changing mine to a level 3 header under Tarc's. Silverseren^C 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Mbz1 removed our notification of this ANI discussion on his talk page, with the edit summary "who cares". So, we did notify him. Silverseren^C 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The number of Ad Hominems and accusations of smearing and conspiracy theory at that AfD is really disrupting the discussion, I believe. It seems a significant number of people who have made very reasoned explanations for voting "keep" have been denigrated as supporting conspiracy theories and it seems a group of editors are attempting to sway the AfD by now implying antisemitism and cabalistic smear. This very much has a chiling effect on the discussion as nobody wants to be accused of antisemitism. These Ad Hominems need to stop and the discussion must be allowed to continue on the merits of the article itself, with WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NPOV in mind. I strongly believe that this will end up at ArbCom at some point, and probably the sooner the better. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What i'm worried about is what the state of the article will fall into after the AfD, as that group of editors still has strict control of the talk page. Silverseren^C 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment I do not believe that the comment I made falls under any definition of of a personal attack, but even, if it did, according to this the complete removal of the comment was unwarranted and that's why I called the removal of it vandalism. Although I still do not believe my comment was a PA I rephrased it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It was correctly removed regardless of NPA, because it was utterly irrelevant to the deletion discussion whilst attempting to influence other editors. The AfD is not there for you to attack other editors or soapbox about Wikipedia content. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was not " attempting to influence other editors". The deletion request is going to be closed today or tomorrow, kind of to late to influence something. It was rather my conclusion (for the record only) about deletion request for an attacking and insulting article. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just found this on RomaC's talkpage, who is one of the users involved in trying to make the Art student scam article better. Silverseren^C 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand why you voted to keep the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Care to detail your understanding of why Silver seren voted to keep? Unomi (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, Mbz1 (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction placed by Lar (talk · contribs) here. The restriction applies to all pages, not just articles, and Mbz1's last unblock was apparently contingent upon a promise not to edit-war anymore. That promise, and the 1RR, appear to have been broken in this case. I don't think this falls under a "blatant vandalism" exception. That said, if the AfD has more or less run its course and Mbz1 has edited their comment into a slightly more acceptable form, then a block would probably be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell, as I explained, I did consider removal of my comment to be a blatant vandalism. If you believe otherwise, please do block me. I should not have violated my 1RR not under any circumstances. except vandalism. The block will not be punitive it will be deserved, but once again I believe the comment was not PA, and removal of it was vandalism. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, bit is there a substantive difference between version 1 and version 2? I don't see how the slight rewording changed the tone or intent. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal topic ban Mbz1 for Art student scam

Consider yourself banned from that article. Be sure to report yourself if you violate the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong support Because I consider that article to be extremely insulting, and extremely attacking, because the more I touch it the more it stinks, I am asking the community to ban me for this article indefinitely. It will be much easier on me and on community. I do mean it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC) This seems a little melodramatic. If the article offends you to the point that you can't edit it objectively, then just take it off your watchlist and don't edit it. MastCell Talk 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Who said I was going to edit that article? There's nothing to edit except delete and forget. I stated my opinion on the deletion request, and look what I've got! I agree my proposal is melodramatic , and I am sorry for that, but just in case that article will be split in two, and new deletion requests will come about, it will be good to have this nice ban in place, I mean it will be safer for me. In any case please do with me as you wish. I'll accept any punishment as a fair one, and with that I am outtahere.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 'Non-Admin Comment- I don't see how that comment has been elevated to the level of attention that it is currently getting. If the comment by MBz1 was uncivil then the user should have been reported appropriatly, rather than the comment being removed by other users. Comments, other than gross violations of WP:BLP, should never be removed by any one. Things like that always make me question the removing editors motives. Doing so, always leads to problems and it would seem that this would have gone away quietly and everyone would have simply moved on, except for the fact that two users decided to remove the offending comment. Civility aside, it looks like the entire AFD was ripe with the same type of comments, and for some reason, this is the comment that was being reverted. Next time, I would suggest Tarc and Silver Seren, go through the proper process with a WP:EQ, rather than set themselves up for continued drama at ANI. I understand that the topic is controversial, and that Mbz1 most likely didn't need to add more fuel to the so called fire, but as the saying goes, lets agree to disagree and move on. Unfortunatly this won't happen now, and the drama looks to have continued here.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I treated the comment in the same way I would treat mindless soapboxing found on article talk pages from time to time. I have no qualms about this removal, especially as it leveled the dreaded "antisemite!" insinuation at other editors, and will not hesitate to remove such posts in the future. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) This seems to be boiling up out of control - and hardly seems worth it. Scrub the comment (there is no need to stick your POV on the discussion with a vague attack on the editors involved into an AFD), warn the user and move on. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Agree , lets close and move on. Way too much drama over this comment.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC) This is such silly waste of time. I can't really understand editors that contribute so much to this project,[8] but I surely can't fathom why editors spend so much time just drama mongering over this silliness.[9]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Wait, you forgot me. :D SilverserenC 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Seems that brewcrew subscribes to the Betacommand Theory of Civility; more edits means you are given greater leeway to denigrate others. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC) This is the theory I subscribe to: If an editor's ratio of ANI edits to other edits reach a certain point, the project if better off without said editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Then you are certainly invited to initiate a separate AN/I thread on me and this wonderfully interesting proposal of yours. Here, I'd prefer to stick to the topic of Mbz1's misconduct rather than join your fishing expedition, if that's ok by you. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC) It sure is. You may find this weird, but I don't actually enjoy initiating ANI threads.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Mbz1 from articles relating to Israel

No Consensus

Recently the editor in question came out of a 3 month topic ban largely for the same reasons that the ANI thread started, persistent allegations and/or allusions to antisemitic bents of other editors. Original topic ban, her first unsuccessful appeal, and second unsuccessful appeal. She is a valuable contributor on other fronts but I really don't think that her involvement in this particular topic area does the project or herself much good, at this point the editor seems to have established an inability to refrain from charging that other editors are anti-semitic when operating in this general topic area. Support as proposer. Unomi (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Info Four days ago while being blocked Unomi, the user, who proposed the ban called me "psychotic bitch".--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) How is that relevant? It's an ad hominem attack. This discussion is about you, not Unomi. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Info : Just in the last few weeks I wrote those articles: The Holocaust's Arab Heroes Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship all with the only purpose to promote the peace in Middle East. Do you really want to ban me on those articles?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Info Except the articles I counted, and that were started by me I hardly, practically never, edit any articles concerning Israel and/or I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose, as Mbz1 has been one of the most prolific content creators on Israel related topics, which clearly outweigh any of this nonsense. However, support banning certain editors who spend a disproportionate time on ANI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) A rather large amount of her edits to the area would fall under POV pushing, she consistently manages to downplay information that she holds personal disagreements with. And a number of the articles that she did create started off as coatracks, see fx Maimonides Synagogue and Robert Kennedy in Palestine along with the accompanying hook. On the Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib she went as far as trying to filibuster the DYK by removing it from the queue, due to a pertinent quote by the leader of Al-Aqsa stating that they blessed the organ donation to Israelis - an incredibly poignant quote imo and one which was in there during the AfD and scrutiny by a number of editors. Unomi (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I wonder why now, after few months of knowing how unfair, and how biased unomi is I am still getting surprised by every unfair and biased comment by him, like the one above for example. Here are the articles I started. 3/4 of them have absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict, yet unomi selects three from those 50+ articles, and greatly misrepresents the stories even about those ones. Unbelievable!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I don't know who you are trying to kid here Mbz1. Yes, you have created a number of articles that are not in the I/P area, and I think that you do your most constructive work under those conditions. However look at where you spend your time - 8 out of your top 10 edited talkpages relate directly to the Israel - Arab conflict. I am not misrepresenting anything that I am aware, if you feel differently please point to specifics. I think it is great that you contribute to wikipedia outside of I/P - I am just concerned with your engagement within the I/P area. Unomi (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC) OMG. I write articles in my sandboxes, and then transfer them to main space User:Mbz1/article3 ; User:Mbz1/article ; User:Mbz1/article2 (see history for all of those). Of course how whould you know. You've never written an article yourself. Besides when was the last time I edit the articles you're talking about? Could you please just try to be fair, just once in a while. I am getting more and more convinced that Wikipeia will be much better off without you--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I think both of you need to calm down and stop it with the personal attacks and incivility, and discuss specific grievances objectively, and with diffs. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that being "prolific" is meaningless, if they are prolifically arguing with other users and trashing articles. Calling what is happening here "nonsense" doesn't make it so. And as far as users who "spend a disproportionate time on ANI", that's to be expected on a topic where advocacy groups are running a deliberate campaign to rewrite history with a pro-Israel bias, on top of the already high level of insanity that nationalism and religious zealotry are associated with. I think that, for this topic, editors working through ANI should not be banned, but commended for working through the appropriate channels, rather than getting into edit wars and arguments. This is not to say that I support or oppose a ban on Mbz1 -- I don't know enough about the issue. I'm just saying that, being "prolific" is irrelevant, that calling something nonsense doesn't mean anything, and that ANI seems like a better option than most other solutions for this particular topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose, per Brewcrewer. A long-term valuable contributor, and the problems raised are not sufficient to justify a topic ban. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Weak oppose Mbz1 is a productive editor, but I think she she needs to control her emotions better. I oppose a topic ban at this time, with the hope she cuts back on the disruptive comments, which may sometimes border on personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Comment, but probable support - I note this user's strenuous efforts to get another user topic-banned, so perhaps "what's good for the goose...", as they say. Users who cannot conduct themselves maturely when dealing with a sensitive/controversial topic should find a new area of interest, and no amount of productive editing should be allowed to mitigate bad behavior. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I sure made "strenuous efforts" to topic ban a single article account, whose "contributions" are listed here (not by me BTW).Comparing my contributions to her contributions only show how biased you really are. BTW not only you are biased here. I am 100% sure, that, if I did only 20% of what "the other user" have done, I would have been banned from wikipedia for good.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Info here's an example of the extremely civil Tarc's language in response to my comment on his talk page: "Srsly, grow the fuck up. You're a POV-warring, partisan hack."--Mbz1 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC) And I stand by that comment 100%. You came to my page whining, and I told you, your wiki-buddies and your wiki-opponents off. The I-P topic area is a poisoned cesspool, created and perpetuated by people like you with your comment in the AfD today. As long as the battleground is populated with warriors, it will continue to be a cesspool. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose. For the reasons stated by the above opposers, who are the broad majority at the moment. This may well be worth closing early, as it clearly doesn't have support (other than Tarc's "probable" support based on his suggestion that raising consideration of a topic ban qualifies one for a topic ban ... which I for one don't find very convincing).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose Mbz1 is a productive content contributor in this area of articles. A topic ban in this case will cause harm only to the encyclopedia, which must come first, unless in the most extreme circumstances. This were not proven, and aren't even close. However, maybe a ban on Unomi from suggesting various bans being inflicted upon Mbz1 is in order. Broccoli (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC) And then suggest one for you for suggesting one on him for suggesting one on her? Ect, ect. SilverserenC 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose. I'm glad I stayed away from that AfD after I commented. Mbz1 takes content that might reflect negatively on Israel extremely personally - she even had the gall to imply on my talk page that I'm a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the Israelis had foreknowledge of 9/11 - but even that doesn't make me think we should ban her from all Israel-related articles. I do think she needs to calm down and stop suspecting everyone of being raging anti-semites. Fences&Windows 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC) " I do think she needs to calm down..." Agreed. I also think it is more than(edit: not necessarily) "suspecting everyone of being raging anti-semites". There is some harsh language. This is both sometimes a response to and sometimes mirrored by other editors. Regardless of who started it and who is worse it is clear that some chilling out is needed. Not saying there needs to be any ban, it is all MbZ1s fault, or that some level of discord is unfortunately expected. Just try to tone it down, Mbz1.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) @Cptnono, I am afraid I cannot "tone it down" at "suspecting everyone of being raging anti-semites" simply because I have never ever, never ever, never ever said something that was even close to that. So I hope you'd agree that I really cannot tone down something that I have never said.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Apologies for not being clear. I meant the other language that is some time a little pointed such as the recent message to RomaC. Although I agree with the sentiment, it could have been worded more tactfully. It is hypocritical for me to say anything because I have been a raging dickhead to people but since there is so much scruitiny it would be best if we tried a little harder.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)  Done [10].--Mbz1 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC) You're the best. Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose per above, although toned down responses on both sides would be a fresh and desirable outcome...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Just because someone doesn't like the way an AFD goes, and makes a comment to that effect, doesn't a problem editor make. Now lets close and move on please.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Comment - I don't have time to research the details of recent incidents. But I can relate that I've had two interactions with mbz1 on Israel-related issues, and in both cases, mbz1 was very irrational, incivil, and disruptive. I recall that, eventually, I was able to get the well-sourced, neutral material inserted into the articles, but it took way too much effort. I can't really say "support" at the moment, but I would say that if mbz1 continues what appears to be a long-term, combative approach to editing, then a block/ban may be appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose: Of all the looney ANIs I've seen, I think this one tops the cake. The ANI is baseless and without merit. The person who should be sanctioned is the proposer of this rediculous ANI. Also, Unomi's reference to mbz1 as a "psychotic bitch" is a horrible personal attack and there should be no place in Wikipedia for that sort of abuse.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I think this vote ought to be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Request I am tired from responding to ungrounded, no differences provided accusations (I forgot, when last time I had a "pleasure" to be "irrational, incivil, and disruptive" to a single purpose account Noleander, who right now concentrates his efforts on such article as Racism in Israel )I will not respond those accusations any more. But here's my request to a closing admin: I hope I am not topic banned (it will be more than unfair, if I am), but if I am I need a few more hours (maybe a day or two) to finish an article I am working on now.I believe that delay will not make a big difference. That article is not going to create any problems. Let's say it is my last wish before being executed ☺☺☺ Please do allow me to finish the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) If you don't like "responding to accusations", Mbz1, then maybe you should quite making them. In the above post I count at least one accusation (against User: Noleander). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose Reading through this, I can't escape the impression that this is little more than a personal grudge. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC) It seems unlikely that this proposal will pass, nonetheless, please note that in April the user was topic banned for 3 months due to her calling other editors antisemitic when faced with opposition, and now she indulges in the same behavior. Yes, me and Mbz1 are unlikely to be Best Friends Forever, but that shouldn't detract from the issues at hand. Unomi (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Well if she's been topic-banned before for the same behavior and hasn't learned her lesson, then I don't see why we should give her a pass the second time around. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Reading through this I can't help but feel that Mbz1 has some serious civility and drama issues and the net benefit is extremely questionable.--Crossmr (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose I see some of the same names I have come across in other discussions related to Israel/Jews and in each discussion those editors have always been with opinions and positions that add content of a variety that is most definitely POV against Israel/Jews. I am trying my best to give AGF about their motives, sure maybe they do it to "balance" articles. But the point is this AN/I thread from the beginning and now this topic ban is a typical attempt to ban an editor who is pro-Israel/Jews. It was attempted against me at one time with the comment made against me "you are Jewish so you have a COI and shouldnt edit Jewish articles". Anytime someone rightly points out that certain editors are constantly only interested in putting in anti-Jewish material to an extreme and keeping out anything "good" then they are hounded and pushed until they slip up and then accused just like Mbz1 is right now. Lets stand up and say no more.Camelbinky (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Should I consider myself morally stung by your indirect comment that only I would know is directed at me? SilverserenC 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Agreed; the above comment by Camelbinky is a veiled personal attack and a blatant AGF violation as well. It should probably be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Weak Oppose The edit to the AfD was ill-considered, and Mbz1 needs to be aware that making (however vague) accusations of anti-semitism against other editors (per the reference to Resolution 3379) is a particularly bad idea, but a topic ban isn't needed purely for this error. (Edit: Changing to "weak" because I didn't realise Mbz1 had been topic banned before for similar antics.) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I've just re-read my initial comment and I could not find anything that even remotely looks as accusation of "anti-semitism", not even anything that looks close to it. I said the article has a stong anti-Israeli bias, and it is. Maybe I used a strong language, but there was nothing about antisemitism in my comment. So, I will appreciate if you either clarify your comment, or remove it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Your comment insinuates that people who voted "Keep" on this AfD had the same motivations as those who voted for Res.3379 - which was widely seen as anti-Semitic. If that's not what you meant, you should have redacted it when you were called on it; since you haven't I can only assume that was your meaning. So no, I won't be removing that comment. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for you clarification. When I linked to the resolution I considered it to be an Anti-Israeli resolution, but not anti-Semitic. Now I see where you're coming from, and I believe that resolution could be called an anti-Semitic resolution. I assure you I was far from accusing all users, who voted to keep the article of being anti-Semites. I would have redacted that link now, but AfD is closed. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC) OK, that's fair enough; however in future I'd still recommend not making comments in AfDs that comment on the contributor rather than the content. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Agree. You are right on that one. I just realized an interesting point you made about the the resolution being anti-Semitic (and once again, when I linked to it I considered it to be an Anti-Israeli only). That resolution "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". Wikipedia has articles Racism in Israel, and Israel and the apartheid analogy that apparently is going to be renamed to Israel and apartheid (who needs that stupid "analogy" anyway? Right?)So? No,I'd better stop here. Once again you are right about commenting on the contributions versus contributors. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose topic ban, support blocking Unomi for WP:NPA and disruption. Basket of Puppies Mbz1 is the one who has been violating NPA. The above vote should probably be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose When I looked at it, admittedly quite some time ago, the student art scam article had problems, to the say the least. Maybe some temporary disengagement from all concerned would be the best at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Mbz1 is a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia and should continue her good work. User:Tarc should be sanctioned for both removing her comment from the AfD page, and for filing this ridiculous report, along with User:Unomi who suggests here to ban his colleague with no good reason. There was no accusation of Antisemitism in Mbz's comment, and it represents her legitimate opinion on an article that, IMO, will finally be deleted or dramatically rewritten. This distasteful technique to use the admin boards to get rid of opponents or contributors you don't like, or to gain the upper hand in disputes, shouldn't continue without appropriate admin reaction. We are not at war here, and the combative conduct of some people here is highly disruptive to the goals of this project. Noon (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC) So you don't want people to use the admin boards to get rid of people that you don't like, yet in your previous sentence you use the admin board to suggest sanctions on people? That's not contradictory at all, then. Meanwhile, the conversation between myself and Mbz1 above explains why their comments at the AfD might have been seen as accusing people of Anti-Semitism. I think this probably needs to be closed now, as Mbz1 seems aware of the problem, and it's generating more heat than light now. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) It is clear that I was referring to the tactics of trying to use the admin boards as a means to get the upper hand in disputes or kick away accounts you don't like. This should be stopped. For disputes you have all kinds of dispute resolusions mechanisms, and admin boards is not one of them. Accounts who use this bad tactics should be considered disruptive and should expect appropriate action by the closing admin. If you don't see the difference between the filing party who uses this board wrongly, and the one who comments and criticizes such a conduct, then, I'm afraid, there is a comprehension problem, and not in my part. Noon (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC) This isn't a proposed "ban" againt Mbz (as Noon seems to think) but rather a topic ban. That, and the obviously contradictory nature of Noon's stance, as Black Kite pointed out, makes me believe Noon's vote should be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Although English is not my mother tongue, I can read the title of this thread, which says "topic ban", and I was referring to this title when I mentioned "ban". This bad faith attitude of yours puts in question your remark, and I suggest that this one and all other remarks you spreaded all over this thread should be ignored. Noon (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose. User:Mbz1 has been putting a lot of effort into cleaning up the article Art Student Scam. It sounds like a bunch of other users was misbehaving. (Huey45 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)) Comment So far I have not commented here, since Mbz reacts to my edits like a bull to a red rag. However, having just deleted part of this edit, I must add that Mbz appears to be seeking martyrdom. Egregious personal attacks (some of which have been directed at me) are bad enough; but linking these attacks to extra-Wikipedia material in order to speculate about the identity and motivations of an editor is absolutely unacceptable. For this edit alone, even if she escapes sanction for the other allegations here, Mbz deserves a serious sanction. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Well as usually user:RolandR misrepresented the facts. He just removed the part of my comment with the edit summary " Removing "outing" comments". The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. More than that: so called outing was discussed here, and user:Sandstein gave user:JRHammond advise what to do about this. The user never followed up on the admin's advise, but I'm going to AGF, and say you,rolandr, did not know about all of that. Of course there was neither outing not attack in my comment at AE. @rolandr, I assure you I do not react at your edits "like a bull to a red rag". I have absolutely different feeling towards your edits, remember I told you about that somewhere in April I guess. Nothing has changed ever since. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC) It has indeed been on the user's talk page for some time, and he lodged a complaint about this outing. Sandstein, while declining to take action on this, did describe it as "probably in violation of WP:OUTING". I was not aware of this until a few minutes ago; but Mbz was involved in the discussion about this, and clearly was aware. So she confirms that, despite the protests of the editor involved, and despite a caution by an admin, she continues to post a link to an article allegedly by JRHammond. There is no excuse for this; it is both outing and harassment. RolandR (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Just drop it, do not misrepresent Sandstein's comments. The "outing" has been displayed at the user:JRHammond talk page for quite some time. The user never bothered to ask to oversight it. It is still there, at least it was a few hours ago. I consider your continuing postings here as harassment. Stop it, and stop it now!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Info I am going to add that for the record the info to show the real face of User:RolandR. Here's a talk page of the user, who used language like that: "When did this version turn into Nazipedia? And why are you ... behaving like an totalitarian asshole?" "Are people really supporting his kind of fascistoid bullshit?" "Answer my questions instead of behaving like an Nazi asshole!" So what self described as having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry User:RolandR does to that user? Well, he gives him so called The Kafka Award desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I can't make heads or tails of this comment, actually. If you're trying to "expose" or "show the real face" of other editors, you are violating WP: NPA. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I have no idea what Mbz is talking about. I did not make any of the remarks she refers to, I do not use such language, and I do not recognise the comments. If they were left by other editors on my talk page, they are no longer there, and I cannot be held responsible for what others say. And she has the chutzpah to accuse me of misrepresentation!RolandR (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Comment I provided only very few differences to introduce my accusers. There are many more of the same. I am proud to be accused by those users. If those users supported me, then it would have meant that there's something wrong with my behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Making ad hominem attacks is not good form, and likely won't help your case. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose. This is a waste of everyone's time and Unomi should be sanctioned for this frivolous report instead. --Shuki (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Adding to Shuki's comment, Unomi should also be sanctioned for calling mbz1 a "psychotic bitch", a clear violation of WP:NPA--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Maybe you should be sanctioned for suggesting a punitive block? I mean since we're just tossing them around here apparently. Unomi must not have earned enough credits to be uncivil. But NPA standards that's 4 days old and stale. Blocks are preventative not punitive so unless you can show an on-going pattern of Unomi being uncivil since making that comment, you're not preventing anything.--Crossmr (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Whoa! psychotic bitch is totally unacceptable and it takes some balls to make such a comment in the midst of all this. If you look above, I gave Mbz1 a little bit of a hard time for her harsh comments and I think it is only appropriate that editors make it clear to Unomi that that is not cool. Four or five days does not make it OK. Don't know if a block is necessary but disregarding it is out of the question.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, it was an inappropriate response to Mbz1 dancing on my grave as it were - Mbz1 signaled her satisfaction that I was blocked for something unrelated to any past disagreements she and I might have had - I kneejerked. I have made it clear to Mbz1 that my response was inappropriate - she indicated that she didn't really care about my response but found it a convenient 'defense' to bring up here at ANI, that exchange is here. Unomi (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I do not care about that language coming from you (how one could expect something different anyway?) although I believe you should not have been unblocked, neither after the PA linked to above nor after that "Please consider suicide, kthx". What I was surprised about that after all of that you came here with your proposal to ban me! One could have thought that after all of that, you'll stop wikihounding me, but, no, here you are again. You are really something.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Shuki's vote should probably be discounted. Falsely accusing other editors of anti-Semitism is a huge violation of WP: NPA, and reporting such behavior is hardly "frivolous". Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) comment you know at this point I think we almost have a consensus to be able to add that language to WP:CIVIL that we've all been wanting. Maybe someone can draw up the "How many good contrib per rude comment" cheat sheet and finally make it public.--Crossmr (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Comment May I please ask somebody to archive that thread one way or another? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Nice try. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Support per Mbz1's personal attack on RolandR above (under the heading "Info"). Trying to cast aspersions on other users, as Mbz1 did, has no place on Wikipedia, and if she can't edit Israel-related articles without resorting to such rhetoric, she absolutely should be banned from editing them. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Stonemason's comment vote should be disregarded per his/her continued disruption of posting at just about everyone's comment that theirs should be disregarded. As far as my comment goes-dont attack my comments, opinions, etc like that again unless you are going to bring an actual complaint at a noticeboard or AN/I about me. Throwing around accusations of personal attacks without actually bringing a complaint is simply trying to ruin someone. Your entire actions and everything you have posted here has been a disruption and unhelpful at the least. Please quietly remove yourself from the discussion as you have attempted to remove at least 4 or 5 people here. And no, you are not welcome at my talk page to contact me regarding ANYTHING. And anyone else who has a problem with my post can start an AN/I thread on me and ONLY go to my talk page to inform me about it, no I dont want spurious unfounded accusations, discussions or warnings on my talk page about this.Camelbinky (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC) This discussion has become useless. I'm closing it per WP:SNOW. SnottyWong confer 19:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I see that entire proposal to ban me on the articles related to Israel as continuing abuse, harassment and wiki-hounding. I have done absolutely nothing to deserve to be banned. None of the supporters of the ban provided any difference to support their vote. I wrote few articles The Holocaust's Arab Heroes Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship to promote the peace in the region. Most of my contributions have nothing to do with I/P conflict. I am very disappointed that administrators, who saw that thread and let the harassment to continue versus closing it and warning unomi at the very least.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Please desist from casting more aspersions on your fellow editors, you consistently claim that you have been hounded and harassed, doing so without offering supporting evidence is, to my mind, uncivil. I have acknowledged that the comment I made towards you, which was an unfortunate response to actual harassment from you, was intemperate and well outside the norms that the community and I myself consider appropriate. I took ownership of my misstep and I hope that it won't happen again. I am not aware that you ever took responsibility of your missteps, apart from your theatrics where you tell admins to throw the book at you, I will do the decent thing and not provide diffs for those unless you insist. Since you persist ignoring the evidence that I had provided earlier here are a few more, your recent article on Yolande Harmer, you fail to mention what your sources present as: "She did, however have one notable success in this period, penetrating the US Embassy and obtaining secret cables sent by Jefferson Patterson .. to the State Department in Washington. One of them, which reached the Israeli Foreign Ministry in August, contained militarily useful information about the numbers of Tunisian and Algerian troops fighting with the Arab forces in Palestine" - one notable success and it is not mentioned anywhere in your article, it is impossible that you did not read that as you source to the line immediately above it. Indeed you use that 3 page source for 10 elements in the article. How did that happen? How about this edit, where you emphasize what is forwarded by 1 source while the numerous other sources that detail the events of the day have no mention of it? On that same article you remove a quote that is replicated in at least 2 sources, that I remember, of then Al-Aqsa leader stating that they blessed the organ donation and stated that their fight was not with Jews but with the occupation. A quote for hope if there ever was one, but you threaten to remove the DYK if it remains in the artcle. And then you unilaterally withdraw the DYK nomination. Or here where you directly mispresent the source (Haaretz) which quite clearly states that multiple Israelis were involved and that an Israeli ring leader was caught a short while earlier? How about here were you add a long, seemingly coatracky, entry linking the Art Student Scam to 9/11? And then you argue for deletion based on .. it looked like tabloid gossip. These are just some of the recent, blatant examples of your inability to curb your bias while editing articles that touch on this subject. I do not recall ever requesting that you were blocked, or banned from wikipedia, I have however often stated my opinion that it would be in your best interest and in the interest of a calm, deliberate editing atmosphere that you refrain from engaging in I/P articles. Do you realize that the only reason I ever entered the I/P topic area was because I commented on a random ANI thread that happened to involve you? Here is my plea to editors who have not yet had the pleasure of editing articles in the I/P sphere, try it, have a look at the talk pages, read through the offered sources. un☯mi 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) comment @the closing administrator. The above proposal was closed by an uninvolved editor .unomi vandalized the closure According to the policy "Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged."Not only unomi vandalized the other editor comment, but to call 17 to 3 votes "no consensus" was a big misrepresentation of the reality to say the least. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I accept that such an interpretation could be made. I did not really have my wikilawyer hat on when I reverted the somewhat inappropriate non-admin close. I chose to not revert the close fully as I too find that this discussion has passed the point of having much value, to my mind I was simply removing the words to the effect that I had been found to have made a frivolous ban request by a neutral admin. My impression of wordings for when there is no consensus for an action is that there is 'no consensus', this is not AfD where people can later argue that 'oh, but it was only a no-consensus'. I am happy to abide by the deliberations of an admin in the matter, I would prefer that it would be one who has been involved at AE however as we are seeing many of the same people as frequent there. Best, un☯mi 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC) "somewhat inappropriate non-admin close" Any policy to prove it was "inappropriate"?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry? This is the Administrators Noticeboard / Incidents. While some threads may be closed by non-admins they are generally the more uncontroversial ones and I too have never seen a non-admin try to distill a consensus decision, couple that with the fact that the user still bears a grudge over my inappropriate comments to him, then I think I am somewhat justified in taking the view that it was inappropriate. un☯mi 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) On a related note, SnottyWong and I have recently been embroiled in much dramah, which is why I found his closing doubly inappropriate. un☯mi 21:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

{{disucussion top}}

Close it up?

User has, for the moment, retired. Seems that there's consensus that the AfD comment was inappropriate and that there is no support for a topic ban. Is there a proverbial "uninvolved admin" who can wrap this up and let it sink into archive-land? Tarc (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and done. --WGFinley (talk) 21:45, 20 August 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.

Iranians in CAT:CSD

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted is choc-full of Iranian bios that have been A7-tagged by User:Beeshoney. The tags are clearly misconceived. How would we feel about using rollback to revert them? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just checked half a dozen. All had a least assertions of notability. Roll the lot back and counsel editor on speedy deletion criteria and PROD/AFD procedures. Exxolon (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and rolled them back and posted a note on the user's talk page explaining why. It is obviously not a conventional use of rollback (the tags aren't vandalism and we can assume they were done in good faith) but here it is the clearest way to improve the encyclopaedia.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the many notices on the talk page have made the issue abundantly clear and I'm sure it won't happen again. And hey, while checking the tags some things were fixed along the way :) Hekerui (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I want to make it clear that the purpose of this ANI post isn't to rap the editor over the knuckles in any way (hence I haven't notified the editor) - just to deal with the stack of A7 tags. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Given this has occurred after this same user had removed discussions on an Iranian in a very recent AfD discussion and has also abused Rollback on that same article it is all a little odd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to post support for Mkativerata, that was a very good IAR use of rollback. -- Atama頭 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There look to have been another swathe of deletion requests from the same user. And they have already been warned about one of them on their talk page. These should be looked at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also notified the user in question of this discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of these speedies (by declining some and prodding others) & tried explaining to the user why speedy is not applicable in most of these cases. But they then went on another spree. I've left a much more explicit note about speedy policy but perhaps someone else could try it too. Beeshoney appears to be saying they are speedy-ing them for standard notability/low quality concerns and doesn't seem to hear that this is incorrect --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello - just to defend myself: 1. Where I removed another editor/s comments, I didn't realise this was wrong. You should have seen the length of that AfD, and I thought it was OK to shorten it especially since the same arguments were being repeated multiple times. 2. Where I misused rollback rights, I didn't know this was wrong, and I have accepted it was wrong. I have explained why I thought it was OK to use rollback in this case on an old revision of my talk page, which Erazerhead1 has provided a link to above. I accept criticism, so if what I'm doing is wrong please tell me and I will stop. Beeshoney (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, I felt you responded very positively when I raised the rollback issue with you, and I accept your explanation re: the AfD comment deletions. However, one thing that concerns me is that all these issues affect Iranian articles. As well as taking on board the advice you've been given on your talkpage, I'd also like to see you try and avoid Iranian articles. TFOWR 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is that all of these issues have come up in a very short space of time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also just spent a fair amount of time reviewing many of these speedy noms, and removed quite a few. The editor's pattern of nominations suggests complete obliviousness to the requirements for an A7 deletion -- among those I saw were the mayor of a sizeable city, a national cabinet-level minister, a Grammy-nominated musician, and an actor with several dozen film credits. Results like these, coupled with the editor's use of automated tools to generate prod/speedy nominations every few seconds for sustained periods of time, lead to the inference that the editor is not properly scrutinizing the articles in question, to the point of abusing the deletion process. I believe that all these nominations should be rolled back, given the burden this burst of activity will place on other editors and the very high error rate seen in nominations that have been reviewed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just had another check through Beeshoney's recent contributions and this latests spree seems to be being rather personal (who is one of the main editors involved with Kourosh Zolani). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again - I live in England, and work to GMT, so that's why I suddenly stopped yesterday. To respond to TFOWR, I can explain why they are all Iranian articles. I went to look on Thommasshane's talk page (because he had posted a message on my talk page), and I saw this message. So, I looked at that list of 125 Iranian BLP's with no references, and thought "Well they're not very good", so I tagged a lot of them. To be honest this A7 Speedy Delete policy is very ambiguous as to what it means, so I've switched to PROD for a lot of them.

Most of the articles I've tagged (after being warned on my talk page), are just a few sentences long. And although other editors say "try and improve the article yourself instead of putting them up for deletion", this is almost impossible for a lot of the articles, as very few results come up on Google (as least ones that could be used as reliable sources).

My focus is not on Iranian articles - it's just that I thought I'd look at that list first. I have also bookmarked the other list mentioned on Thomasshane's talk page of over 26,000 BLP's with no references, and I'm planning to look at those too (and with care this time).

Sorry for being careless, and I will be more careful with future articles. I'll also look through the articles I've tagged, and see if I should undo any of my actions. Beeshoney (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Having had the majority of his speedies declined and prods removed, this editor is now bulk-nominating many of the same articles at AfD for quite questionable reasons (e.g "no English references"). Of course he is entitled to do this and I'm sure he's acting in good faith, but IMHO he is creating a lot of work for other editors for minimal gain. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Prods and AFD's seem reasonable. But many others are very vague in rationale and it does not look like the user is doing a very careful search for references. I do think Beeshoney is not taking particular care with their tagging for these matters; their position seems to be that these are better off gone - whereas I would argue that a better approach is trying to save some if possible. I'd argue a better approach is to work on a couple of these articles per day (most can be salvaged) rather than run them through AFD's (which will probably come out keep). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I am now doing is within Wikipedia's guidelines. Considering a lot of these articles have been in the state they're in for years, I don't think it's unreasonable to start AfD's. A lot of these people have few English hits on Google, and if it really is so easy to improve these articles, why does everyone struggle to find good references? Beeshoney (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saying; a lot of the references aren't hard to find - and it is better (in my mind) to spend 10 minutes finding a ref or two, cutting any dubious content and tagging for recovery. Eventually we will get to them - there are a lot of articles to get to :) That way you don;t end up indiscriminately tagging material and articles that do deserve to be deletion (and will go through AFD to delete successfully) are the only ones tagged. This saves community time etc. The # of English Google hits is usually not a good way to judge deletion/notability --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would still be very surprised if an article that was kept improved significantly a few weeks after an AfD was closed. Beeshoney (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like this amazes me: an administrator has votes to keep this article. There are less than 2000 English results for this person on Google - as you can see here. My own user name gets nearly 3 times more results (shown here). Even TFOWR (just shown as an example because you might think that "beeshoney" is common) gets over twice the results, as shown here. I do not understand what this administrator is thinking when he/she votes to keep the article. Beeshoney (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that one looks like fair AFD material to me :) On the other hand Mahmoud Zoufonoun shouldn't have gone to AFD - it's easily cleaned and it will only take an hour or so of work :) (I'm working on it now as it happens). All I am saying is - consider trying to improve some of the articles that can be improved so that only the marginal stuff hit AFD --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The number of "english Google hits" is absolutely not the criteria for anything. But still, did you consider the 22,000+ hits for the Persian form of his name, سیروس الوند ? After all, he is Iranian. I'm not sure that you understand that if he is notable to everyday Iranian's, he's probably notable on the English wikipedia, even if you haven't heard of him. Thparkth (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My ego just got a massive boost, only to be cruelly destroyed :-( Google is picking up Wikipedia and lots of mirrors - I'd imagine if you stripped out all of that, I wouldn't register at all. TFOWR 09:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's notable to everyday Iranian's, why don't you create the same article on the Iranian Wikipedia? (I think there is one) Then you'll have no problems using Iranian references. :) Beeshoney (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Because he already has an article in the Iranian Wikipedia, and also because I don't speak Persian. You must try to understand that it is OK to use Iranian references in the English Wikipedia. Thparkth (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well there you go. I'd assume it's mainly Iranians who would be interested in this, and of course Iranians can read the Iranian Wikipedia (I can't), so why does person need to have another biography here as well if it is poorly sourced? It is not OK to use foreign language references in the English Wikipedia unless a decent, understandable translation is provided. (If it isn't understandable it isn't a translation) If this isn't true, please give me a link to the Wikipedia guideline saying so. Beeshoney (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NOTENG is faulty. Translations are only needed for quotations, or when specifically requested by editors. I would personally regard such requests as being made in bad faith if you are only asking so that you can dismiss the reference and delete the article. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask for a translation because the article effectively has no sources if all the references are foreign, because I can't read them (unless they're French, which is unlikely in this case). Beeshoney (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. I'll just AfD the really bad ones. Beeshoney (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thparkth, Beeshoney may well have a point over that article. Per WP:NONENG it is difficult to reliably source at this point. I'd argue that if someone capable of translating the material comes along then it is easy to reinstate. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, I suggest reading User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Sources in languages other than English, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and all of the things cited at and below Wikipedia:Search engine test#References at this point. We're not trying to be a big directory of only the stuff that is locatable via Google. (Google's doing that itself, after all.) We're not trying to write an encyclopaedia that is limited to the anglophone world. (Indeed, enabling anglophones to discover and obtain non-anglophone knowledge is one of the very rôles that an encyclopaedia exists for.) And the right way to approach any article, per policy and good practice that has been agreed upon since pretty much the start of the project, is "How do I improve this article?", and only resort to deletion if the attempts to improve find no way in which improvement can be done.

We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not stand by and watch expecting other people around us to do so. So our attitude always has to be one that is from the standpoint of "How can I collaborate in writing this?". We look for sources ourselves. We research. We copyedit. We help with editing mistakes by novices. We expand. We write. We cite supporting sources that we find. If we can show that we've looked for sources for subjects, actively rather than passively, and still come up empty-handed, then that actually makes a good, policy-based, case for not having articles. Putting verifiability and deletion policies into practice correctly is not a zero-effort task, however.

Finally: Anyone complaining that no-one has worked on an article and that therefore it should be deleted is labelling xyrself as part of the very problem that xe is decrying. If you see an article that hasn't been worked on, and you are of the opinion that Something Should Be Done, then pull out that editing tool and work on the article yourself. Be bold! Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.

Take the advice of someone who garners more utterly meaningless Google hits than the both of you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User appears to be continuing to misuse speedy tags, despite requests to be more careful. Including tagging readable articles as patent nonsense [11] [12] and using G7 for sports matches [13]. Much more. Now he seems to be going through the alphabet, speedying everything in sight. The vast majority of his speedys and prods have been declined. 250 edits in less than 24 hours, virtually all to do with deletion, the vast majority declined. Seems to be on a warpath to delete articles. See also the stuff at Kourosh Zolani, where he deletes every teeny bit not sourced without lifting a finger to help. Also, "challenging" every foreign language source for a translation and threatening to delete if not provided, while strictly complying with policy, is not in the spirit of encyclopedia building. I recommend a block for disruptive editing as the user doesn't appear to be listening and people are having to cleanup after him. Alternatively, a temporary ban from using speedys and prods. Maybe also remove twinkle. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Beeshoney has a number of requests on their talk page about deletion taggings. I've just come from declining another one. I have asked Beeshoney to lay off tagging for deletion, as I feel they lack sufficient understanding of WP:CSD. Dlohcierekim 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I was one of the editors who got highly involved with Beeshoney in a recent AfD discussion last week. This person caused us a lot grief during this discussion by deleting a huge part of our comments in discussion in two incidents (1 & 2), repeatedly changing our edits to the article, and several uncivil comments such as calling us cheaters, sock puppets, etc. After the discussion was closed, my friend, Thomasshane (we are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who started a project to improve biographies of Iranians on WP) sent this user a friendly note for a closure. However, this user nominated tens of Iranians articles for speedy delete yesterday and again put many of them for AfD today. Surprisingly, this user has sent Thomasshane and I separated notes and invited us to continue this AfD game with him/her.
I do not believe this person has an interest in Iranians articles. It seems this user wants to create a discussion and be at the center of the attention. This behavior is not acceptable on WP. I agree some of the articles are just a few sentences but most articles that she nominated are about prominent Iranian artists and can be improved. I do not wish to get involve with this user in another AfD and I am really frustrated and disheartened that this user has nominated so many Iranians articles for AfD for personal reasons. I sincerely ask WP administrators to stop this user and revert the damage s/he is causing. Thank you Sozlati (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sozlati, there are no "personal reasons" for this - I don't know how many times I have to say so. I focused on Iranian articles at first because there was a link on Thomasshane's talk page to a list of Iranian BLP's with no references. If you look at my edit history, I have now moved on to other topics. Also, the messages I left on your and Thomassane's talk page did not "invite you to join in". Because I have been told to do so, I have stopped nominating articles for the time being, and have decided to wait and see what happens to the articles I have nominated for deletion. Beeshoney (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith here - this isn't exactly an isolated incident. You are nominating an unreasonable number of articles for deletion on shaky ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I am also an editor involved in the recent AfD discussion about the Iranian musician’s article. I have decided that I am not going to contribute to any article proposed for deletion by Beeshoney. This is an encyclopedia not a game program. What this user is doing, is not acceptable. I don’t know how much damage a person should cause till some one decides to remove their privilege. I went through the proposed articles for deletion by this user, in one incident, Beeshoney is proposing EIGHT articles for deletion in ONE MINUTE!!!
This tells me that the user did not go through the articles carefully before proposing them for deletion. I am not saying that all the nominated articles are in a good shape but this is not a right approach to improve the articles.
Beeshoney dose not have any interest or knowledge in Iran related fields, specially the music. This person is not the right person to decide which article has to go!!! One of the nominated articles is Jalil Shanaz who is absolutely an Iranian music legend. This user put the article for deletion!!! Beeshoney has nominated many Iran related articles for AfD and asked me to improve them. How many articles one editor can improve in 7 days?
I strongly believe that every article proposed for any kind of deletion by Beeshoney since yesterday needs to be reverted. Based on the pattern of this user’s behavior, s/he is not qualified to nominate any article for deletion. Thomasshane (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the non-Iranian speedies are just a unreasonable as the Iranian ones, for example Auch Inter-Borough Transit. I'm very grateful for people willing to sift through the backlog of problematic articles, and help remove the probably hundred thousand or so junk articles remaining in Wikipedia , and I don't want to discourage Beetlebrox from continuing to do this--but just to get him to do it carefully with a better understanding of relevant policy.. The use of automated tools like Twinkle has an unfortunate tendency to encourage carelessness, and I would very strongly recommend that the editor stop using them immediately--I avoided using it for at least my first year on the project until I thought I had enough experience. If they continue being used in this manner after the editor has been alerted about this , the usual thing we do here is to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please block a few blatant socks

Resolved

 – Vandals blocked - Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

86.139.133.183 (talk · contribs) started adding fake names to a couple of football clubs today. Then Josdanphelway (talk · contribs) and Joshthemasterphelan (talk · contribs) showed up to create hoax articles about nonexistent footballers. Please block the lot and possibly run a quick checkuser to find the sleepers. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI-2 accounts blocked, hoax articles deleted, etc by Admins. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all! Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Organizing AfD comments

I am currently involved in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wagner's first love and I saw the debate becoming very disorganized. I am a long time contributor with a lot of work at AfD, and in the past I have executed and seen executed organizational changes to AfDs so that it is easier for editors to understand the conversation. In this instance the debate was becoming confusing to follow, as it is a somewhat explosive topic (Apparently) so I executed a quick organization. I was told that such changes to formatting have no precedent and are against wikipedia policy. I have never known this to be true and brought this here as both a general question about the practice and to identify if I am at fault for doing it in this instance. I have no issue with any editor on this topic, I am bringing this here for personal curiosity / advice on best practices in case this escalates. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have located the previously used rationale for such changes at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Am I misinterpreting this in such a context?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Please read WP:AFDEQ: "[Y]ou should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote... Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count." (emphasis added) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I had no idea it was a bad practice. I appreciate you pointing this out to me. Sometimes you see bad practices going on unchallenged for a length of time and you come to think of them as accepted.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's a bad idea. In general, even if it gets confusing, you should leave the discussion in the way it evolved. For example, I may in the same comment vote AND reply to someone above me. When you organize it the way you did, you can break the continuity of the thread such that comments become detached from the context they were made. ANd for the record, that discussion was pretty tame in terms of organizational confusion. I once had to close This discussion. Trust me, the discussion you modified was pretty unremarkable. I would trust the closing admin to be able to work it out on their own; we're pretty experienced with these things. It would be best to undo your reorganization. --Jayron32 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to endorse people's attempts to make things run smoother, which this was. The down-side of reorganizing a debate is that the flow gets lost - you can sometimes see key ideas and where they kicked in, how others responded to them, and a trend emerging during the debate. This can show which ideas gradually got agreed to carry weight in some discussions, and show "what sparked what" in others. Comments that are balanced and nuanced may tend to get marginalized if the debate is formatted as "keep/delete/other". It also tends to discourage "count-itis" although at the cost that you can't close by simply reviewing the points made for and against quite as easily. Overall best not to reorganize the order of a debate in a big way, it can "jar" people, and also may not always help the closer if they want to see "how a debate happened". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The last I did it was with Soverign Citizen a few years ago and that was also a very intense discussion. I guess I saw this going that way and got PTSD lol. I'd rather not undo the formatting since I might make an error in the timeline that would do more harm than good. As it stands, I don't think there was too much moved around from the record, just the two editors debating a source, which they've been doing regularly for days on various talk pages related to the article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to try to reinvent the wheel. The traditional - chronological - format of AfDs works fairly well and should be adhered to unless there is some kind of an overwhelming reason not to, which I don't see in this case. Seeing the flow of the debate is more important than compartmentalizing things into pro/con sections and the traditional format is also more conducive to seeing an AfD as an actual debate rather than as a vote. Also, many comments cannot be easily pigenholed into "pro"-"con" categories and are just labelled as "Comment"/"Note" or whatever. It is also the case that trying to change the AfD format by a fait accompli tends to needlessly piss people off and increase the level of acrimony and raise suspicions of gaming or whatever - the last thing that is needed in potentially contentious AfDs. If such non-traditional formats are to be used at all, they most certainly must not be implemented by a highly involved party such as the AfD nominator or the article's creator - that is really a recipe for disaster. Nsk92 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's meant to be a discussion anyway, and not just a for-or-against debate. There are many possible outcomes from an AfD and not all of them can be pigeonholed into "keep" or "delete" either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just now found WP:WQA. I'll bring this stuff there in the future. Thanks for all the input. Thanks for re-ordering the posts Nsk.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've sometimes fixed indentation and formatting in AfD discussions. That seems appropriate; not everyone knows the markup language well. But I don't reorder comments. --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Behavior of Binksternet towards IP user.

Resolved

 – Toddst1 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The behavior of Binksternet is beginning to concern me. Earlier tonight, an IP user visited ##wikipedia-en-abuse ^connect for help with what they felt was abuse. They calmly explained their situation, and how they felt. After further discussion and some investigation, we found that Binksternet violated the 3 Revert Rule (3RR) (See page history), and incorrectly warned the user (See: this diff. Since, I issued a warning to the editor for violation of 3RR (see: this diff), and also made a note about the incorrect warning (see: this diff). After his reply, I advised him that the editor intended to file a report with AN/3RR, and that he might ought to appologize (see: this diff). He acknowledged that he made a mistake with this reply, and later posted this message to the IP user's talk page. Since, a rather nasty spat has continued, as the IP user believes that the editor is abusing his authority, and is only making excuses for his actions. (see: this diff comparison). The focus of discussion seems to be on the IP user's talk page.

• Prior to the beginning of this incident, the IP user had attempted to settle the dispute with Binksternet, but that didn't go so smoothly. (see: this section of Binksternet's talk page).

• The IP user has since decided against the AN/3RR report, citing that the system was confusing them, and that they were afraid of being blocked or banned if they edited Wikipedia again.

• The IP user has openly admitted in the IRC channel, that they are afraid to edit Wikipedia again, and my not return due to this users actions.

I'm trying to remain neutral in this, but this seems like an incident best suited for discussion at AN/I. Thank you! ANowlin ^talk 02:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC) ---

• Yep. I see that edit war. I also see misuse of rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believed Binksternet's apology, until I looked at his block log.   Thorncrag  02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you have had the wrong link there. Either way, a repeat edit warrior who doesn't understand what WP:Vandalism is doesn't need rollback privileges. I have revoked them. Toddst1 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Given now that I looked at his block log... I think he needs a little more time in exile. This recently after being unblocked, and he's already in trouble again? I motion for an extended block. ANowlin ^talk 03:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Blocks are not punitive, and it appears the disruption has stopped for the moment, so a block would be inappropriate. However, I believe that any further WP:BITEy behavior or edit warring should lead rather quickly to a block. Toddst1 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• 123.243.203.94's demands for a shrubbery certainly aren't helping the situation. Have any of you IRC people tried correcting any of the several misconceptions that 123.243.203.94 has? Binksternet is not a "nazi". 123.243.203.94 wasn't blocked at all, let alone by Binksternet, who isn't even an administrator and certainly wasn't "abusing power" to disable anyone's editing rights since xe doesn't have the capability to do that. We don't "penalize" people. And given the aggression in pretty much all of 123.243.203.94's edits (including calling Binksternet a vandal), I think that any claim to have been "scared off" by Binksternet should be taken with at least a pinch of salt. Whatever Binksternet's faults, there's some work to be done with the other disputant here. This isn't entirely one-sided. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• While not having a conclusive opinion by any means, my impression of 123.243.203.94 is that, unlike Binksternet, he or she is a new editor and is extremely unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and practices. And frankly from what I have seen, given the treatment he or she is getting, they are very reasonably confused.   Thorncrag  04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Binksternet. Thanks for not blocking me as it would be purely punitive. I can assure you I will not be damaging or disrupting the wiki by working to retain a cited section of the article Wife acceptance factor. I feel that the IP editor was working to harm the wiki by removing good information relevant to the topic, variant terms which are in popular use and which redirect to the article.

I don't take part in IRC, so it is impossible for me to sympathize with the progression of the IP editor getting more and more frustrated—all I have are the interactions in article space and user talk space. An editor who loudly proclaims that they were wronged while engaging in the deletion of cited content looks to me like an editor who unreasonably wants the content deleted.

In general, I am a deletionist in that I feel the wiki is strongest when it contains well-supported, relevant and notable information. In spite of my deletionism, I will take care to help a new editor who appears to be working to build the wiki. I am quick to correct new editors who want to take out cited, relevant text, and I make sure my edit summaries and talk entries explain plainly what is going on. Is that "bitey"? I don't think so. I assume good faith until shown otherwise.

This editor took out cited text three times in a row (over the course of two days) before I decided to let him or her know that a fourth reversion might result in getting blocked. The way I went about warning the user was a mistake I admit to: I used WP:Twinkle to combine the warning action with content reversion action. I think that Twinkle should be modified so that anybody selecting the edit warring message should have an edit summary that does not assume vandalism. Right now, the Twinkle edit summary for that action combined with a content reversion is "Reverted 1 edit by User:xxx identified as vandalism to last revision by User:yyy." Since edit warring and 3RR over content are not vandalism, the edit summary is misleading and incorrect. It should say something like "Reverted 1 edit by User:xxx to last revision by User:yyy, with added 3RR warning." I did not intend to tell the IP editor that they were a vandal, and the message on their talk page did not say vandal. (By the way, the same intent was present for my warning of IP 124.176.118.18 at the De Havilland Mosquito article. The IP editor was coming off a block and needed warning again about continuing the edit war. No vandalism notice was intended.)

Until today, the WP:Twinkle page did not specify how the tool should be used for content reversion. The only guideline I found on that subject was at WP:3RR where it said "Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." I moved that sentence to the Twinkle page today so that the guideline would be made plainer. According to that guideline, I could have used Twinkle to revert the changes in the content dispute if I wrote a relevant edit summary to go along with it. I will remember to do so in the future, and I will contact the Twinkle programmers to see if the vandal edit summary can be changed. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

After asking a question at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/RFA, I realized that I had become blind to the green AGF link offered by Twinkle and had been using only the red VANDAL link. I supposed that the green AGF link was plain old rollback, but as of this edit I have begun once again to use the AGF feature of Twinkle. Too bad I cannot go back and change a whole bunch of my Twinkle edit summaries that should have been performed as AGF but were labeled "vandalism". :/

Here's to putting the best foot forward from now on... Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:POV Detective engaged in disruptive editing on circumcision-related topics

• User
  • POV Detective (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Articles
  • Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Circumcision and law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Prevalence of circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ethics of circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Diffs
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision_and_law&action=historysubmit&diff=379669279&oldid=379575683
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision_and_law&action=historysubmit&diff=379896083&oldid=379673838
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision_and_law&action=historysubmit&diff=379955198&oldid=379905092
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=378894829&oldid=378893271
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379229159&oldid=378904052
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379239382&oldid=379234299
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379428574&oldid=379243510
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379666966&oldid=379429305
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379897821&oldid=379673926
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379956839&oldid=379905571
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Prevalence_of_circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379230315&oldid=379223031
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Prevalence_of_circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379238773&oldid=379234183
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Prevalence_of_circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379665295&oldid=379443729
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Prevalence_of_circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379897437&oldid=379845871
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Prevalence_of_circumcision&action=historysubmit&diff=379957882&oldid=379925326

I believe the above user is currently engaged in disruptive edit warring and POV pushing on the family of circumcision related articles, some of which are listed above. For example, in Circumcision and law, s/he is removing information found in a peer-reviewed journal because s/he does not agree with the author's hypothesis or scholarship. While User:POV Detective is entitled to his/her opinion, s/he may not remove pertinent information that is properly verifiably sourced from articles. The user has been informed of this multiple times (please check the edit history of the article and User talk:POV Detective), yet the pattern of ignoring wikipedia policy and guideline remains. Similarly, there is a detailed discussion on Talk:Circumcision about the validity and applicability of a specific news article. Despite, and perhaps in spite of, the ongoing discussion on the talk page, User:POV Detective has continued to add the contested information to the article. The users history clearly indicates that s/he is a single purpose account, which while in and of itself is not an issue, in combination with the lack of respect for wikipedia policies and guidelines does indicate that the user may be here more to push a particular point of view against policy than to collaboratively build the encyclopedia. Furthermore, while the user may not have violated the letter of 3RR, viewing the diffs above and the edit histories of the articles in question, shows that the spirit of edit warring against consensus is clear and apparent.

Being involved in the discussions, I am loathe to impose measures aimed at protecting the integrity of the project as the appearance of partiality would exist. Therefore, I am asking for uninvolved admins to review the evidence and comment, or take appropriate actions, to maintain the integrity of the project, which may include a temporary revocation of the users editing privileges until such point as a commitment to adhere to our policies and guidelines is made and adhered to. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To add to Avi's detailed comment, I would like to point out that POV Detective regularly labels users opposing his/her edits as "circumcision devotees", a personal attack that, in my opinion, is extremely uncivil. Jakew (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an addendum, the user is now engaging in uncivil edit summaries, which while perhaps indicative of a lack of maturity on his/her part, does not contribute to the collegiate environment required for the project in general, and contentious article sets, such as circumcision in specific. For example:

• delete devotee jeer
• delete threats & personal attacks
• half-cocked accusations
• circumcision devotees engaging in Edit War to prevent accurate statistics in this article
• undo circ devotee censorship & misrepresentations
• circ devotees issuing personal attacks on scholars & doctors

-- Avi (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a civility issue here. User:POV Detective should not be making these types of comments and appears to be defending the use of information that reliable sources actually present as inconclusive at this point. What I don't understand is why people are baiting him and goading him on with unrelated arguments on the talk page. From the outside it is understandable why POV Detective thinks he's arguing against a "pro-circumcision" crowd, because many of the people arguing against him are acting like they are part of such a crowd. A short block of POV Detective for edit warring and incivility would probably help here, but someone should tell the local peasantry wielding pitchforks to cool it as well. This is as simple as -- "You're adding unreliable information to the entry, and if you edit war to keep it in you'll get blocked." End of story.Griswaldo (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I believe my comments and edit summaries were neutral, clear, and to the point. The above user's response is to delete warnings, to which s/he is entitled, but with dismissive summaries, and continued disregard for any consensus, policies, and guidelines which are in place. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've previously warned them: they deleted my post here with the edit summary "delete threats & personal attacks". I'd echo Avi's comment about dismissive summaries. (Oh, and good block, Heimstern). TFOWR 17:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The edit warring here is clear enough, so I've blocked POV Detective for 24 hours. It's gone too far at this point, regardless of any fault that may exist from editors on the other side of the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you, I hope the user uses the time to review the accepted methods for handling disputes. -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  Me too, but given how he reacted to my block notice, I'm not too hopeful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The block was very appropriate, good job for sure. I don't think there is anything on the talk pages that violates policy or requires administrative attention (except for POV Detective's incivility and edit warring which has now been dealt with). I just wanted to suggest to some involved that fanning the flames never helps. Let's hope this editor can come back and refrain from edit warring and name calling. I'm not sure how hopeful I am about that actually happening, but I have my fingers crossed.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt that. This is unlikely to end well, but at leats it should have some more eyeballs now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The worst editwarriors in circumcision-related articles are undoubtedly Jakew, Avraham, and Jayjg, three users unanimous on all edits and consistently enforcing Jakew's ownership of all such articles since he stopped updating his circumcision promotion website in 2006 and joined Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's your evidence for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the background of this pretty well, see the conflict of interest noticeboard and my own talk page for some back history to this dispute. -- Atama頭 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Who would have known this was such a POV battleground? I read over the archived discussion about "uncircumcised" at Talk:Circumcision, which was a complete fiasco. People love to argue around WP:UCN when they have a cause they are battling for. That said some fresh eyes on these pages would surely be useful.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that fresh eyes would be helpful. And yes, unfortunately, in my opinion, discussions seem to have a tendency to derail into non-helpful arguments. New faces would be welcome in trying to handle one of the more contentious set of articles here. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Half-cocked" Heeheehee... HalfShadow 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Range Vandalism

Not sure where to place this, IPs 168.30.150.64-219 have been repeatedly vandalizing the article Eddie Murphy [14][15] Warning them will seem to do little good since they are changing IPs every minute.

168.30.150.0/24 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours. Those are the only contributions from that range. TNXMan 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a school, FWIW. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe things like this should go to WP:Abuse - Enti342 MEMO 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Abuse reports can't do shit. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in WP:Abuse Reports Before that have had successful endings. Enti342 MEMO 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That was before. Nowadays you will not get a successful abuse report without a wikimedia email address or a legal threat against the ISP for disregarding its own ToS. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you report it to the school the worst that'll happen is that Wikipedia gets blacklisted completely from the school network. The best that'll happen is the kid who made six test edits one morning gets to write a hand-written apology to their network administrator. Compared to teh schoolblock it would be a total waste of time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But, but, but... What if he has to send us cookies and a handwritten appology? No, in all seriousness: All educational systems of the size of this one, will have some sort of policy in effect. Odds are, the person who did that, will likely get their network-access rights revoked. It's like that in Oklahoma, and if I remember correct, we had to set up that way thanks to some Federal edjumacational policy or law or something. ANowlin ^talk 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this barely deserve one post on Wikipedia, let alone a full-blown abuse report. They're blocked and that should probably be the end of it. TNXMan 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there. If it continues after unblock however, WP:ABUSE and/or WP:LTA will look further in to the matter. I will be keeping an eye on this IP range for a while. ANowlin ^talk 22:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem editor

69.69.17.194 (talk · contribs) and his later IP address 69.69.20.198 (talk · contribs) spread personal commentary throughout talk pages ([16] [17]), and caught my attention when he added his personal commentary to the article Sophia (wisdom). When I asked him not to put in personal commentary and to cite a source, he pointed to the text he was commenting on as his source. I kept directing him to WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS (not using the shorthand, of course), only to be ignored, attacked ("you are an exemplar of the iniquitous, not the wise" "billy goat editor", "ignorant", "ignorant" again), or had the guidelines misinterpreted against me (hadn't commented on him at this point). In another case of the last type of behavior, he suggests I quit my undergraduate English studies and take Scientology courses. I highly doubt this user is going to prove useful, as he has paid to be brainwashed into believing that English means what a degenerate and greedy cult says first and whatever benefits him most second, not what the rest of the speakers of the language think English means.

I'm not asking for a block (although I won't disapprove of one), but I'm going to be becoming less active because of classes, my girlfriend, and a new job. While it is the start of the weekend, I don't know how long it's going to take for him to get to the end of his rope, and he may continue to cause trouble later (possibly by waiting, or hopping on another IP address). Just letting everyone know while I can. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As a precaution, I managed to revert that personal attack regarding the "billy goat editor" part has been reverted on Ian.thomson's talk page. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" swastika posted on ITN article

Resolved

 – It's gone. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm requesting that an admin admin-delete this edit from the history of 2010 Aksu bombing. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Already reverted & editor warned. I have a feeling he may not be around for much longer. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a request for revdel-ing it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I think that is a good candidate for RevDel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems Tnxman307 felt the same way; the revision is now gone. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat.

[18] The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef by an admin. I also reverted further legal threats as well as BLP violations placed on her talk page [19]. Finally, I sent the article she was vandalizing to AfD for BLP1E. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ITartle

Resolved

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

This user moves articles wrong, writes bad edit summary and impersonates User:ITurtle(He is a bureaucrat in Korean Wikipedia). He's pattern is like User:Crystall Robbot.

• See also: checkuser result in meta

- Chugun (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please notify ITartle of this discussion as required (see the yellow box that appears when you edit this page).  Sandstein  05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified the user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for missing notifying. - Chugun (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't immediately see anything requiring administrator action. "Moves articles wrong" reflects content disagreements that need to be resolved per WP:DR, "writes bad edit summary" is unclear and "impersonates User:ITurtle" is not clear to me without evidence that this is indeed the user's intent; the similarity in usernames might be coincidental.  Sandstein  21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Chugun, if you feel the username is problematic, try taking it to WP:UAA. That's the kind of thing they deal with on a day-to-day basis. As for his alleged bad moves and edit summaries, it would help if you could provide some diffs detailing what you think the problem is. There's nothing an admin can do unless it is cear that ITartle is deliberately disrupting the project through those means. If you think Itartle is a sockpuppet of User:Crystall Robbot, try asking for someone to look into it at WP:SPI. Be forewarned, however, you will need to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, to back up your claim if you want someone to act on it. Aside from that, have you tried talking to ITartle and describing the problems you're encountering? Often, these kinds of issues are best resolved by the involved editors discussing it amongst themselves. Try to take an objective, constructive tone and let them know what, in particular, you have a problem with. Administrators are just regular users with a few extra tools; they don't really have any increased authority. The only way an admin will intervene is if the use of those tools (eg, blocking) is required to prevent disruption to the project. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see (I didn't just know UAA and SPI). I missed the point although I just tried to talk him in ko.wp and there was no way. :) - Chugun (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the problem arises from the culmination of his behaviour on several wikis, then try meta. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with meta, so some digging on your part is in order. Good luck! Throwaway85 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Chugun (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

False company information to film articles

Pricer1980 (talk · contribs), who has a history of challenged contributions, has been adding company information to film articles that appears to usually be false. I first noticed the editor's contributions when he made this edit to Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. Assuming good faith at first, search engine tests revealed that there was no relationship between the film and Vanguard Animation, Odyssey Entertainment, and BBC Films. I reverted this addition and explored the editor's other contributions. Many contributions involve indiscriminately listing production companies, which is not truly a problem in itself, but search engine tests show false details. For example, this includes the film Bel Ami to have the US distributor MGM. This indicates that Lascars will be distributed by a Sony branch. Neither detail is valid. These contributions coupled with the editor's history (including being blocked once for false information) warrant some kind of step to end this disruption. I contacted Cirt, who had blocked this editor before, and he directed me here. Can the editor's prolific contributions be reviewed and the proper action be taken? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend an immediate preventative block to curtail further damage and allow his edits to be reviewed. Pricer1980 is clearly making some very dubious edits, such as this one where he changed the titles of numerous French-language films from French to English. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems are continuing. Pricer1980 edited Unstoppable (2010 film) to give it a very Spanish treatment. At Telecinco Cinema, editor added Unstoppable despite no evidence of relationship. I'm more and more convinced that this editor is spreading false information that can be generally be overlooked. I reported the editor for restoring uncited content to Bel Ami (2011 film), but I think a longer preventative block is necessary. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week as a first step to prevent further damage and allow correction of misinformation. I will invite his comments on his talk page. Please comment here on whether there is anything constructive about user's contributions and whether the block should be made permanent. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that this is anything other than vandalism if the editor has been repeatedly informed that this is wrong and they continue. This is the worst kind of vandalism, the subtle kind that you have to do a little research to even identify. Looking through the editor's contributions at random, I see this which looks fine until you click on the link to the article to see the film was released in 2004, not 2000. Edits like that are just senseless... If the entry was made under the proper year (2004) it would have been a valuable addition, but putting the entry in the wrong location is just causing confusion. I can't see why this editor should be allowed to contribute, I suspect every single one of their edits needs to be scrutinized and undone or repaired. -- Atama頭 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed further damage since Olivier Assayas's Clean has no relationship of any kind with Quebec. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I would just assume that every edit he's made is dirty and undo them all. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd block in less than 2 weeks. Indeed, if they keep this up a block is warranted. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... This editor has 711 live edits to Wikipedia to look at. They've made no effort to ever communicate in all their time here, they've made 3 edits to their talk page only to blank warnings and a block notice. I don't think this editor has any desire to collaborate, and it looks like cleaning up their mess would be a gigantic task. -- Atama頭 23:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a notification at WT:FILM about this editor's pattern in case socks are used. You're right, though, that there is a bit to clean up. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also managed to revert most of the damage done by that user. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a rock star! Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am! Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indef block - Come on, now - per Atama, this dude has never once troubled to communicate with any of us despite blocks and warnings? Indef block, not a one week block, to protect the project. This user is bad for Wikipedia. Jusdafax 04:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

indef block in fr: too. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel

I think that Wikidea may need to have his reviewer rights looked at a bit closer. I saw this edit a few minutes ago. No one, so far, has said a word to him about it. Dawnseeker2000 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my friends who are having a jolly evening made that edit. Many apologies! Wikidea 02:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think there is anything to see here, it was a rather unsubtle edit from an account that otherwise(from a brief review of edits) seems to make solid edits, you may want to tell Toby that to test that theory he would have to be more discriminate. un☯mi 02:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Look

[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCforLife (talk • contribs)

List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners and List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries need some attention from soccer/football experts. Recent edits look suspicious, but I can't evaluate them. --John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this User as a vandal, he's intent on removing huge amounts of information and won't stop. At best, he's gone way over 3RR. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a sock of User:SuperSonicx1986. The latest of many. --WFC-- 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And apparently a sock of 72.145.93.60 (talk · contribs) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of assuming good faith, I'll let others judge this. --WFC-- 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sincereofficial

Resolved

 – Indef blocked for subtle, sneaky vandalism.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sincereofficial (talk · contribs) has a LONG page full of warnings over insertion of false information into a long string of articles, they were blocked for three months last year, yet they continue. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Qualities108

Qualities108 (talk · contribs) isn't just attempting to convert people to Hindusim, they're posting long incomprehensible rants and threating people with going to hell. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 1 week for inappropriate use of Wikipedia and personal attacks. --Jayron32 06:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dante8: Possible sockpuppet? Maybe?

So Dante8 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) as well as the anon accounts 72.78.224.46, 24.116.128.242, 68.81.39.234 (and probably a few more) are all pretty clearly owned by the same person. Dante8 appears to be a new user and it is possible that he/she forgot to sign on when moving from location to location but these accounts have used to edit the same pages on the same days. I worry that these multiple accounts have been used to create an illusion of consensus on controversial pages, particularly on the deeply flawed article on the Ordination of women. I didn't think the situation quite called for a SPI so I figured I would open up the matter for conversation and give the user a chance to comment. - Schrandit (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The topics that Dante8 (and certainly at least 72.78.224.46  Looks like a duck to me) are editing are quite literally sending chills down my spine. I hope my "gut" suspicions are wrong on who this might possibly be; and I'm at least "half-sure" that I am. Hopefully there will be a response from Dante8 to "clear things up" soon. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - I'll be surprised if any of these IP's come here to comment. If I am right, it would seem to get the block button going. To make sure I'd lean towards taking this to SPI, though no comments from these IP's and it does indeed seem like a  Looks like a duck to me. Jusdafax 04:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely should go to SPI; but it might be added to a previous SPI if it "pans out". I am "somewhat" familiar with a certain banned and currently socking editor who identified herself as a lesbian ordained minister with strong interests in Judaism. If a serial killer was thrown into Dante8's edit history, I'd be convinced of who it was. My interest is "piqued" with this little case, and again, I truly hope I'm wrong - it's just a "hunch". Dante8: please speak up! You've clearly been notified of this report... Doc9871 (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well with all this in mind I'll add a notification tag to the ips and if we don't have a response soon I'll move it over to SPI. - Schrandit (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Can someone take a minute and review the contributions of Javedsbr (talk · contribs)? I just watched him create an article consisting of an enormous, unformatted copy-paste text dump under a nonsense title, then almost immediately pagemove it to a new location. Both are tagged for db. I had a look at his talk page and it's the longest mess of image license warnings and copyright warnings I've ever seen. Not sure what is going on here but it's a little funny (not ha ha funny). Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that you need to notify the user if you put a notice here. I've done that for you. David Biddulph (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez again

{{archivetop|Closed, unresolved, since admins are too busy bickering over childish matters to concern themselves with personal attacks and disruptive editing. When/if I take this to the multiple other fora needed to address the numerous issues, I presume I won't be accused of forum shopping, since not one independent editor or admin could be bothered to review and comment, while dozens are busy commenting on other matters at this board without even informing themselves of the basic issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)}} As documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, we've still got long-term, ongoing behavioral problems by multiple editors at Hugo Chávez, unresolved by previous dispute resolution, and not likely to be resolved via dispute resolution because of the ever-changing cast of new characters, who don't learn policy or guidelines but fill up the talk page with debate, not typically based on reliable sources. In the last go-round, I supplied a long (and unfinished) set of high quality sources that had been routinely cleansed from the article, with repeat claims of "corporate media bias" on the article talk page.

We have edit warring, POV edits, deletion of tags, personal attacks, personalizing disputes on talk, removal of well-cited text, battleground, ownership-- the works. In particular, see personal attacks and others at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles#Disruptive editing at Hugo Chavez.

I do not believe further dispute resolution is likely to resolve the recurring issues at that article, as the cast of characters defending the POV article constantly changes (with the exception of a few regular, long-term contributors, who have improved somewhat). I am hopeful that independent admins will weigh in and oversee the article and the personalization, and suggest that 1RR be instated to encourage talk page collaboration and help stabilize the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree 1RR is usually unhelpful in my experience. TFD (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• 1RR? No way. That too easily becomes just a tricksy way for people to catch each other out. And the page hasn't even been protected recently, which is a far more likely step to encourage collaboration and thoughtful rewriting. Rd232 ^talk 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Protection would be an alternative, but then I couldn't continue cleaning up citations that were just messed up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure you can, if a subpage draft is used to re-develop the article. Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • In the current battleground, it's unlikely sandbox will get anywhere. Also, article protection prevents all editors from improving the article, while 1RR targets disruptive editors, which might help stop the bleeding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has compiled a long list of op-eds in The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, reports from right-wing think tanks, articles and books from U.S. conservative publishers and reports from the U.S. State Department which present views that she believes the article should represent in order for it to be neutral. I have continually asked her to provide peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press, but she apparently cannot find anything there that represents these "neutral" views. She has also tagged the article as POV while failing to provide an explanation of what changes should be made. However, I do not see disruptive editing and would like to see examples provided. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding the representation and due weight to all mainstream views; if you believe The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC and many others are "op-eds" and not reliable sources, I suggest you raise the issue at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, the article is being cited to sources with a known partisan bias, while mainstream sources are systematically removed. Also, by all means, please provide an example of where I cite any op-ed piece, and please note that the article POV has been well documented more than once, and is supported by numerous editors-- tags should not be removed while a POV dispute exists. It is curious that you disclaim all mainstream sources as "right wing think tanks" and request "peer reviewed" sources, while Mark Weisbrot (who co-wrote the Oliver Stone "documentary" [21] on Chavez), Center for Economic and Policy Research, Venezuelan gov't sources, self-published sources, and Venezuelanalysis.com are used to cite the article. Of course, the personal attacks and talk page personalization are separate matters, warranting attention; the extreme personal attacks and misrepresentation of my editing is ongoing, as demonstrated in your post above. It is also curious that you ask for examples of disruptive editing, including extreme personal attacks: did you read the numerous samples I linked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks against SandyGeorgia have occurred above in TFD's post, or to my knowledge anywhere before. There have been comments about your editing and disruption, but that is your behaviour, not you as a person. In any case, so what if Weisbrot was one of the writers on that documentary? Many of your sources come from papers and publications which supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. So I dont get it. That documentary (have you actually seen it) is a lot less positive to Chavez than some your sources are negative to him.ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you characterize:

1. "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years," [22]
2. "stop being a hypocrite" [23]
3. "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there," [24] ?

How would you characterize the scores of diffs on that page of talk page personalization of issues and WP:BATTLEGROUND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am against 1RR on this article. I think the current level of protection is fine. ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Against 1RR. Just use semi-protection on it. Our Hugglers catch any vandalism quickly anyway... --Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Diego Grez, do you understand 1RR? It is not used for vandalism; it's used to stop disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• So far, one indepdent editor has weighed in, and that editor apparently doesn't understand 1RR as it relates to disruptive editing vs. vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have not spoken in favor of any of those sources. The point is there are high quality sources and you chose to ignore them, instead cherry-picking articles. Chavez has been the Venezuelan leader for over 10 years and came to public attention almost 20 years ago. There is no reason to rely on newspapers. Why would we cover any historical event based on newspaper reports? When editing the article about Julius Caesar for example would you push to include a viewpoint about him expressed in the Economist? TFD (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caeser is long dead, a bit different than Chavez, for whom the sources I provide are quite reliable :) And no, I don't cherrypick sources-- please stop the accusations-- I provide lists of sources on talk to document the article POV and missing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um - virtually all articles on living people rely on "newspapers" as you think to disparingly calling them <g>. Very few articles on living people are "peer reviewed." Now as to relying on newspaper reports - did you not realize that almost all that is written on Lincoln has its origin in "newspaper reports"? (ncluding the famed Cooper Union speech, and so on) That almost all books on the Civil War (US) are basically oriented on newspaper and government reports - which were, I can assure you, not "peer reviewed". Sorry - the "peer reviewed" mantra has not been accepted at WP:RS as a reason to exclude newspapers, and is unlikely ever to be. Collect (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody home?

Or are admins too busy arguing with each other to care about our core policy of NPOV?

ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removes very clearly justified POV and other tags, again

while:

Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) can apparently say whatever he wants about other editors, with no admin attention. God forbid Malleus should ever say another editor lies or is a hypocrite, or Gimme should use an alternate account; I spose Ling.Nut had a point about where our priorities lie.

1. "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years," [25]
2. "stop being a hypocrite" [26]
3. "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there," [27] ?

Well, carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

General sanctions requested

Reopening this, as I just saw this after Sandy had closed it in exasperation. I agree with her that something definitely has to be done in this case, and I would recommend that the community authorize some variant of general sanctions for Hugo Chávez and all closely related articles. NW (Talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No. As noted above, protection has not recently been used on this article. As not noted yet, only the main Hugo Chávez article suffers from substantive conflict, and nowhere near bad enough to justify a general sanction for that page without trying protection first. (In fact, right now even protection seems unnecessary.) Sandy's request seems to have arisen from temporary frustration (and a lack of time to deal with matters at hand more patiently). Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my frustration is at AN/I and the trivial disputes that take pages to resolve, with participants apparently not even reading or informing themselves before commenting-- an entirely separate matter. The Chavez article suffers from long-term disruption-- at least four years-- with the additional complication that a new cast of characters appears regularly and prevents progress, with frequent edit wars, failure to read and understand policy or edit summaries or sources, failure to AGF, talk page personalization and ... well, just about one of everything. It is my opinion-- having watched this rinse-lather-repeat cycle for four years-- that the article will not advance unless some sanctions (like 1RR) are implemented. At the rate it's going, it's headed for multiple forums of dispute resolution, which will grind too slowly, leaving the article progress stalled, and wasting everyone's time. Some sort of sanctions are needed to stop the bleeding. Protection and working in sandbox is unlikely to help, because the cast of characters is ever-changing, but the common theme is that old editors defend the POV, and new editors don't learn policy or guidelines, and disrupt the talk page with diatribes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between your expectations of others regarding the assumption of good faith, and your own demonstration of its importance. Asserting your belief that participants here and/or elsewhere fail to "read or inform themselves before commenting", demonstrates a disposition in contrast to these very guidelines. I would prefer to assume participants do read and endeavor to provide informed comment. Even when we sometimes disagree. Cheers. My76Strat 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you're weighing in here, I presume you've checked the diffs I've provided to back up statements, and that you've reviewed the "Gimmetoo, again" section of this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct in this - I would suggest that "1RR" is not the way to go -- rather "maximum of 3 non-contiguous edits per day" would avoid the problems with definition of revert, etc. I can see no reason why anyone would need more than 3 non-contiguous edits per day (24 hours and 5 minutes to avoid trivial gaming) on any article other than one under construction with other editors. Collect (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is very convoluted, and will allow edit wars to continue-- perhaps I'm not understanding your suggestion, but I certainly edit articles more than three times a day when I'm active, and it's not general editing, rather removal of tags and deletion of cited content (reverting by new editors) that is creating issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I dislike gameable restrictions like 1RR. I think it would be more useful to make a statement that there has been a long term problem, and that further disruption will not be tolerated. Provide a page, like Wikipedia:General Sanctions/Hugo Chávez where editors can report disruptive editors. We'll warn them first, and then proceed to blocks or topic bans if needed. If single purpose accounts keep appearing, we can easily say "You are repeating the same disruptive pattern of editing as somebody else who got banned. If you continue, you will end up in the same place." Jehochman ^Talk 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could work, but where are we going to get independent admins to police it? The thing about 1RR is that it's more "reportable" and easier to enforce, but general sanctions require some admins to pay attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the section immediately below this (WMC block sh*tstorm based on climate change general sanction) would be ample warning not to apply General Sanctions unless absolutely necessary. Indeed you (Jehochman) yourself said that the "backwater page WP:GS/CC/RE has been over-run by disputants. It is quite noisy and well-neigh impossible to guage any sort of consensus there. It's become ochlocracy. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion." Sanctions like this multiply meta-discussion and distract from editing and content-focussed discussion. Bottom line, the Chavez article doesn't require any administrative intervention; though mediation might be helpful. Basically there's an excess of noisy discussion, but there's not really enough edit warring (especially if you leave aside the single NPOV tag issue) to justify any action except possibly temporary protection. (Which is probably why there seems to be only one person calling for action.) Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Try 1RR first. Yes it's gameable but it may help. General sanctions are a rather heavyweight thing to apply and should only be used in extremis, for very big things. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Hopping sock: range blocks requested + proxy check

There's an IP hopper who seems to be rather intent on harassing me by stalking my contributions and then undoing them with edit summaries such as "rv tom the ho bag" over the last 3 days or so, even in RfAs I have !voted in. He has also harassed User:Favonian (with edit summaries like "Fav the sexy dane"), User:Zzuuzz, and User:Syrthiss. He seems to be rather quick in changing IPs, however some of the most recent IP addresses include:

• 78.176.21.218

• 78.179.184.2

• 88.242.151.236

• 85.108.84.210

• 91.121.211.11

Ranges include:

• 78.176.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 78.179.176.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 85.108.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 88.242.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 88.246.224.0/19 (talk · contribs · block log)

Note:There is a range list on User talk:Zzuuzz (above) (and his block logs may be of some help to any onlooking administrators) which I'm told are quite effective, however these ranges are usually blocked only a matter of a few (2-3) hours or so, and then he comes back the next day. I think maybe 8 hours or so would be a start, but I'm unaware of how WP usually deals with this stuff. Thanks for your help, Tommy! [message] 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the same charmer as "tedious IP jumper". Turkish ISP(s), unhealthy obsession with certain users, etc. TFOWR 09:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Tommy! [message] 09:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rangeblocks seem to be the most effective way of curtailing the IP's silly games, but I suspect there will be resistance to longer-term rangeblocks: they affect a large number of users. Possibly the best solution is simply to keep the list above handy, and rangeblock them all as soon as our friend shows up. Though I'm very tempted by the IP's suggestion that we block Turkey: I have a Midnight Express dream involving this IP... TFOWR 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are the favorite in the harem now Scotty!! But hey you are the one who confessed to having dungeon S&M fantasies. I say let`s ELOPE - so I got the whip, a 9-foot chain, two 12-foot 2x4s, a plastic bag, handcuffs and a Sinatra vinyl - enough to get freaky you think?

But you better bring a good tootbrush - I hear that scots arent too hyped on dental hygiene. Hardcore dungeon S&M is one thing but I have to draw the line at bad teeth. Sorry!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.122.156.248 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

All the ranges are currently blocked. I've got the IP's favourite editors' userpages watchlisted, so I'll rangeblock next time I see the IP pop up. If I'm around and I miss it, ping me. More eyes/mops welcome, naturally. TFOWR 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that blocking all 100,000 IPs from a main Turkish ISP for a long time is not in our interests, but prompt blocks of increasing length might help. These ranges all need to be blocked at the same time, without messing about with individual IP blocks. They are currently blocked, and the user has since wandered onto open proxies again.[28] Range blocks won't help with that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but open proxies can be blocked long periods of time, which makes this easier. Tommy! [message] 10:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the Turkish kindergartens start back soon... meantime I'll catch up on my reading... TFOWR 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing with open proxies is that there are many thousands available at any time and they only get used for two minutes each. But that's another discussion. I'm reminded that all this started after this vandal was baited. Learn from that Tommy, and we'll keep on blocking the socks. <to fade> RBI, RBI... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't think saying "Just so you know, I can see your contribs instantly" would be baiting (I thought that was more or less directly antagonizing)... lesson learned. Tommy! [message] 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee at WP:ITN

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

Nothing more to see here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if this should go here or WP:WQA, but MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is engaging in some unconstructive behavior at In the news, in particular this diff towards me in response to letting other users know he has an unconstructive history with multiple blocks, as I had encountered his incivility a few months ago. Here are some more. [29], [30], [31](ending of this one in particular), etc. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an isolated incident on a totally different matter an admin removed another attack by this editor here Mo ainm~Talk 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly not isolated. A bit belated, but a recent enough discussion on the Northern Ireland talk page showed us Mick's new catchphrase "Shit, or get off the pot", which I hardly think is a civil term. diff. Many examples from the same discussion, like suggesting that I should be sidelined from any discussions on the article [diff.WikiuserNI (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I only recently started posting material at WP:ITN the past few weeks. Prior to that I had not encountered this editor. Now, I have a reasonably thick skin, but I was taken aback to read this astonishingly uncivil reply to one of my suggestions, which would put almost anyone off and especially someone new to Wikipedia who might be a bit shy. A quick look at MickMacNee's talk page reveals other issues in the recent past as well. So, I think most here will agree there is a problem, yet Mick has also been a valued long-term contributor in some areas including ITN. But a look at the block log for Mick is amazing. Here is sad evidence of someone with a long history of inability to grasp - I'd even say studied unconcern for - the basics of collaborative editing. With that in mind, and seeing that numerous blocks have not made an impression, I must call for a three month block as a preventitive measure to protect editors, and especially those who may be altogether new here, from this manners-challenged editor who seems unwilling to edit and comment in even a minimally collegial fashion. Or to be direct: Mick, I think you need to pretty much take the rest of the year off from the project. It will do us all some good. With respectful concern, Jusdafax 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who remove MickMacNee's comment at WT:BISE. You'll note that I also removed another editor's comment at the same time. Both editors have issues with each other, and I've asked them to disengage. To date (and my request was made very recently) they do seem to have done so.

I'm not convinced that MickMacNee's comments at ITN would, taken individually, be WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA issues. Likewise for the phrase "shit, or get off the pot" (a colloquial expression meaning, in this context, "provide references or stop complaining"). I am concerned, however, that MickMacNee is very good at sailing right up to WP:CIVIL but no further (usually... clearly their block log suggests "over-sailing" on numerous occasions). I'd also add that while I'm reasonably tolerant at WT:BISE (the editors there are all "big enough and ugly enough" to take care of themselves) I am not at all convinced that this tolerance should extend to ITN: a main page area where WP:BITE is hugely relevant as it should attract new editors. This edit ("Are you [Doc Quintana] outing yourself as the imposter who keeps stalking me...") hints at part of the problem: MickMacNee is a target for harassment, due to their outspoken attitude. Dialing-down the attitude would greatly improve the atmosphere with good-faith editors, and, I would imagine, reduce the level of attacks from sock-puppets and trolls. TFOWR 06:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, 18 blocks in 30 months indicates a serious problem, and your point about WP:BITE is the core of the issue, since ITN is trying to attract new users, not scare 'em away. Like a spoiled child, Mick feels free to type these kind of edgy, petulant outbursts even at a Main page project because he has never faced any real consequences. And it is my strongly held view that until his actions result in a major, no-nonsense block, expect more of the same - which can and will have the effect of scaring new users away. Jusdafax 08:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, I think Mick is responsible for how other editors treat him by his own behavior, so I don't think the word "harrassment" is appropriate on how other editors treat Mick, but perhaps could be appropriate for how Mick treats other editors. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Doc Quintana, that wasn't nearly as clear as it could have been. Mick is the target of harassment (the bad faith, sock-puppeting, attacking kind), but not from good faith editors. I stress that I do not believe Mick's allegations against you to be correct or warranted, but perhaps understandable in context. TFOWR 11:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, i'm only concerned with his behavior. Just to clarify, I don't his allegations in this instance are understandable given that I haven't seen him since February. If I had some kind of vendetta against him, It would make sense that I'd be following him around. He just was where I was, and where other users are that don't deserve his behavior. I believe he is the master of his own destiny when it comes to other editors who he may have irritated that have gone to inappropriate behiavor themselves. Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong doesn't make a right either. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Mick's issue is that he gets fed up with some of the interminable rubbish spouted here by some users and he is unable to stop himself occasionally telling them what he thinks about it. I think I have had an adult type spat with him over some issue or other, imo he is often correct but simply should not bother telling the users. If I was Mick I would emigrate to a new account as he must get terminally sick of users saying, this user has been blocked before as was the case here from DocQ who admits himself that he had previously been in a dispute with him. And then, weak reports are made like this one, which standing alone belongs at WP:WQA. I think Mick is a useful contributor in a wide range of topics and is a good NPOV writer, imo users should stop with referencing peoples block records as an excuse to make a report, if a report won't stand alone then don't make it. I think we have this legal issue in the UK. Your not allowed to mention someones criminal record until the subject has been found guilty of something new and only then is the previous record taken into account as regards sentencing. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If Mick decides to make a new account, that's his decision. He'll face the same problems unless the root problem is solved: his behavior. And I do admit that I was in a content dispute with him, but he was blocked while I was not, again because of his behavior. I'm not saying that Mick isn't a valuable editor, what i'm saying is that no one is so valuable that they can act uncivil. Finally, this isn't the United Kingdom, it's Wikipedia. There are different standards here, Wikipedia is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So, considering you said yourself on opening this thread that you were unsure if it belonged here or at WP:WQA, personally if I felt that way I would have gone to WQA, what are you requesting happens to mick for this minor digression? Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to move this to WQA if that's appropriate, and i'll leave Mick's fate to the admins. All i'm concerned about is his behavior. Decorum is not an option on Wikipedia and he needs to respect that. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he does seem to have been getting openly pretty fed up over the last days, there was also the stupidest WP:LAME edit war over a category on a redirect page. I notice he is almost 24hrs without an edit, maybe he'll take himself a couple of days off to get over himself. I am only a single user and general consensus may lie elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Merely delete any unwanted posts by Mick. That way we won't loose a contributing editor. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• The guy has an attitude, there's no doubting that, but there are several editors with even lengthier blocks and even worse civility problems. Mick makes many useful contributions to some very tense areas where discussions tend to get very heated. I would also point out that he has been the subject of genuine harassment – I fairly recently hard blocked an account set up to impersonate him. He needs to dial down the tone, but blocking him won't solve anything. He'll either come back after the block more-or-less unchanged or he won't come back at all, which would make a block purely punitive imho. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes bluntness in an editor (like Mick) is a good thing. In the past some have expressed their frustration with me, over my lack of straightforwardness. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I had barely come across "Mick" (as he is known to his friends - of whom I am clearly not one) until recently. We disagreed about a few things, which is fine - he's probably right more often than wrong, but that's not the issue. His recent edits seem to involve ongoing battlegrounds of borderline incivility, vague threats, baiting a new admin etc. There is no doubt the editor has made a significant contribution, and may do so in future but at present the balance of pros and cons would seem to be moving in the wrong direction. User:MickMacNee, you probably do not believe me, but I wish you well. Sanity probably lies this way for a wee while. Ben MacDui 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he has been close to the edge recently, perhaps a note from an Admin letting him know there is a consensus here that he should tone it down and keep it civil and polite or some forced wiki break will be in order. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a note from an admin would be well received, but perhaps a conversation – on- or off-wiki – with someone he respects (which would rule me out!) might have an effect? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion noted. I've no comment at this time, unless or until someone who doesn't have a history with me takes an interest, except to clarify that the original comment was a reaction to Qunitana turning up at a stale ITN discussion to comment on me in a totally irrelevant and incivil (check the policy, it's not just about being a meany) manner. If anything needs to be discussed at WQA, it's that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 21 August 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.

Canvassing votes

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Several days ago, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Hyundai Elantra#Merger of Elantra LPI Hybrid to merge the contents of Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid to Hyundai Elantra.

One of the voters, Mariordo decided to canvass support for his point-of-view by messaging four other users, [32], [33], [34], and [35].

This is not the first time that Mariordo has done this. At a previous discussion to merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40) the user in question canvassed five votes from users that would support his point-of-view: [36], [37], [38],[39], [40]. An administrator at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid even stated that canvassing votes is not allowed due to it undermining the consensus-building process.

Of the four users that the user in question has requested support from, all of them voted in his favour at the previous merger proposal at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid (the primary topic and rationale behind both mergers are identical).

I have attempted to reason with Mariordo at his talk page ([41]), but he maintains that, "inviting other editors to participate is allowed", despite the clear guidelines of WP:CANVASS, a policy that I have made clear to Mariordo on several occasions.

All that I am requesting is for the integrity of Wikipedia's consensus building procedure be maintained. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo has, on three occasions, notified me of discussions regarding electric vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles. He understands that many of my edits revolve around this subject, and I have always appreciated his notifications. He certainly does not know how I will feel about any given subject, and we have had disagreements in the past (see Talk:Electric_bicycle#Pike_Research_Report as an example). He phrases his notifications in neutral terms, and he has never tried to influence my opinion when he notifies me. I have responded to two of these notifications, and not responded to one (other than acknowledging that I received his note and declining to participate in the discussion). I do not feel that I have been "canvassed" in any way, shape or form.

OSX has been consistently antagonistic toward Mariordo, as he is toward many people (myself included) who disagree with his edits. Here is one example of his childish harassment and name-calling: Talk:Hyundai_Elantra#Merger_of_Elantra_LPI_Hybrid. It is clear to me that the notice on this board is just one more attempt on OSX's part to silence a rational, dedicated, polite editor whose views sometime conflict with those of OSX. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much inherently wrong with this canvassing. The alleged canvassing could have been handled much better by OSX, the warnings he gave were aloof and bordering on rude ("I'll report you to the ANI board and you may be blocked"); but I don't think it's a gross violation of policy, or arguably a violation at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, being the second time this user has done this (and been told about it too) I was simply following the guidelines of WP:CANVASS which states, "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing."

I've asked Mariordo to stop canvassing on two separate occasions but have been ignored. Too bad then if my tone came across as a little aloof. I think Mariordo is guitly of the same. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When have your accusations that Mariordo canvassed votes been ignored? Your accusations have been dealt with in depth each time I have seen you make them. Such accusations generated substantial discussion in the Toyota Camry Hybrid merger thread. See here for an example. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I said, "I've asked Mariordo to stop canvassing on two separate occasions but have been ignored". Let me rephrase that: on the two separate instances that I told Mariordo that canvassing was not the done thing, he disregarded the policy of WP:CANVASS and dismissed my concerns. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood exactly what you wrote, although you may have meant something entirely different from what you said. Thus far in the discussion on this thread, you seem to be the only one who feels that Mariordo has disregarded the policy of WP:CANVASS. Nobody, including Mariordo, dismissed your concerns. We addressed them and came to the conclusion that they were unfounded. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• As the links provided by OSX clearly prove, I simply notified other regular users interested in the subject about the ongoing discussion, and according to the rules of appropriate notification, the text is neutral, the posting were limited (only 4 users), and in a transparent way (leaving messages in those users talk pages). So I do not see any violation to Wiki policy, I just a followed a regular channel to make others aware of the discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So Mariordo, I take it that you won't mind if I notify some other editors as well? Neutrally and transparently of course. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS covers inappropriate canvassing and in this instance I don't see anything that wrong with the manner in which the user canvassed. When a discussion on a particular topic is being put to the floor I believe it is encouraged to notify appropriate users and wiki projects who are known experts or long time editors of the topic. Where this crosses the line is when users are hand-picked for their viewpoints. The message from Ebikeguy serves to illustrate that the canvass was not restricted to a pre-defined point of view and I will agf toward the truthfulness of Ebikeguy's statement. WP:Articles for deletion, although not a direct reference in this instance, encourages the notification of interested wiki project and main contributors of an article. In this instance, I can understand why Mariordo would want all topic-interested editors to participate in the merge discussion. If Mariordo's canvassing has taken a different tone or gone outside of the circle of editors who are intimately involved in the topic of hybrid automobiles I would feel otherwise.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The message from Ebikeguy is deceptive and does not explain that Mariordo only notified the editors that supported his point-of-view in the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. That is the point of this WP:ANI complaint. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My message was straightforward and fact-based. It was in no way deceptive. I spoke the truth plainly, and I strongly disagree with any statements to the contrary. OSX may be assuming that all editors who are interested in electric vehicles will vote as a block on any given subject. This is clearly not the case, as I demonstrated in my previous post on this thread. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ebikeguy, you know as well as I do that if I was to canvass votes based on the Camry Hybrid debate, that the supporters of the merger would far outweigh the opposition. By supporting Mariordo's canvassing of only the opposing points-of-view, that leaves me with the impression that it is okay for the supporters of the merger to do the same. So let me ask you the question: is it okay? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you were to unfairly canvass votes for the Elantra merger, you might be able to find lots of your friends who would support your position, so please don't do that, okay? No one, including Mariordo, has unfairly canvassed votes for the anti-merger side, as evidenced by the expert opinions expressed in this debate, so we would appreciate the same courtesy from those supporting the other side of the argument. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Mariordo requested input from Johnfos, North wiki, Ebikeguy, and Daniel.Cardenas—all supporters of the Camry Hybrid merger—and you think that does not count as canvassing?

WP:CANVASS is quite clear. It says, "Inappropriate notification [includes] posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion". The opposing opinions of Johnfos, North wiki, Ebikeguy, and Daniel.Cardenas were clear based on the discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Conversely, none of the users that supported the merger were contacted: Stepho-wrs, Zunaid, Wfrmsf, Falcadore, Greglocock, Parent5446, Typ932, Bidgee, CZmarlin, ZacJ71, NichlausRN, Mr.choppers and myself.

Nlu, one of the editors canvassed during the Camry Hybrid discussion only had "mild opposition" so he was not contacted either as his vote would likely go to the supports of the merge this time for the Elantra LPI Hybrid. I am basing this on his previous assertion that, "I understand the point of doing so, but doing so eliminates useful information. This is not a situation where the hybrid article is really only a couple paragraphs and would be completely duplicative."

So Ebikeguy and Mariordo, I am giving you two options:

• 1) You can withdraw the canvassed votes from the discussion;
• 2) Or, you can leave the canvassed votes in tact.

If you decide to choose the latter option, I will contacting all other parties (both supporters and opposers) involved in the Camry Hybrid discussion (except those who have already voted or have been contacted already). It would be in your best interest to pick the first option because it is only two votes. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OSX I'm sorry, but that's a pretty clear threat of biased canvassing that YOU'RE making by publishing a list of demands. I suggest you stop and continue to debate whether Mariodro was canvassing before you find yourself in a spot that is impossible to defend. Your argument loses a lot of credibility when you behave this way.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated that Mariordo violated WP:CANVASS. He contacted Johnfos, North wiki, Ebikeguy, and Daniel.Cardenas—all supporters of the Camry Hybrid merger—and did not contact anyone else.

Inappropriate notification in violation of WP:CANVASS can involve, "posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion".

Your opinion of the credibility of my argument is of little concern to me. But since it is becoming apparent to me that canvassing support in discussions is now acceptable behaviour, maybe I should not feel so reluctant to participate in it myself (I have said that I will be contacting all involved editors, which is not canvassing in its own right). Ebikeguy, you have urged me not to do this. As a return, I urge you to withdraw the canvassed votes. Sounds fair to me. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits to the Julian Assange article

I reported this on the WP:BLPN page, but due to the high profile of the Julian Assange article, I thought it ought to be bumped here. There are new edits conerning claims that an arrest warrant has been issued against him in Sweden. I won't go into details here. The edit is sourced to a Swedish site, and since I don't speak Swedish and can't find any English language sources, I thought it might be best to bring it here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The source looks 'legit enough' and the contents do confirm that he was arrested in absentia over rape allegations from 2 women. Anything beyond that is up to the editors involved, personally, in this case, I would probably lean towards WP:NOTNEWS. un☯mi 05:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge of Swedish didn't allow me to verify the source. Is it a credible one? I erred on the safe side per BLP and reverted the edit. The rest can be decided at the article talk, and my own feeling is err on the side of leaving it out unless/until more sources can be found. --John (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Expressen could probably be aptly described as a sensationalist newspaper, I don't think that they would "make it up" but on the other hand it is not clear how well the story checks out. They claim to have spoken with the prosecutors office who have confirmed that the arrest warrant was issued. I agree that we should probably hold off until other sources pick it up, which should be "anytime now" if it seems to check out. un☯mi 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a classic WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS violation: There is one media outlet with a highly unlikely story of rape: "The women victims did not want to press charges against Assange, fearing his position of power." But how could an Australian journalist have a "position of power" in relation to two women he allegedly met while on a lecture tour of Sweden? Then there are other news sources parroting the first, and Wikipedia has an article confidently asserting "An arrest warrant for Julian Assange was issued by Swedish police", while for balance, the article later says "Assange states: '... I have not been contacted by the police'". In 24 hours we should know if an arrest order has been made. Meanwhile, the speculation should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The arrest order is a reliable fact, independently verified by other news sources. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue - it doesn't (yet..) require admin action - I'd encourage Everard to mark this resolved and we can discuss it on more relevant pages. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a BLP issue. There were a ton of sources, including reliable sources which confirmed the arrest order was real. BLP doesn't state that we can't say anything bad about anyone. This BLP truncheon being used to find exceptional sources for any negative information about a person is getting tiresome.--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The arrest warrant appears to have been rescinded. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I spotted this article in Ha'aretz this morning. Whilst there are several existing editors enforcing a pro-settler POV (some for several years now), some extra eyes on this area of Wikipedia (particularly the articles mentioned in the news report - Haneen Zoabi, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Bil'in and Gaza flotilla raid) might be a good idea. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the "Best Zionist Editor" competition and the trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel. I'm not much of a Zionist but I like hot air ballons and I want to be that lucky encyclopedist in 4 years time. I'm assuming non-Zionists can enter the competition. Luckily all of those articles are already on my watchlist so that's a start. More seriously, it's not unusual for articles to be published on the media calling for people to edit Israel related articles in Wikipedia, one of government ministries had a completely out in the open paid Hasbara scheme around the time of Operation Cast Lead (not sure whether that is still going) and I've seen various off wiki advocacy sites that have similar aims and offer advice. I'm not sure it's anything much to worry about plus I'm not sure that the partisan battling in the I-P area on wiki in general can get that much worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• - http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2010/08/will-i-become-wikipedia-editor.html - you could not make that up, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Not sure what can be done other than keep a closer eye on new accounts diving right in to controversial articles, but in the wake of Wikipedia:CAMERA, I hope this is taken seriously. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• more press coverage in the guardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlypsychosis (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since one of the remedies ArbCom implemented after the Wikipedia:CAMERA affair was to urge editors to notify them of coordinated efforts like this, would someone who knows how to do that please inform the Committee? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times has picked up the story[42]. Way to go, guys. Skinwalker (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be a serious blow to neutrality of Wiki. We should keep an eye as suggested by пﮟოьεԻ 57-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 21:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Per User:Ohiostandard's comment above, I have notified the ArbCom clerks at WT:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Possible influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

110.20.34.7, 110.20.11.94 and 110.20.55.15

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 first (socks, I believe), left third one because it seems hopping. Watching the desk. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

These three users, who I suspect are the same person, are making numerous inflammatory remarks on the Mathematics reference desk. I request that they be blocked.--220.253.222.146 (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That IP apologized afterwards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Continued later as other IPs, such as: 110.20.1.146, 110.20.2.147, 114.72.202.2, and 114.72.218.253. David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This user is extremely disruptive. He continues posting personal attacks (e.g. [43], [44]). He impersonates other users in his signatures ([45], which caused someone to be accidentally blocked) and is removing information that can be used to deal with him ([46]).

He is using IP ranges 114.72.191-255.* and 110.20.0-63.*. Please block those before things get out of hand. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this is also discussed two threads below, I've copied most of my post there. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:William M. Connolley by User:The Wordsmith

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block of William M. Connolley to save space on the ANI page as well as to centralize discussion in a logical place. –MuZemike 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel, Fox News Channel controversies, user:SemDem

It would appear that the user user:SemDem is working off site to urge editors to add negative information regarding Fox News Channel. link Comment

I offered a submission that I researched and made sure to include Fox News and News Corps responses to be fair and balanced. First I was told it was a minor controversy, then I was told no one really was covering it (false), then I was told that I had to get "consensus" from everybody on this highly partisan issue (even though some here clearly have an agenda), then I was told that News Corps has nothing to do with Fox News. Enough! This is the largest donation made by a private company to the RGA AND one of the largest in history by a media organization! This issue is already on the main article on Fox News, and it has been thoroughly covered by the main stream media. The criticism has been directed towards Roger Ailes and Fox News in terms of how they can claim to be "fair and balanced" in the coverage of upcoming races as well as Fox News' reluctance to cover the controversy! As I said before, I have no trouble with a blurb that gives a strong defense of the donation...but it is disingenuous at best and partisan at worst to say that this does not deserve to be in this article.SemDem (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Offsite Daily Kos work. Comments of note.

We gave up on the Fox News main page, and simply added a balanced blurb on the "Fox News Controversies" page, which even INCLUDED the official Fox News and News Corps defense of the donation. It was removed.

The discussion page and the history page on the "Fox News Controversies" section is funny. First the argument was the controversy was "minor", then the argument was it wasn't covered by any other media. When a wikipedia editor listed EVERY media outlet that covered it, then the argument was it required "consensus" from everybody before it could be in the article...and the latest arguement? That NEWS CORPS is not really Fox News so it doesn't belong there.

Yeah...even though the whole controversy is around FN bias, and how they fail to even address the issue, and the fact that they won't allow ANY Dem governor to come on their show and discuss the matter, etc.

Right now, the scandal is scrubbed on Wikipedia.

A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS forum has been called to resolve this matter in the talk section (bottom):http://en.wiki.x.io/...

It's essentially two guys against Fox...so if you have an account on Wikipedia, please contribute and let your voice be heard! Wikipedia is always a top search result of just about any topic, so this does matter--Fox knows it.

SemDem was one of the first editors to add this information. I don't believe Blaxthos is working with those at the Daily Kos. Although we disagree, this isn't something I think he would do. I don't think this belongs, but bastardization of WP procedures is not the proper way to work. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User notified Arzel (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also suggest that Fox News Channel and Fox News Channel Controversies should be protected for a couple of days. At the minimum FNC Controversies should be semi-protected. Arzel (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're jumping to conclusions needlessly. As I said before, it could certainly be just as plausible that someone planted that post to preemptively "taint" the RFC that wasn't going his way. I'm not saying you did, but I'm saying it doesn't matter in the slightest... policy says to consider the merits of the arguments, not to ignore the results of the RFC! The only way your logic ("RFC = worthless now") could be valid is if you're counting votes (which we're not). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Needlessly? I thought you want to improve WP, not make it worse. It would be nice if you would strike your incidary comment regarding me from the talk page. I even made a point to state that I didn't think you had anything to do with it. Let us do this the right way, with respect to WP policies, because if the Daily Kos people think that this method works in the least it will only make them do it again in the future. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly a real world agenda to damage fox news channel and we need to be aware of it. This is an area where neutrality needs to be monitored to prevent abuse although i am not sure temporary protection would solve anything. Considering the bias shown by the mainstream media in America its understandable there is such a mission to discredit Fox to prevent the left wing agenda being exposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If by real world agenda you mean "Fox's sloppy journalistic standards and intractible bias stemming from a political party's control of a news network" then yes. Facts are well known to possess a liberal bias. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/VC is a show-trial!)} 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No i was referring to the clear left wing bias in the American "Mainstream" media, sure Fox news is right wing, but it does not mean the other media is not biased in the opposite direction. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped and wondered why, however? Conservatives in the United States tend to either misrepresent or outright ignore facts that do not support their positions or weltanschauung. Because of this, facts - and anyone who reports on facts - have a liberal bias. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/VC is a show-trial!)} 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also just had to undo this edit [47] by User:24.124.56.208 adding the same sort of material, and also mentioning wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Both have been semi-protected. Further disruption by SemDem can be reported to AIV. I don't think there's much else to do here. TNXMan 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT the place to discuss whether or not Fox News is or is not biased. If an editor has an NPOV issue (as might be indicated here in previous posts), then that editor most certainly should not be editing Fox News, or at least, should so only with the utmost of extreme care and at their own peril.   Thorncrag  20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve Tyrell

There's some kind of edit war going on at this article. References are being removed and added back and removed again, and there are multiple different people involved. I don't really undertsand a good way to look at the page history to sort it out. Maye it should be protected? I haven't edited the article at all.--96.224.145.54 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last good version. This is the first edit in a month. If the activity picks back up, please report this to WP:RFPP. Thank you for noticing this. TNXMan 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion, vote-stacking, ongoing vandalism

Resolved

 – Both IPs blocked. WMF comms list informed. Fences&Windows 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I need to ask someone to block two socks of IP 138.162.8.57 (talk) who was just blocked for the fifth time as a vandal. His two socks both !voted in one now-current AfD, they're both are in use to evade a current block, and one continues to vandalize.

Btw, apologies in advance if I've given too much detail here. I wasn't sure how much was appropriate; comments welcome on that.

IP 138.162.8.57 (talk) has been vandalizing for years. He's a prolific editor. Approximately 20% of edits have been obvious vandalism, another 10% subtle vandalism - like erroneously changing event dates by a few years, and the balance have been constructive or at least remotely-plausible-at-a-stretch, those having mostly to do with the United States Navy, with a conservative political preference - e.g. "Most Americans believe (Obama) isn't a a natural born citizen of the United States", and with various other subjects. A reverse IP lookup attributes the IP to the Naval Network Information Center (NNIC), with headquarters in Jacksonville, FL. This IP was blocked for the fourth time, on August 5th, for a week. It's my understanding that this branch of the NNIC provides internet access to most or all of Florida's Naval facilities.

After his fourth block expired on August 12th, IP 138.162.8.57 returned to editing August 18th, and his first edit back was vandalism, as were four out of his next ten edits, before he was blocked for a fifth time, for two weeks, beginning August 20, by Cirt.

IP 138.162.8.58 (talk) is an obvious sock of 138.162.8.57, that also should be blocked, as it's being used for block evasion and to !vote in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Obama_first_family_vacations. A reverse IP lookup yields the same result as 138.162.8.57, and the two IPs have edited the same articles just minutes apart.[48][49][50]. Although a little less vandalism has emanated from IP 138.162.8.58 (talk page warnings here) I found many other minutes-or-hours-apart edits made to the same articles by 138.162.8.58 and 138.162.8.57. Sometimes one would revert the other's vandalism - a pattern consistent with 138.162.8.57's occasional self-reverts of vandalism. Other times one IP would continue the other's vandalism of the same article.

The two IPs mentioned appear to represent a single user's work location with the U.S. Navy. I also strongly suspect IP 74.248.43.156 (talk) of being a home or alternate location for the same person. The reverse IP lookup for 74.248.43.156 identifies a BellSouth customer in Panama City, FL. In addition:

• There's a large U.S. Navy presence in Panama City, FL, including a Navy base, which would account for 138.162.8.5x as a "work" location, provisioned by the Navy Network Information Center.

• The Navy base in Panama City, FL, was founded as the U.S. Navy Mine Countermeasures Station, and it continues that mission. IP 74.248.43.156 is in Panama City, and by this edit he shows an interest in things Naval, and in one of the Navy's mine countermeasures squadrons in particular.

• IP 74.248.43.156 showed up just after IP 138.162.8.57 was blocked for the fourth time, and shows the same politically conservative tendency and interests in his brief editing career under that IP.

• In this edit IP 138.162.8.57 added a ref for this Panama City newspaper/web article to the Obama family vacations list. While not conclusive, it does indicate 138.162.8.57 has an awareness of Panama City events, as well as IP 74.248.43.156.

• IP 74.248.43.156 !voted the same way ("keep") in the same AfD that IP 138.162.8.58 did, viz. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Obama_first_family_vacations.

This person, in one of his edit summaries under one of his IPs, did provide very specific information about his Navy assignment on a particular date that his "ISP", the Navy Network Information Center, could certainly use in conjunction with the personnel data they would have available to personally identify him. ( Saying this doesn't come anywhere close to wp:outing, btw, as the information is too general for anyone outside Navy personnel to ID him. ) If anyone wants to initiate a contact with the Navy under the auspices of Wikipedia:Abuse_response, however, including that information might be helpful. Contact me for more information about that, if desired.

Looking carefully through the history of the two IPs, 138.162.8.57 and 138.162.8.58, leads me to believe that they're quite stable, i.e. that they've both "belonged" to the same Navy employee for years. I personally think extending the existing two-week block on 138.162.8.57 to "indef" would be called for, even without this new evidence of block evasion and vote-stacking in an AfD, given that he has shown he has no interest in changing his behavior. I also think 138.162.8.58 needs an "indef" as an obvious sock and vandal, and that 74.248.43.156 is also quacking loudly-enough to merit the same indef as a sock being used for block evasion and vote-stacking. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good detective work, Ohiostandard. I take it there has been nothing taken to WP:SPI yet? Jusdafax 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative, Jusdafax. Nothing has been taken to the sockpuppet investigation page yet. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:DUCK to me. If the 74.248 IP isn't the 138.162 editing from a different location then it's the meatiest meatpuppet ever. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks, Jusdafax! ( and Sjones23, and Burl ) No, nothing to SPI from me, anyway. I was (vain hope?) thinking it might be avoidable given that there are only IPs implicated, or "implicated so far", anyway. Nothing I'm aware of here that requires checkuser authority ... although I admit I don't necessarily understand how a check user process is run or what it comprises. Does it look for new named accounts coming from implicated IPs, too, even if they're not explicitly identified in an SPI submission? But don't answer that if you'd have to kill me after telling me. ;-) Don't want to open up the inner workings of the process too publicly, I mean. But no, no SPI thus far; I've never filed one before, although I'll probably have to in a wholly different matter in a couple of days. If an SPI is called for, and you or anyone else feels charitable, I'd be pleased to be able to avoid learning how to create one properly just now; as I need to go offline for a couple of hours, anyway. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like it might be more effective to drop a line to someone at NNIC to let them know that someone is using taxpayer money to vandalize our website and has been doing so for quite a while. ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah no kidding. You'd think the military would have more important things to do than troll and vandalize wikipedia. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that members of the US Congress and their staffs do the same thing, I doubt it. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember, this is the same U.S. Government who wants their FBI logo removed from Wikipedia. Which is probably in itself an overreaction to the embarassment caused by the Wikileaks incident, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. –MuZemike 05:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the suggestion re contacting NNIC, everyone, but for now ...

We still need an admin to block, please.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Still needed. One obvious, vandalizing IP sock of an already blocked IP. Another probable IP sock. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Cirt blocked one, I blocked the other. Blocked for a fortnight. Fences&Windows 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for removal of rollback?

Resolved

 – There is no guideline for removal other than the judgement of the removing administrator; if you feel you're being unfairly treated even after bringing up your concerns with the removing admin, then either start a new thread here or wait a while and request rollback again. · Andonic ^Contact 12:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My rollback privileges were removed by User:Toddst1 after he observed that I was engaging in bitey behavior towards an IP editor, as documented in the ANI thread Behavior of Binksternet towards IP user. Toddst1 made what I must assume was a very quick survey of my edits and determined that I had abused rollback and that I had been engaging in edit warring short of 3RR violation. I haven't used plain old rollback for a couple of weeks at least, and I pointed out to Toddst1 that his examples of my rollback abuse were Twinkle edits. I use Twinkle for almost all of my rollback actions, and I made an honest mistake with it by not clicking on the green AGF link; rather, I had gotten so used to using the red VANDAL link with Twinkle that I was operating under the assumption that the red link was the only available Twinkle link, and that the others were plain rollback links. My mistake, and I have corrected my behavior.

On the WP:Rollback feature and WP:Twinkle pages, there is no guideline stating that rollback can be removed for abusing Twinkle or for edit warring. Instead, the guideline states that rollback can be removed only for abuse of rollback itself. I pointed this fact out to Toddst1 at User talk:Binksternet#rollback but he did not address it. Instead, he replied that I should go without edit warring for an undetermined time before he would consider restoring rollback. This brings me to my questions:

• Is the guideline for removal of rollback privileges contained entirely at WP:Rollback feature or are there other factors listed elsewhere?
• Can rollback be removed for non-rollback related activities?
• Can my rollback privileges be restored? Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is rollback removal appealable to AN/I? Or should it be?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no other forum for rollback restoration petitions, I don't see why not (not certain because I've been inactive for a while). · Andonic ^Contact 01:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to determine what limits there are in administrator removal of rollback. I don't really need the feature as Twinkle replaces it nicely. I wish to have this question answered for future benefit of the wiki, so that admins know when they can remove rollback and when they should not. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, did you consider Twinkle's having named that feature "rollback" to be a mere coincidence, and thus separate from the rollbacker role? If so, why? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle had rollback long before it became a usergroup. · Andonic ^Contact 02:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, anything is appealable here. Since rollback is considered "easy come, easy go" appealing here will not (without assertion of gross misuse of rights management) normally gain much attention. If Binksternet holds to their stated commitment of self-restraint, rollback should be re-granted in short order. Binksternet...while there may not be a direct reference to edit warring on the rollback page, it does state "rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes". The first sentence of WP:Edit warring states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". So, it kinda follows. Tiderolls 02:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Binksternet, he added that himself following the previous ANI discussion. Nevertheless, I'm still curious as to why he thought that two different operations both called "rollback" were under separate rules in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, Chris. To be clear; I wasn't accusing Binksternet of edit warring (apologies if I came across that way). I was simply responding to their inquiry regarding removal of rollback vis à vis edit warring. Tiderolls 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I gather the answers are: Yes, it can be appealed, in most cases it shouldn't be, and Binksternet should probably wait a little time, then approach the administrator who removed it or else put in a new request.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable conclusions and seems to be the consensus; I'll mark as resolved. · Andonic ^Contact 12:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Binksternet has a history of abusing rollbacks in content disputes. I had previously warned him about the misuse of the tool. [51] Kurdo777 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to add an unsolicited opinion, this almost seems a case of WP:SHOT and Binksternet has inadvertently provided a rationale for his name to be added to the Twinkle blacklist. The best thing to do if your rollback right s are revoked is to leave it a few weeks then make your case to the admin who removed it. Btw, if such a case were brought up at WP:PERM/R, the editor would be told to discuss it with the admin first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Berberpedia

I'd appreciate a second opinion on these edits [52], which appear to have an agenda, esp. given the username. Perhaps they're legit, but one takes notice when this many redirects are made w/o explanation. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of them consisted of a copy/paste move. Others involved factual changes, and as they weren't explained (and in this case, appeared to be in conflict with the sources), I've reverted everything. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated here, too. The user hasd been engaging me at User talk:Jeff G.#dear_user.   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

... and has deleted both discussions in these two edits.   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor creating low quality content

Everything created by Paedea2008 (talk · contribs) has been of extremely low quality and unsalvageable. While some of their content seems to be hoax, such as TV Animal Farm, others seem to be good faith contributions about real things, but of such low quality that they're unsalvageable articles. Per WP:TNT, can someone please blast through this user's contributions, and maybe give some kind of warning? Many of their contribs have already been speedied. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

funny: when I read the header in the table of content, I knew who was gonna be discussed before scrolling down. User doesn't respond to any warnings... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics of the specific user:Paedea2008 I would like to address the philosophical implications of saying a user's contributions are "good faith contributions about real things, but of such low quality that they're unsalvageable articles". Really? When was policy rewritten because last I saw it said quite clearly that an AfD reason that was "bad quality" was NOT acceptable or legitimate, not being notable was the main primary reason for an article deletion, not that it was of bad quality. We are an encyclopedia that admits it is continually under construction and we never discriminate based on poor use of English or grammar, bad citation forms, or bad formatting or procedural misteps as long as it is all in good faith. Now I know Ten Pound was stating this in all good faith and there were other more legit reasons why Paedea2008 was a disruption, but WP:TNT which is an essay and not a policy (nor apparently a llama, though it may be a camel) is not a great thing to be quoting and using as justification and in fact flies in the face of multiple statements found in numerous policies and guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the specifics either, but while I agree that we need to be careful with somewhat degrading terms like "crapflood of low quality content" (in fact I would encourage TenPoundHammer to choose a more suitable title for this thread), WP:COMPETENT does come into play if a user's contributions are consistently of sufficiently poor quality that they cannot be deciphered or repaired, and in some cases, the only option is to "blow it up and start again" as WP:TNT suggests. I don't think AfD is what is being suggested here Camelblinky, read WP:TNT again. Removing the content or "stubifying" indecipherable or unsalvagable articles may be necessary. I'm going to have a look at some of the user's contributions in a moment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This editor is creating a lot of unnecessary work for others. All of their contributions have either been speedied, prodded, or taken to AfD. The editor has had warnings/notifications placed [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], including 1 only [58], and 1 final [59] warning. The editor has been unresponsive to each of the warnings, and has not made an attempt to communicate to save the articles (as a lot do), so I feel that it would have been pointless to try and talk with this editor directly. Instead, I am proposing a block of some length on this editor for what I (and others) consider to be disruptive editing. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: there is already a thread about this user; maybe this should be merged with the "Crapflood of low quality content" thread above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good point, there is so much stuff on this page that I missed it, but it is now merged. Whose Your Guy (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is always a hard one but bluntly his contributions are of such a low quality and creating so much work that he should be blocked because he's actively degrading the project (not out of any malice as far as I can see). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at some of his contributions, and I think it's a little harsh to take such a stance simply because his english isn't up to par; I've seen worse attempts at pages than The Gold Axe and Silver Axe, for example, which I've generally cleaned up (or at least marked for cleanup) rather than prodding with an unhelpful and irrelevant message such as "Extremely low quality contribution from editor with a ton of low-quality article work." given in this case. A better approach here would be to either mark it for improvement or improve it yourself, which I intend to do now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done: I removed the personal commentary and POV, cleaned up the encyclopaedic information, and tagged it as needing references; I'll take a look for some myself in a little while if none emerge. Has anyone discussed with the user how to improve their edits? Explaining the proper tone and register of an encyclopaedic article is probably the most important here. I have to agree that language appears to be a barrier here, but I don't think we should just write this user off as useless just yet, nor is the blind prodding of all of his recent contributions acceptable, as several of them may well be notable subjects and relevant to wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I don't see any discussion with the user, discounting warning templates and deletion notifications. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked by this, but sadly not altogether surprised. The concept of "civility" here on wikipedia is definitely screwed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, do you have anything to contribute to this discussion? This isn't the first time I've noticed you've commented on a thread just to take a sarcastic snipe at the wikipedian community, while failing to actually contribute towards improving it. If you're shocked by the apparent incivility with regards to this matter, by all means give civil advice to the user, help them improve their work, or pose an alternate option here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Giftiger that those warnings and deletion notifications are not "communication" can those that came to this thread stating that they tried to talk to this individual but got no response please let us know if there was real attempts at communication? I know if I did something wrong and all I got was a stern warning or bureaucratic templates and English wasnt my first language then I'd be confused how to respond. Perhaps a nicer better approach to this editor and attempt to turn them into a good contributor is in order rather than just pushing them out.Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we have some general communication-problem here. I, for one, was assuming that when I leave a non-templated note on someone's page, and that someone has any questions, s/he will ask. That's at least what I would do, esp. when there's a floodload of such messages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, one more time... this includes an "edit-new section"-link. If that won't work, I don't know what ele to try... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not even have any idea if this user ever even clicks on the new message warning when they sign in as there is no evidence he/she has ever edited their talk page or user page it is possible they have never gone to the talk page! Is there anyone who can think of a way to contact this person? They may not visit article talk pages either... other than using an article that they edit directly (and this may be the only way and a case of breaking policy just to contact this editor).Camelbinky (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The new messages warning is pretty clear, so if they're not seeing the messages, it's likely a language barrier problem, or they simply haven't bothered to read the messages. In the former case, I fear this may well be a WP:COMPETENT problem; in the latter case, I've seen short blocks be used to get the attention of users who have failed to respond to repeated warnings; perhaps this would be a good option before resorting to a long-term block for incompetence. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember a couple years back we had an Indian editor who created relatively useless articles on encyclopedic subjects, but wrote in Hindi very well. They were eventually advised to submit articles in Hindi and then list them on wp:PNT; does anybody else think that this would be feasible with this (apparently Korean) editor? We've got a few active users who are ko-N, so to me it's just a question of finding a volunteer to watch over Paedae2008. — east718 | talk | 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Text on User:JanDeFietser

Resolved

 – Page content blanked. Matter resolved. This issue will not blow up again. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

First: sorry for my English.

On User:JanDeFietser there's a dutch text in which I'm accused to have done certain things. With this accusions this user is importing a conflict from the dutch wiki from 1 year ago as well as it could be seen as a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." (citated from Wikipedia:NPA.) This attack can be found in the sentence: "Tevens wijs ik erop dat Basvb die blokkering OT bewerkstelligde middels een valse en onvolledige voorstelling van zaken en dat JZ85 verzuimde zich zelfs over het ueberhaupt bestaan van die emails te vergewissen." (Citation from User:JanDeFietser)

Please delete those false accusions.

Greetings, NL_Bas (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (fastest responce at Dutch usertalk)

A bad penny always turns up.

Please see the official warning to JZ85 on 25 July 2010

and please now issue our beloved compatriot Basvb the same warning for this sly provocation (also see WP:HOUND, WP:HOUNDING, WP:WIKIHOUND, WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:STALK)

(Basvb should not excuse himself for writing in English but for providing incomplete information instead). Frankly, my rather short explanation on my user page for my presence on the English wiki does not contain any false accusation at all - and, pardon my French, what Basvb does now and here is something like pissing into the wind. When I explain my presence on the English wiki on my personal user page, that is what it is, a statement that explains my presence on the English wiki, and not importing any "conflict" anywhere (just in case someone forgot: a conflict needs at least two parties). That is what Basvb is trying to do now himself, stirring up things. => Note that he just could have asked me anything about my user page statement and he did not do that...

If Basvb insists on discussing my presence on the English wiki or my statement about this presence: note that as far he is mentioned shortly in that explanation, it is not about what he did, but rather about what he mischievously failed to perform (: giving honest and complete information to admin JZ85, who then blocked me without even any form of defense on the Dutch wiki, against all principles of proper and diligent "conflict" resolution and solely based on Basvb's dishonestly provided incomplete information - note that Basvb tries to repeat that vicious game here again on the English wiki).

The case that Basvb here calls a "conflict" is still pending, and absolutely not something "from 1 year ago", for he knows himself very well that I am still waiting for many months for a reply from him to my questions about his very own behaviour: Basvb threatened me on the Dutch wikichat on November 6th, 2009 - and after that he concocted on the same day behind my back that current block on the Dutch wiki, against which I was not allowed to defend myself (again: there is something very very wrong on the Dutch wiki).

Bas, who do you try to fool? If you notice evidence is lacking, you should invite me to deliver it, and I politely offer to provide it, easy as that - but what are you after? Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia and YOU YOURSELF played a serious role in that, Bas (and are still playing, as I see here now). Strictly seen, you even committed a criminal act with your threats on November 6th (art. 284 Sr): do you want that exposed here? (yes, I kept a saved copy of that conversation on the Dutch wikichat)

Last month there was also that user "Grimbeer", whose solely reason to open an account here on the English wiki was to stir up things (see his edit history).

Now Basvb seems trying to play the same game again as he did in November 2009 on the Dutch wiki, by fomenting an admin while mischievously giving incomplete information. Why this intrigue here now? And why do you try to provoke me here on the English wiki? Be wise, step back.

There was already a warning to Dutch users on the English Wikipedia here NOT to discuss the Dutch affairs. Is Basvb trying to lure me into something here now? I advise that he takes my words on my user page for granted and discuss things elsewhere. As he probably also knows very well, everyone who wants to discuss this matter is welcome on my weblog where a completely free and open discussion is possible and where nobody gets censored or blocked http://jandefietser.web-log.nl/jandefietser/ : I think that is a much better place than here on the English wiki. I protest against this: DO NOT PLAY THOSE GAMES HERE

=> => I quote: "There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. (...) let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) "

Who is interested can read the previous discussion here.Bas, I can provide evidence for your serious misbehaviour and even criminal behavior that you (perhaps do not) want, but now get off my back here on the English wiki and play your sly games on the Dutch wiki, or defend your behaviour on my weblog where things can discussed freely Bas, or in court for that matter, but NOT HERE. I think all or most other users on the English wiki will agree with me--JanDeFietser (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree that your wp.nl-related problems should not be discussed here. I am blocking JanDeFietser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for legal threats ("and even criminal behavior" ... "or in court for that matter"). No opinion whether the other user also needs a block. That should help settle the issue for now.  Sandstein  20:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has unblanked the page, but I'm concerned that the content (in both the english and dutch) appears to simply be disparaging users on the dutch wikipedia, and at the very least, does not help to contribute to the project in any way and should be disallowed. Any thoughts from others? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the apparently problematic Dutch text again. But if the indef block sticks - and it should, really, independently from the legal threat: the user has been asked to stop continuing his .nl disputes here and judging from the rant above has not really gotten the message - the page can simply be replaced with an {{indefblocked}} tag.  Sandstein  20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I had a lengthy reply but by the time the edit conflicts had gone away, so had the need for my lengthy reply. Good block, Sandstein, though the wikilawyering has already begun. JanDeFietser has previously been advised how to handle their complaint (i.e. meta or OTRS) and chose to ignore that advice. The very ANI report they linked to specified how the community would handle a repeat of their past behaviour, so I'm flabbergasted that they chose to (a) keep up their userpage, (b) blame the editor who reported this incident, and (c) use the previous ANI report as some form of justification for their own misbehaviour. TFOWR 21:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is rather a shame. The text in question is clearly a case of bringing the nlwp dispute into en.wp and this text should probably have been removed in the previous tussle about the nl.wp dispute. Had it been removed at that time, then a user would not have had to come in now asking it to be removed (properly so in my opinion). Still, again JdF sees it fit to start with his legalese in response. He was warned multiple times for this in the past and it was this disruptive behavior of legalese and continuance of this discussion, that was the problem leading to his block. A report of a continuance cannot be considered to fall under the previous warnings for continuance in my opinion. A repetition of legal threats however, is a serious problem. I really wish this hadn't been necessary. I worked on an article with JdF even today. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did by any chance any of u english readers read what was in that Dutch passage on this user's page? It was a statement in responso of the accusations of legal threats and actions, stating JdF would NOT go to that point.... I am native Dutch speaker, and am flubbergasted by such ignorance of this particulary case on the English wiki. This was not about making threats, but about stating there IS no threat and there will be no threat nor legal action. Besides it was the Users choice to put it there, so AGF and put it back. Maybe better to ask JdF to make that statement in English instead of in Dutch, but as u can see by the comments he made before, this is not about importing conflicts, or about being disruptive. Assume Good Faith people! Tjako (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I did, yes. It referenced the nl.wiki issues that JanDeFietser had been told (at the ANI report JanDeFietser links to above) not to raise on en.wiki. It was for that reason that some of the content was removed, prompting JanDeFietser to post here, which in turn resulted in JanDeFietser being blocked (due, in part, to the comments posted here at ANI, but also, I would imagine, because it's clear that JanDeFietser is continuing precisely the behaviour they were told not to continue). I disagree that this is not about importing conflicts or being disruptive: JanDeFietser has continued a conflict that arose on nl.wiki. JanDeFietser has continued after warnings and after having been blocked once before. TFOWR 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The block is not for that statement, but for the legal threat that he made here at English Wikipedia, above. But I also don't see any amount of good faith that would allow me to draw any reasonable conclusion other than that Jan is trying to continue a dispute from a different Wikipedia here. "Assume good faith" does not mean "ignore the obvious." Whatever's going on at Dutch Wikipedia, it doesn't seem likely to make English Wikipedia better, and I don't think anyone here is likely to be able to help resolve it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c 2) The statement on his userpage is a continuance of the nlwiki dispute on the enwiki. This statement should have removed in the past. NL_bas requested it be removed for that reason. Had JdF removed it or endorsed removing it, there would not have been a problem. Instead he replies with one of his 500 word legalese essays once again. A thing he has been warned multiple times in the past not to do such a thing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• I replied FisherQueen on my talk page. Furthermore: when one gets accused one has the right to defend against those accusations. That is what JanDeFietser did. There was debate on 'who started' , but then also there was a solution: the debate ended. But then all starts again when NL_Bas brings it up again. What else can JanDeFietser do than defend himself against those false accusations? Should he be blocked for defending himself against renewed slander and haunting?? I dont agree. He should be deblocked, and monitored. And then -when he contributes in a normal way here- there is no problem at all here on en-wp. JanDeFietser said:'get off my back here on the English wiki' in response of the renewed accusations in his direction and tried to preven importing any nl.wp problems here. So please unblock, because this block is quite erroneous and based on false arguments. Tjako (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Drop this. Drop this now. Enough's enough. It was foolish of JanDeFietser to pick this up. Just letting the user page edit stand would have closed the issue, with the provocative material (that pre-dated the prior discussion in any case) gone, the complainant satisified, and JanDeFietser free to continue editing in peace. Everyone would have been happy, quickly and quietly, no blocks, no fuss, no lengthy rants and bickering. But good sense did not prevail. It's equally foolish of you to pick this up. This stops. You stop. Now. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I want stop this as soon as possible, but i think it is higly immoral to block people of good faith this way on the most ugly and non-arguments. It's a black page in en.wp history. And yes now i stop. Tjako (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Look: the community made it very clear to JanDeFietser that this nl.wiki nonsense should not be dragged onto en.wiki, yet JanDeFietser maintained a userpage which did just that. When the userpage was deleted, JanDeFietser tried to wikilawyer here at ANI, even having the gall to refer back to the previous ANI report when JanDeFietser was explicitly warned not to drag nl.wiki nonsense here. Tjako, I accept that you may not previously have been aware of the community's warning to JanDeFietser and others. You are now. You should understand that the community has no patience for this nonsense. If you continue to refer to nl.wiki disputes, instead of taking it to meta and/or OTRS (as JanDeFietser was told to do way back before their previous block) then you are liable to be blocked as well. This nl.wiki dispute has no place on en.wiki, should not be discussed on en.wiki, should be taken to meta and/or OTRS, and editors who choose to ignore this and maintain converstaions, userpages, talkpages, whatever should expect to be sanctioned. I trust that that is clear and that you now understand how to escalate this issue should you choose to. TFOWR 07:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For information: 2 edits Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels

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 user, Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs), after editing tendentiously from various IP addresses for many years, finally created an account and continues to edit tendentiously. The individual's behavior has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest with respect to the Jason Leopold article. Multiple editors have requested that this editor desist from editing the article and restrict himself to making suggestions on the talk page. However, the editor refuses to get the point, and the conversations about it tend to get rather surreal. Currently the article is protected, but the editor doesn't seem to get the spirit of cooperation and consensus necessary to participate in Wikipedia process, but seems to see Wikipedia as a battleground, gloating when he thinks another editor has made an "error", not really discussing but asserting, proposing unreliable sources to promote his opinions of the subject, etc., etc. All the facts are laid out ad nauseum at a recent RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels, in which the editor received no support from anyone and multiple editors agreed he should not edit the article. Yet he still will not voluntarily agree to restrict himself to the talk page and continues to be combative on the talk page. As this is a long-running situation, which I've described in the RfC from 2008 but which actually goes back further, I believe it is time to have a serious discussion about whether a community ban might be appropriate. Yworo (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by this very user to create an account, which I did. When I started editing from this account and expanding the article as requested and providing additional material I was attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold and my edits reverted. This article is biased and the fact that it's protected and the neutrality of it questioned is an issue that should be of concern. In the past two weeks, since I created this account and started editing this article, I have abided by the policies and guidelines set forth and I request that you look at my editing history as an example. Yworo, however, seems to take issue with the fact that I am working to improve this article and that means providing context, balance and, yes, positive material to balance it out. The surreal nature of the discussion is certainly true but if you look at the discussion page of the article you will note that each time I suggest a link or an inclusion of new material I am attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold, a sock puppet and told the material I am trying to add is "resume padding." Look at the conversations surrounding the California Energy Crisis and Enron. I added material that was in line with Wikipedia policies and standards. Yworo routinely changed the material I was including, going so far as to remove it or revert it back without providing a legitimate reason. One time, Yworo said the link I provided was not working and reverted it back. I went in and fixed the link and readded the material in the Enron section and again was attacked and threatened for doing so. As I have stated dozens of times at this point, I would like to improve this article. That means expanding upon it and not make it one-sided. I would be perfectly happy to bow out of editing it if in fact Yworo was removed as well. Frankly, I think the conversations on the discussion page will illustrate the biases of many of the people who are working on it. The users do not need to like me, but I believe my contributions to this article, especially since I created an account have been important and within the guidelines. And I would like to continue contributing without fearing that each suggestion or citation I add or section I create is going to end up with me being attacked or accused of being the source.

I would like to note that there is an anonymous user who has been contributing to this article in the past few weeks: 69.17.54.2: that may be in the same vicinity I am: Los Angeles. I was accused of being every IP address that contributed "positive" material or tried to expand the article. But because the contributions and comments of this IP, as recently as Wednesday, have been negative with regard to the substance and content of the article, Yworo seems to be supportive of this user. Mind you this user has been making changes to this article since 2007 and those changes have been well outside wikipedia's policies and has not been asked to create an account, threatened with banning or complaints leveled. Is it because the IP's opinions about the subject of the article and Yworo's are in sync? I don't know. But I do find it curious. That is part of the surreal nature of the issues and discussions surrounding this article. It is not one sided. It's clearly complex. But I should not be the one who bears all of the blame. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, multiple editors have not requested that I, Jimmy McDaniels, refrain from editing this article. Yworo has. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to indent. The requests are all over your previous IP address talk pages, on the talk page of the article, on the BLP noticeboard, etc. And there's a long section on your current talk page from Off2riorob, here. Yworo (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

i have also requested Jimmy refrain from editing the article and think its a real good idea, he has a massive WP:COI and is disruptive to the BLP when he edits it, this has been going on a length of time and also occurred at the Truthout article and the related AFD which was swimming with fishy socks. I can handle him on the talkpage but he should please stop editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, what is the conflict of interest? I've looked at the RFC and Talk:Jason Leopold and of course this ANI report, but I see nothing to suggest there's a COI. What connection does Jimmy have to Jason Leopold that would be a COI? He claims to be a fan, and he seems to have POV issues, but that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Being Leopold's relative or employee or PR person or something along those lines would. What am I missing? -- Atama頭 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He has claimed multiple times to be Leopold's lawyer (four examples: [60], [61], [62], [63], and admits he did here), and nearly everyone ever involved believes he is Leopold himself. Besides his unintentional admission of identity with the IP editors, I believe I've thoroughly established continuity of identity in the RfC. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant COI then. I'd support a page ban enforcement of suggestions at WP:COI, restricting the editor's article edits to non-controversial edits and otherwise making talk page suggestions for content changes. I do see some constructive talk page input so I think such a ban would permit the editor to contribute while at the same time prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would help a lot and as you say, still allow him to contribute as he does have some input that is beneficial to content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see him voluntarily comply with this. If a topic ban is applied, I suspect we will simply see and have to deal with sockpuppetry. I could be wrong about that though... Yworo (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have written a lengthy statement here on the edits and contributions I have made to this article over the past two weeks and I'd like to know why that is not being discussed. These edits and contributions have expanded the article. I have not done anything that violates policies or guidelines here. I was asked to sign up for an account, which I did and since then I have been very vocal about suggestions to help improve and expand this article. My edit history, since I signed up for the account, shows the value in my contributions and I again ask that they be looked at as well as the commentary I have made during the course of editing and on the discussion pages. This article needs to be improved. Twice the neutrality of it has been challenged and tagged as such. It asks to be expanded. The bottom line, once again is that attempts to improve or expand this article is unsupported. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the article whatsoever. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I need to say that I am not Leopold?? Stop suggesting that I am. The snarky comments that you continue to make are disturbing and underscores further bias. As I said above, I should not shoulder all of the blame. If there is a conflict of interest I believe Yworo now has one too because this is clearly becoming personal for him/her. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please address why you claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. And became offended that I referred to the IP address that did so as a "nutcase", self-identifying with the IP. If you continue to refuse to admit that it was you who repeatedly made this claim, and explain why you did so, there is no reason to believe anything else you might say. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, if you claimed to be his lawyer and now claim you aren't, you were being deceptive either now or then. This inconsistency doesn't engender trust. I deal with conflict of interest issues quite a bit (I hang out at WP:COIN) and it's not uncommon for an editor to claim some sort of connection in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, but it almost always comes back to bite them later. Editors with a conflict of interest are generally allowed to contribute until other editors object to their edits, in which case a topic ban isn't uncommon. I believe you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but it's not going to work, you've already let the cat out of the bag and your COI has already been established by your own words. It's too late to claim that you're uninvolved with the article subject at this point. -- Atama頭 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, Yworo. It was clear from your "nutcase" comment that you were referring to me and the comment you left on my talk page saying as much would make that apparent to anyone. Your comment was directed toward me. You were playing a game of gotcha. As far as being Leopold's attorney I made a comment saying I was trying to be his attorney and I did see evidence of defamation and libel on this article and brought it to Leopold's attention. I never heard back from Leopold following my correspondence. The contributions I have made are valuable and the arguments I put forth are worthy of discussion. The discussions on the article page show the bias of some editors toward the subject matter. Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality. Many of the editors, again, based on the discussion page, show deep disdain for the subject of the article: Leopold. To me, that is an issue that needs to be dealt with and one that at least one other editor agrees with. At the end of the day, that is what should be the topic of discussion regardless if I am here or not. This is the first thing that pops up on Google and therefore it should represent the most up to date and neutral point of view and material about the person. I would expect the same for every other article but editors do not seem to treat the entries of other media people the same. There is a real desire to make this one as negative as possible. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality." (Buzzer sound) Jimmy, you're likely "referring" to WP:NPOV; which cannot be achieved when an editor has a very serious conflict of interest. Much like one who is (at least) "trying" to be the attorney for the subject of the article. Editors are actively trying to make this article as "negative as possible"? See WP:Consensus. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..."

That is not "a comment saying [you were] trying to be his attorney". That is saying you are his attorney. I think it would be a cut-and-dry COI if you had just said you are his attorney, but your actions could (could, not all may see it this way) be interpreted as editing beneficially on his behalf in order to gain favor with him. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Still a conflict of interest anyway you look at it, though. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like we have consensus that a topic ban is in order here. Does anyone (besides Jimmy) object to this outcome? Yworo (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's not Leopald's lawyer, he wants to be (as Jimmy has stated above) and can't be expected to abide by NPOV. I think topic bans get thrown about a bit too freely but this is clearly an example of why they exist. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• support - A topic ban on Jason Leopold and Truthout, talkpage discussion allowed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Off2RioRob's proposal. At least he can still try to contribute to the article without risking an NPOV edit. Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban due to the COI issues... Doc9871 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support wasn't really involved though, apart from when I tried to stop Jimmy's IP edit warring with Regent, if he does get banned he will just use his IPs--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support obviously, since I started this discussion. I agree that requesting a community ban was too severe and that a topic ban should be sufficient. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we go about closing this thread and notifying Jimmy of the decision? The protection on the article has expired so it would be a good idea for someone to do this soon. Obviously, it's not appropriate for me to do so. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should be along reasonably soon. I didn't feel comfortable closing it either way, so I added my opinion to hopefully make it easier for the closing admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, either per COI of being his lawyer or per disruption claiming to be his lawyer and then claiming never to have claimed to be his lawyer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Logged in Editing Restrictions and User notified (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 23 August 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.

Dipso IP jumper

We have an IP jumper, who claims to be under the influence of strong drink, attacking Materialscientist. Is there basis for some range blocks or other remedies? Favonian (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled. TNXMan 13:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

doc was also attacked, frankly just block all of his IP addresses till he sober.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

110 just posted another comment, he is still at large--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he "sort of" attacked me - I'll weep about it later, I'm sure. The most pertinent question is one he posed to me: "Is it possible to block someone who can continually change his IP address?". That's the question of the hour... Doc9871 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

now 110 is posting his drunkern ramblings here at ANI board for incidents, he is also asking for bears (i assume he means more alcohol, someone block his new IP already--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the process for disruptive trolling dynamic IP addresses is something like, IP block, IP block, IP block, range block (small as possible) block, revert contributions and ignore. Serious infractions can be reported to his service provider. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Favion just blocked the latest IP address, hopefully this is the last we see of him--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a handy list of the IPs, I'll look into a rangeblock. TNXMan 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

he mentioned he was using a laptop , so far all the IPs 110 and one 114, we could block the entire pub for a week--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put down two short rangeblocks: 110.20.0.0/18 and 114.72.192.0/18. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not quite. A rangeblock encompassing 110 and 114 (even if it were possible) would block up to 536870912 users, which is slightly larger than your average pub. TNXMan 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Both ranges resolve to the same ISP in Sydney, NSW. [What time, if at all, do the pubs shut in Australia?] David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

block the ISP then, and tell the barman/maid to send their patrons home--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't be sure that he's at a pub, or even if he's actually drunk. It's not terribly likely, but this could hypothetically be a twelve-year-old Australian bug-"squisher" having a "giggle-fit" for all we know. He's certainly being very disruptive. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out who this is, considering the subjects being edited. We'll see... Doc9871 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nota Bene: This guy is back to disrupting ANI by posting "apologies". I suggest a bigger rangeblock until he gets tired. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious. I regret my actions and I'm apologising to the people here. Please understand. I don't want to vandalise anymore nor do I want to disrupt the ANI. I just came here to apologise. I am sincere about this. If you don't believe me, fine, but at least don't block me. I am not doing any wrong by apologising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.26.196 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this as resolved, in future don't edit wikipedia while drunk 110--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this is most certainly not resolved. This user is extremely disruptive. He continues posting personal attacks (e.g. [64], [65]), and removing information that can be used to deal with him ([66]).

It's clear that his stories about being drunk and his "apologies" should not be taken seriously.

He is using IP ranges 114.72.191-255.* and 110.20.0-63.*. Please block those before things get out of hand. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They were blocked a couple of hours ago. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

the one that posted on the maths reference desk and called Rosenfeld a dobber on Material's talkpage and the one that apologised here are still unblocked, (no red block label at the top of the contributions page).--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB Challenges Allegations of WP:BLP Violations by Administrator MLauba

Administrator MLauba has made the following allegation Here against me.

"your persistent refusal to desist from violating the BLP policy after having been warned about it multiple times requires another time-out."

The allegation of WP:BLP violations is false. I request that neutral Wikipedia administrators look at this claim. I seek a retraction of the allegation.

Background: This dispute involves Murder of Meredith Kercher. A substantial majority of reliable sources say that two of the three people convicted of the crime (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) did not receive a fair trial. I have quoted 10 of these reliable sources Here and a group of editors who hold a slim voting majority at this point have steadfastly refused to allow any of this content into the article.

Central to the arguments made by the reliable sources I have named is a discussion of bad acts by two living persons: Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. I have made significant statements critical of Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. All these statements are sourced 100% and reflect facts presented by the multiple reliable sources I have named. As discussed Here, I claim that the lack of inclusion in the article of reliable sources who question the verdict constitutes violation of WP:BLP for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Please note that no one responded to this:

"Salvio: There is no WP:BLP violation against Mignini or Guede whatsoever. You are invited to show where you think there is one."

The allegations of WP:BLP violations against me by MLauba are false.

PhanuelB (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• In reality, User:PhanuelB is a SPA whose raison d'etre on Wikipedia is to alter the Murder of Meredith Kercher article to push the POV that Amanda Knox is innocent. Wikipedia is not his only venue; just Google "Amanda Knox"+PhanuelB for details link. A quick view of Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher and its archives should give you a feel for his editing practices; he repeatedly claims that "reliable sources" are being kept out of the article, in reality these are any commentator, blogger or anyone else who has a POV similar to his. Despite having been told multiple times by multiple editors that the article (and Wikipedia itself) is not the venue to push his conspiracy theories, he continues to do so and has been blocked a number of times for continually attacking the large number of editors on the article that are trying to keep NPOV. One "Knox is innocent" editor has already been indefinitely blocked for similar behaviour, and another is topic-banned.

  PhanuelB believes that the article violates BLP as regards to Knox, but is quite happy to violate BLP as regards other people, notably Guede and Mignini. He does not seem to understand that violations of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH regarding these people are not acceptable, nor that his proposed additions to the article violate these and WP:UNDUE. The fact that the trial was controversial is already included, and sourced. I have been acting as a neutral admin on the article and have repeatedly explained, patiently, our policies to PhanuelB and the numerous new editors that turn up (there is obviously an off-wiki issue here). For this, I have been attacked myself on a number of occasions as biased; I don't care about this (obviously - having been an admin for 3 years I've had far worse) but it is time that the community drew a line in the sand on this issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, PhanuelB wasn't blocked because of BLP-vios, but because their behaviour was considered disruptive in many different ways. That said, I think that to list all the insults thrown at a semi-public figure, such as Mignini, doesn't comply with our BLP requirements. It's not only a matter of sourcing, but it's a matter of undue weight. That said, I'd like for the community to start discussing a topic ban on PhanuelB from all edits related to the murder of Meredith Kercher broadly construed. I'm not starting this discussion because I'm deeply involved. However, it's high time this disruption ceased. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Black Kite and Salvio give no example to backup the false allegation of WP:BLP violations by me against Mignini and Guede.

    The allegation that I am a SPA is false. In fact I had made Wikipedia edits over two years ago under another username. The identity of the other username and the justification for its use under Legitimate Uses was fully disclosed and discussed with Administrator Amalthea following similar attempts made within hours of my arrival at the MK page to get me banned based on other false allegations.

    Two editors with a specific POV have been previously banned. I do not believe the bans against these two editors were consistent with Wikipedia policy. Current editors and administrators are threatening to ban three others with POV's opposed to theirs. Disputes over NPOV cannot be resolved by banning only those editors with a specific POV.PhanuelB (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

    • As per usual, PhanuelB misses the point (and persists in categorising other editors as biased - you would've thought he'd have learnt the lesson by now, really...). Those two editors, as well as PhanuelB, were blocked / topic-banned not for their POV, but for canvassing and/or persistently attacking other editors; links are here and here. The warnings against the others are for exactly the same reasons. Whilst the crusaders for Knox's innocence continue to repeat such behaviour at the article (latest one - see the bottom of the diff), the end result will inevitably be the same. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned, it's not about having a different POV, but of trying to slant the article so that it fits that same POV. This was your very first edit under this username. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• If persistent mis-use of parts of the World Wide Web to personally attack, intimidate, and harrass other disputants is the issue, note that should this ever go to arbitration it will be an arbitration case where people can cite reliable sources on the matter:

  Andrea Vogt (2009-05-28). "Amanda Knox case creates a police investigation at home". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  I don't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that I'm not the only one who doesn't want Wikipedia to be embroiled in this external dispute, or abused by any editor in the way that the web logs have been. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hence why I suspect that (at least) topic-banning the POV warriors would appear to be the only way forward. I seriously don't understand why, even if they are approaching the subject with a POV, such editors appear incapable of editing collegially. Unless they're all incarnations of the same few editors, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Any reason why PhanuelB should not be indefinitely blocked as there appears no prospect of him ceasing to be disruptive? The block can be lifted if he agrees to a topic ban from anything to do with Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. 19:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.112.150 (talk)
  • A substantial majority of reliable sources say that two of the three people convicted of the crime (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) did not receive a fair trial. Potential inclusion of all the sources in question has been discussed — quite past the point of endurance, I might add — at the article talk page. Should it be of interest, I present this (rather bewildering) diff: it offers not just a curious interpretation of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines, but also reveals considerable POV-pushing on the part of PhanuelB. A case has been made against MLauba as if he is the one who has contravened policies, when tougher action against PhanuelB appears long overdue itself. The current situation at the Kercher page is hardly conspiratorial (at least, if viewed in an objective and reasoned manner). Claims of some sort of "inside job" hell-bent on silencing opinions have been perpetuated to excess, and in an unjust fashion, from the minds of a number of editors (two of whom have, in one manner or another, had their access to the topic barred) who have crusaded for the far-from-infallible "truth" regarding the asserted innocence of Amanda Knox. I strongly urge PhanuelB to consider a drastic re-examination of his attitudes to editing at Wikipedia. Unless this is attempted, a minimum of a lengthy topic ban seems inevitable, and that will bump up the number of editors restricted from the topic to three. Please do not permit this to happen. SuperMarioMan 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the admin action taken by MLauba and, given that a number of editors find PhanuelB to be generally disruptive, the action was quite measured. The recent block was reviewed by three other admins and upheld three times.

I agree with the comments of SuperMarioMan and others above. PhanuelB seems interested only in making dramatic proposals for wholesale changes to the article which stand no chance of being approved of by other editors. There is room on the talkpage (perhaps even a gap in the market) for an editor who is interested in representing PhanuelB's POV in a constructive and analytical manner and I would implore PhanuelB to consider whether (s)he might be interested in filling that role by concentrating on detail, making more realistic proposals and arguing narrower points.

I don't think this is the right forum for discussing whether allegations made by editors (multiple editors, including me) that PhanuelB's talkpage comments have breached BLP are fair or not. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any activities from many years ago, PhanuelB (talk · contribs) today acts as a disruptive Single Purpose Account, here to Right a Great Wrong and who treats Wikipedia like a battleground. Multiple invitations to moderate their tone and edit in a collegial manner have remained unheeded. Their attempts to paint one of three persons convicted as the sole killer in a murder case as well as diabolize the prosecutor reek of WP:SYNTH and constitute WP:BLP violations (extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing), and PhanuelB refuses to even acknowledge that his behaviour might be questionable.

The vast majority of their edits under their present incarnation have consisted in either tendentious editing or multiple violations of WP:NPA against their fellow editors, including ascribing of nefarious motivations, direct attacks, attempts at intimidation, bullying and threats. As a consequence, regardless of any claims of a productive past that cannot be substantiated, PhanuelB under this identity appears to be a net negative. As none of their edits relate to anything else but the Murder of Meredith Kercher case, a topic ban would be pointless. I believe at this stage, either a 6-12 months block or more simply a community ban are the simplest and least bureaucratic way to put this affair to rest. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

MLauba has made false allegations of WP:BLP violations and has yet to provide a link to any such violations.

The other allegations above are completely and categorically false. I have provided 10 reliable secondary sources ( a substantial majority of the reliable sources) who criticize the prosecutor and state that two of the three convicted are innocent. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about what reliable secondary sources are saying.PhanuelB (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

... and despite repeated discussions on the talkpage about the value of these sources, you have signally failed to demonstrate why anyone should care about what they are saying about this murder. Donald Trump is perhaps a reliable source if commenting about finance or divorce. When commenting about a murder in Italy, not so much. Please do not discuss these sources further here. There is a forum for just that purpose.  pablo 08:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see a case against MLauba raised here. A few months ago, the talk page of of the article in question was a very hostile and unpleasant place. The arrival and intervention of administrators Black Kite and MLauba has made a hugely beneficial improvement. MLauba has been meticulous in not editing the article, not entering into content debates and not expressing any personal views about the subject matter, but has been rigorous in enforcing policy, particularly with regard to civility. This has involved warnings, polite requests to rephrase unacceptable statements and, as a last resort, banning of offenders. The result is that normal courteous exchanges of views and normal editing practices have been possible, where previously they were met with vitriolic comments and edit warring. So I think MLauba has done a great job! PhanuelB had no part in the earlier unpleasantness but has arrived at the article and has engaged in disruptive behaviour...and has been dealt with quite firmly by MLauba. As others have said, the specific BLP issue is not really the point, but if PhanuelB would like an example, I think the diff provided by SuperMarioMan, above,[67] is an example. Surely this statement is a violation of BLP: "Rudy Guede had no criminal convictions at the time of the murder. However, in the weeks leading up to the crime he had participated in a series of criminal acts which Italian police knew about but for reasons that remain unclear did not act upon." There is normally a presumption that someone is innocent of crimes until proven guilty by a court of law. Admitting that they haven't been convicted, but then saying they participated in criminal activities must be borderline libellous. Bluewave (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. I'd point out that I haven't edited the article either, except to remove uncited controversial information and add sources where they were lacking. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In pointing out the great work that MLauba has done, I didn't intend to belittle Black Kite's contribution to maintaining neutrality and civility. Both these admins have done a great job...it's just that the ANI case seemed to be aimed at MLauba. Sorry for any misunderstanding! Bluewave (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Supporting diffs

In response to PhanuelB above, all the allegations against the prosecutor bar one originate from various TV talk shows, opinion pieces completely unsuitable in regards to WP:BLP. By their own admission: ":I can't think of a European judicial figure who has been ridiculed and dragged through the mud on cable channels broadcast throughout the world in the way that Mignini has". The issues regarding one of the three accused have been documented by other editors above me.
As for the other behavioural issues, the breach of collegiality and the egregious violations of WP:NPA can be documented easily:

• The last time I had looked at this page it provided a reasonably balanced view of the case. In an outrageous violation of NPOV, it has been extensively edited (attacked) by those who see Ms. Knox as guilty. Who let this happen?, from your first post to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher
• It's a verifiable fact that some people say the Holocaust happened and some say it didn't (Ahmadinejad on LKL no less).(...) One of the reasons that there is no NPOV in this article is that we have an administrator (Black Kite) with an agenda.
• Now for some WP:IAR. Let's cut the crap. There aren't any neutral editors here and there aren't any neutral administrators. Why not just admit it?
• Your sole disagreement is that he is not saying what you want to hear. (...) This page in it's current form is 100% devoid of NPOV. Serious question, do you think the hijacking of this page will stand?
• Black Kite has a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.
• Wikipedia needs to take a hard look at what is happening here. The "consensus" of a dozen or so people is diabolically opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. The reliable sources banned from this article talk of public lynchings, hate, and witch trial hysteria. If Wikipedia gets burned on this one they will have earned it.

This is of course only a limited sample picked at random out of PhanuelB's editing history. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

MLauba has made false allegations of WP:BLP violations by me and cites the quote above as an example against Giuliano Mignini. Giuliano Mignini has been sentenced to prison by an Italian Court for corruption. Here are some reliable secondary sources who justify my statements:

Anna Momigliano (Foreign Policy Magazine 10-Dec-09)

"Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of harboring hatred against Meredith until the time came for taking revenge, and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into heavy sexual games."

Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS speaking on 48 Hours)

“I’ll probably get indicted in Italy for saying this. I don’t care. He[Mignini] is ruining the lives of two kids who have done nothing.”

Judge Michael Heavey (Seattle area Superior Court Judge 12-Aug-08)

“The prosecutor’s office [Mignini], police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda."

Doug Preston (commentator for CBS, CNN, and NBC)

“he [Mignini] interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.”

“this prosecutor[Mignini] thinks he knows what happened at that crime scene. The facts don’t matter to him.”

Judy Bachrach (Guest on CNN)

"I have always thought that Amanda was going to go to a Kangaroo court and unfortunately I’ve been proven correct."

"there isn't a scintilla of evidence.. the prosecutor[Mignini] is famously incompetent."

Tim Egan (NY Times correspondent)

"Preposterous, made-up sexual motives[by Mignini] were ascribed to her...What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?"

I quote from WP:AGF:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

The evidence is there that the 10 reliable sources I have provided are being rejected because they hold a POV different than a group of dominant editors at this point.

One other note: the "bewildering diff" by Supermarioman above is best viewed on the current page where the extensive footnotes can be seen. For some reason earlier edits did not properly display the sources. This provided a good faith example of what I believe needs to be in the article.

On the internet Amanda Knox faces hate speach. It is not right to exclude the dozen or so reliable sources who challenge that hate speach from the Wikipedia page. PhanuelB (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, I think you're missing the point a little. You were blocked because your behviour was considered disruptive, not because you were unable to convince other editors in a disucssion about content. An ANI thread is not the place to re-run a content discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, for reasons that have been explained in extensive detail on countless occasions, the sources referred to fail to meet the criteria for inclusion. The proposed revamp of the criticism section, as drafted, is miles from fulfilling the WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT requirements (it would expand the article's length one third), which you nevertheless continue to throw about as a defensive measure with regard to our coverage of Knox and Sollecito. As the WP:AGF page quite rightly states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" — regretfully, that particular threshold has long since been broken. Your first edit made under the username "PhanuelB" demonstrates signs of a disruptive attitude: "The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so. The evidence against him is vast and overwhelming. The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is weak at best. In recent weeks these sentiments have been echoed by a retired longtime FBI agent named Steve Moore. Use of the term 'the three suspects' to refer to Guede, Knox, and Sollecito is a violation of NPOV." In the case of the Kercher topic, "hate speech" has originated from just the one source. The submission of this ANI thread, I feel, is little more than a stunt intended to denigrate the names of other users despite the total absence of wrongdoing in their actions on Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to go from here?

• I think enough is enough here. Quite apart from his disruptive behaviour on the talkpages, PhanuelB has proved that he clearly is incapable of following our BLP policies with his list of "reliable sources" that "must be included in the article" ... he's been told over and over again by multiple editors why we can't use stuff like this, especially if it's a single commentator making claims about living people not backed up by anything else.

• Heavey was later charged with misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for his behaviour link.
• Ciolino called Mignini a "raving out of control maniac" [68] and Mignini filed a libel suit against the West Seattle Herald for repeating these and other epithets [69]
• Preston has a grudge against Mignini from previous dealings with him on a separate case [70]
• Bachrach provides no evidence of her claim that Mignini is "famously incompetent". This is another typical quote from Bachrach "This was a very carefully choreographed trial and everyone knew from the beginning that the prosecutor had it in for Amanda Knox and the charges were trumped up. This is the way Italian justice is done. If you’re accused, you’re guilty.”" [71] Reliable source? I think not.
• Egan's stance can probably be assessed from this posting in the NYT.

• Can someone completely uninvolved in this article either take an administrative action here or tell PhanuelB to knock it off, now? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I second this. And I hope PhanuelB will not succeed in hijacking this discussion into a disjointed, never-ending debate regarding the reliability of those sources (because this is the wrong venue, as such a review belongs on WP:RSN) Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll

As per several discussions here, here, and here, I'd like to request that an administrator interpret this unusual debate and issue some sort of a verdict. In my own personal opinion, I believe that it would probably be most appropriate for the interpreter to have had no previous involvement with any related discussions or the poll itself. Regardless, the sooner that this is finalized, the sooner that everyone can focus on more productive discussions.   — C M B J   06:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's already a thread discussing this on WP:AN here, in response to your query, so there was no need to bring it here, since there's no particular "incident" involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that thread was created with respect to a site-wide notice, which was not an incident. This, however, is an "incident", at least according to dictionary definition. And a very time-sensitive incident at that, because someone's going to have to individually contact more than two hundred users as it is.   — C M B J   11:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Slavery

Resolved: Blocked for a week. · Andonic ^Contact 12:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin please look at User talk:94.168.252.114. Edits which previously merited a ban are being repeated. 18Aug:[72] - and 23Aug[73] - ClemMcGann (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just rolled back the anons edits, still needs a block. Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WWGB - attack page?

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.

---

Can some admin please have a look at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WWGB, created by Reporter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Seems like an attack page to me, but I might be missing something. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that needs to be deleted, now. How ridiculous. Tommy! [message] 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous? I am trying my best to report a clear abuse here, having never done it before. Why is your response that it is ridiculous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter99 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

LTA is generally for users who are here to vandalize Wikipedia one way or another and have been doing so for years. Skapperod is not even a vandal, yet alone a "LTA" problem. Familiarize yourself with WP:LTA before jumping to this stuff. Tommy! [message] 11:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The page is not about me, but about a user named WWGB. I shall inform them of this discussion, especially since Reporter99 has opened a thread about them below. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about the confusion. My argument remains the same. Tommy! [message] 11:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

...and note that an editor describing someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence is not a sign of bias, but of accurate reporting. I appreciate that you may feel that Schapelle Corby should not have been convicted; however, it is our job as editors to report accurately, not to insert our own views or otherwise "editorialise". As Tommy notes, there is no vandalism here and certainly no long-term abuse. TFOWR 11:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How frustrating. I am not arguing that she was found guilty by an Indonesian court, even though the trial was a farce. I am not arguing about that. Please read my comments properly.

Someone there is trying to state the obvious: that she is an Australian woman convicted. WWGB is seeking to alter that to a rather ridiculous version that she was a drug smuggler found guilty. He backs this up by saying she is guilty.

A conviction does not mean she is guilty, it means that she was convicted. Fact.

So your words are correct: "it is our job as editors to report accurately". That is what I am seeking here, but you seem to be missing that point.

On WWGB, please take the trouble to review his long term edits on this page, before jumping to the conclusion that I am in error just because I have recently registered. Reporter99 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

""Chamberlain was ultimately exonerated, Corby is guilty" is not a reason to create a long-term abuse page. Please read WP:AGF. Tommy! [message] 11:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated below, why can't you see that "She is guilty" is not the same as "an Australian woman convicted of drug smuggling"? It clearly isn't. Tha former endorsed the trial whether that is right or not. The latter is more accurate, regardless of the legitimacy of the trial.

I don't believe that WWGB cannot see that. His edit history is more than clear with respect to what he thinks, which he has been allowed to reflect in his edits, hence my report. Reporter99 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, this is a matter of disagreement, not long term abuse, or even vandalism in the least. You need to civilly discuss issues with users with which you have a disagreement. Tommy! [message] 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You ar enot reading my words at all. I have already explained WWGB's 'discussions' on this. Could some Administrators please look at this impartially? There is a problem here, as clearly illlustrated by that terminology: I have reported it and now this guy is attacking me for it. Reporter99 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User: WWGB

This editor has consistently and repeatedly edited in a hostile manner against a woman imprisoned in an Indonesian jail. See page: Schapelle Corby

This could hardly have been made more obvious than by his last comment: "Chamberlain was ultimately exonerated, Corby is guilty". That is clearly not an objective statement, but a statement of his position, namely, that Schapelle Corby is guilty.

The Schapelle Corby case is complex, with strong political undertones. Many research papers have been written supporting her innocence and detailing the many human rights abuses at her trial. For example: http://www.schapelle.net/propositions/hiddentruth.pdf and http://www.schapelle.net/report.html

WWGB's edits are wholly partisan, enforcing the viewpoint of guilt. His latest edit, as referenced above, constitutes his position from his own keyboard.

See his own terminology and edit history on thatpage. The words are clear and the pattern is clear.

He is now engaging in an edit war with an American editor.

This is my first report, so please forgive any errors of protocol. Surely he needs ot be bloecked from that page at the very least, or have his account terminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter99 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(This is indicative of the edits in question).

Schapelle was found guilt by a court. As I mentioned above, it is absolutely not our role to try and present our own interpretation of that ("the guilt is questionable"). Stick to the facts: she was found guilty. When/if she's exonerated, then the article should say "she was exonerated". Until then it should say she is a convicted drum smuggler, because she's been found guilty of drug smuggling. TFOWR 11:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Why can't you see that "She is guilty" is not the same as "an Australian woman convicted of drug smuggling"? It clearly isn't. Tha former endorsed the trial whether that is right or not. The latter is more accurate, regardless of the legitimacy of the trial.

This is surely clear.

The bad faith is against me, for daring to report this. Look at your words, and on my talk page. Why? Welcome to Wikipedia, eh?

This is a cast iron case, and an obvious one. Why is WWGB, an established editor, so keen to remove a more detailed accurate representation in favour of something which has connotations and is not strictly accurate? Have you looked at his edit history on that page?

Why am I under attack for pointing out something that is so clear? Reporter99 (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because people have different opinions. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. ... Honestly. Tommy! [message] 11:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She was found guilty by a court of drug smuggling. That's what we report. There is no bad faith here: I am patiently trying to explain to you why WWGB's edit was correct, and why accusing WWGB of "long-term abuse" was incorrect. And yes, I have looked at the history of the page. You are not "under attack": you are being told that this was not long-term abuse. TFOWR 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet again: "She is guilty" is not the same as "an Australian woman convicted of drug smuggling"? It clearly isn't. The former endorsed the trial whether that is right or not. The latter is more accurate, regardless of the legitimacy of the trial.

Please stop trying to explain because you are simply ignoring the points I am making. Please allow Admins or other editors to comment.

It is NOTHING to do with my opinion. I have stated the facts above regarding that terminology. This is about the accuracy of the article, which WWGB has subverted, and continues to. I pointed out one crystal clear example of this, which you simply do not seem to be able to grasp.

Can some Administrators and editors please take an impartial look at this? Clearly the example I sued is beyong doubt, but WWGB's history on this page is of serious concern. Reporter99 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin: I have no prior involvement with the article or with either yourself or WWGB (talk), and I have taken an impartial look, and I am telling you that reporting that someone who was found guilty in court as being guilty is perfectly normal and reasonable. WWGB has previously reverted attempts to describe the article's subject as "allegedly guilty", so my view is that there is likely a long-term pattern of point-of-view pushing here, which WWGB has handled admirably. TFOWR 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a waste of time. I said 3X to read WP:AGF and you attacked me on your talk page. Enough of this and also, Wikipedia is not a battleground, either. Tommy! [message] 11:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No no no. Let me spell it out:

"She is guilty" = opinion

"She was convicted of drug smuggling"= fact.

How hard is that? It is clear.

Wikipedia is for factual information, yes? In that case the latter is clearly the correct phrase.

But it is just one example. Please don;t brush this under the carpet by finding reasons to discredit me or argue with the clear fact above. Reporter99 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And can Tommy! please stop shouting me down and allow others to debate? He has given a really hostile welcome to a newcomer. Reporter99 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI is for incidents for administrators. Every article has a Discussion link on the top left you should use for improving the page, not ANI. Tommy! [message] 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WWGB's edit was "she is a convicted drug smuggler". WWGB stated that she was guilty in an edit summary, not in the article, though I would argue that "she is guilty" would be perfectly reasonable in the article itself. Your opinion is that she is not a convicted drug smuggler. That opinion is not supported by reliable, verifiable sources which state that she was convicted, in court, of a crime. I'm sorry that the article doesn't reflect your beliefs. Wikipedia is frequently like that. Incidentally, you seem to be the only person shouting here. Two separate editors have tried to discuss this with you, and you have chosen to ignore us. Drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. TFOWR 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporter, if you feel you can't get any progress made on the talk page of the article, try the content notice board. I see your point about the language, but by attacking other editors you hurt your standing in the debate. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Corby guilty, jailed for 20 years with many similar reportings of guilt. 220.253.176.100 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no attempt to discuss this on the talk page. I recommend Reporter tries it there (I've watches the page and I am sure others have so it shouldn't be hard to get a discussion going). Recommend closing this is lieu of talk page content dispute resolution. I don't see what can be served by arguing it here (the wrong place) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I could quote 100 external pages proclaiming innocence, but that isn't the point. Please read carefully rather than trying to assume that I am expressin gopinion.

Again, the obvious:

"Convicted drug smuggler" implies a drug smuggler who was convicted... implies guilt.

"Convicted of drug smuggling" impartially states that she was convicted.

Clearly the latter is most accurate and impartial, as already stated on that page, and reverted by WWGB.

So back to the problem: why would he do this?

The answer? Go check his previous edits and discover his point of view, which he enforced on the page.

This is the issue here, which is not being considered. Instead, people are trying to ignore the meaning of words. Words are important if Wikipedia articles are to be objective. Reporter99 (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read my statement earlier, so I see no reason to assist you further.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This board is not for content disputes. Please feel free to make such arguments on the article talk page so it can be discussed. So far I cannot see anything that needs specific admin intervention, admins are not here to make decisions on content issues just to discipline those who violate policy and to enforce community consensus. Please go to the article talk page and build a consensus. I will make you a deal; if you post a sensible comment stating your position on the content (and avoid discussing editors directly) I will come over there and discuss it with you :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:07, 23 August 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.

Persecution by another editor

Resolved

 – RewlandUmmer (talk · contribs) indeffed by Andonic (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry

An editor called Smatprt is following me around, calling me a "vandal" and a "sock", gratuitously deleting my posts deletions and has even deleted this edit of mine (which cites a scholarly source) for the second time [74] even though another editor restored it after the first deletion!! He's even deleted my post on a mediation page listing my objections to his behavior [75]. People disagree in life but one should not try to stop the other from speaking ... everyone has a right to be heard. RewlandUmmer (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not everyone has a right to be heard. You've been accused of being a sock puppet of Barryispuzzled (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive and Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets#Can someone intervene here?, who edits on Baconian issues and, specifically, targets Smatprt's edits. He and his socks don't have a right to edit. Someone will probably look into this shortly (I'm out of time here now). Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who you are, sir, but I'd thank you not to address me as if I'm some common criminal. There is no courage in joining in with the mob when you are hiding behind a computer screen. I'm an academic at a top UK University and deserve far more respect than you are giving me. My username is a sockpuppet for me because like thousand of other editors here, and because of reputation, I don't want to reveal my identity on these forums. I'd also like to see the evidence for what is shaping up to be a false attribution of another's identity to me, presumably because you and this Smatprt fellow are in collusion to protect the Oxfordian theory article at which I made perfectly valid scholarly edits which this Smatprt reverted without justification (another editor reverted his change). But I'm interested how you plan to plant a convicted person's identity on me, which is undoubtedly your dastardly scheme. For example, if you want to claim that I am Professor Roger Penrose, would the fact that we use the same network at our establishment be sufficient? Unless you can satisfactorily answer this question then I ask you to show more respect. RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, whoever you are. And don't attack administrators. They are doing a thankless task that is both onerous and time-consuming. The first lesson here is to be patient. If you are not a sockpuppet, then Smatprt's behaviour will be held against him. It was certainly not wise to make an attack post against him, or anyone, within your first series of edits, a mere two days after registering. And your first edits were to Baconian theory, which led Smatprt to the not unreasonable suspicion (though he should have acted more cautiously) that you might be a sockpuppet of the Baconian Barryispuzzled. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured mediation. But just for clarification, are you saying that anyone who adds a Stratfordian citation to the Baconian article is a Baconian? Are you also saying that there is only one person who has ever edited the Baconian article? RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm trying to understand why Smatprt, with whom I have a long-going disagreement, behaved this time in such a precipitate manner. He may well be, and I hope he is, mistaken in the intuition that led him to make those reverts. But I had remonstrated with him, and you appeared out of the blue, with a dismissive remark about the page he edits (not unlike somethings I have said in exasperation in the past). That might well have struck him as less than coincidental. In fairness, therefore, I have written a note to him. I have absolutely no opinion on this. I can understand your indignation. I can understand why Smatprt may have thought you were a previous editor. But the rest is best left to the sober, quiet and patient work of admins. They do clear up these matters eventually. Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug, neither of the links you provided mention RewlandUmmer. Simply being accused of being a sockpuppet is not sufficient cause to delete someone's edits. Furthermore, while I was suspicious of a new editor finding their way to mediation and AN/I within days of arriving, AN/I was recommended to them and I'm assuming mediation was mentioned on the relevant talk page. Also, the mere interest in Shakespearean Authorship and Baconian Theory is far from damning, as I'm sure there's many an english lit major who might find the articles and decide to contribute. Be wary of WP:BITE and be careful not to confuse a new editor with an WP:SPA. I'll look into this issue further and see what the deal is, specifically if there's any quacking going on. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the mediation link on Smatprt talk page. RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No one's edits should be removed until they have been found to be a sockpuppet or a clearly such (not this case), and the blanket removal by an involved party as here is troubling. This is not a good thing for Smatprt to be doing. Verbal chat 21:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the BarryisPuzzled sockpuppet archive (one of 3!)[[76]]. Feel free to examine the edits and come to your own conclusion. It's painfully obvious that Barry is attempting a comeback. (Amazing how this "new" editor is so familiar with WP editing practices, including some complicated linking formats!) Smatprt (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's easy, my 10 year old son could do that! I simply copied the linking formats from other posts. I also notice that other editors (see Xover below) are starting to see my willingness to provide information here as a welcome opportunity to join in the baiting. So I intend to back away from here and wait for the admins to look into it. RewlandUmmer (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the pattern exhibited by RewlandUmmer since the account was registered matches Barryispuzzled and his socks so well that I was considering whether a case should be filed at WP:SPI to determine the truth; Barry's favorite target was Smatprt, for reasons related both to the topic (SAQ and Barry is a Bacon guy vs. Oxford for Smatprt) and because Smatprt was instrumental in getting the socking shut down; and Barry's MO is definitely to try to stir things up and play mind games (he used one sock to attack one of his other socks to try to garner sympathy and defenders). Incidentally, an IP edit made to RewlandUmmer may be helpful in determining who's who here (and it is geographically plausible as Barry). --Xover (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't care for attacking this Smatprt person. The conflict arose because this guy turned up and deleted a Stratfordian citation I had added to the Oxfordian article which, by the way, another editor put back in. Those are the facts. RewlandUmmer (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be plausible, and RewlandUmmer did say that he is at the same institution. I would recommend a checkuser take a look at things. As someone who was caught in the splatter of a checkuser's looking into sockpuppetry of a user at my school, I would simply recommend caution. The usual tools can return a false positive in this instance, so a more careful analysis is, I believe, in order. Given their location, and area of interest, it is entirely possible that the two editors may hold the same views and edit the same articles, from the same IP range, even with the same useragent data, and still be separate people. This still doesn't address the issue of Smartprt's actions, which I believe are at best premature, and inappropriate in any case. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I indicated that I'm an Oxford University academic. Throwaway85 correctly perceives that we should not allow ourselves to be deflected from the issue at hand which relates to the unjustified deletion of a scholarly citation that I placed in the Oxfordian article. It is a citation that at least two other editors were comfortable with. I wouldn't mind betting that if you look back through the post records, the same editors who are trying to intimidate me have used the same tactics on others who have tried to edit this article. Looks to me like two of them (Xover and Smatprt) have a working relationship here. RewlandUmmer (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also immediately took the view RewlandUmmer was Barryispuzzled, though admittedly the user name strongly implies an anagram of a particular 'real' name. However, Barry loves anagrams and the editor's grandiose style is very close to Barry's. The apparent disingenuousness is also typical of him. Paul B (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of town, but just for the record since I have been solicited to add my opinion (I have absolutely zero interest in getting involved in another time-wasting dispute):

Regarding the citation that RewlandUmmer added and said "at least two other editors were comfortable with", I'm assuming he means this edit, which he made on several pages, including the draft article that Nisidani, Peter Farey, and I have worked on. If that is in fact that edit and if in fact he is an Oxford academic, it is remarkable that he has misconstrued the conclusion of my paper so badly, because it does not reaffirm "the orthodox view that William Strachey's 'True Reportory' was used a source for The Tempest", but only (as stated in the abstract) preserves its accessibility as a source for Shakespeare. I have not removed it from the draft article because I haven't yet gotten that far in my editing, having just begun the history section.

Although Smatprt might have been hasty, I know he has shown good instincts when it comes to identifying Barry's sockpuppets and has successfully identified them in the past before anyone else did. I'm sure that if RewlandUmmer turns out not to be Barry, Smatprt will apologise, but it does seem suspicious to me that he has with such vitriol called for Smatprt's banishment so quickly, an action that I have not even suggested with all the conflict we've had, because I think contrary opinions are necessary to a scholarly enterprise (even when misplaced), if for no other reasons than to keep us honest. One must wonder why an Oxford academic would even bother with the Shakespeare Authorship Question, much less insist upon banishment of an editor with a different viewpoint.

Again, he may not be Barry, and if he isn't I'm sure Smatprt will apologise, as well as everyone else involved in this matter, but the amount of harm done by a false accusation is not all that great IMO, especially since RewlandUmmer's real identity is not besmirched if it is not known. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not about harm so much as the violation of principles and policies that allow us to maintain an environment that is conducive to the building of an informative, reliable encyclopedia. I have no position, stated or otherwise, on whether RU is Barry. That's not my concern, and there are others far more qualified than I to make that determination. My concern is with the violation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL (both parties are guilty here, so it's not central to my concern), as well as several others. The removal of contributions in the absence of any finding of sockpuppetry is especially concerning. We are permitted to remove the contributions of banned editors, not merely those who are suspected of wrongdoing. It is my belief that Smartprt should apologize and reverse his removals. If, indeed, RU is found to be a sockpuppet, then those reversals can, themselves, be reversed. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that there is any straightforward violation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. A sock is by definition not a 'newcomer' being bit, and for the same reason we don't assume good faith of editors who have already been demonstrated to behave with bad faith. Equally, it is not 'uncivil' to delete edits by sockpuppets of banned editors. It's policy. So this all depends on the problem of how we identify socks of banned editors. Do we always have to go through the elaborate official procedure? I have to say that I feel quite confident that RewlandUmmer is Barry. Some socks are obvious, and it has been practice to delete without prejudice in some cases. Some banned editors enjoy playing the system, and 'tangling up' their opponents in it. Paul B (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's an obvious sock, then a checkuser will waste precious little time in determining so. You presume his sock status, then use that presumption to justify the removal of content and the violations of bite, agf, etc. Your argument is that those policies and principles don't apply because he's a sock, and that presupposes his guilt. It is absolutely *not* acceptable to remove contributions from editors who are in good standing. Suspicion does not equal guilt, and it is this presupposition of guilt that is the violation of AGF, BITE, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken about checkuser. Barry lives in London and uses internet cafes (see User talk:Barryispuzzled). Millions of people live in London. If he happens to be visiting Oxford for some reason he may easily 'create' a new identity there. In such a case, the only way to determine his identity is by old fashioned analysis of style and content. I don't presume he is a sock, I take the view that he is, on the basis of the evidence, as did Smatprt. Paul B (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that when comparing the Shakespeare work with that of another candidate, you are saying that it's possible to determine common identity on the basis of verbal parallels alone? RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just going by intuition I'd say it's a sock. And if the name's an anagram it would likely be Andrew-something. -- œ^™ 06:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Registering 3 days ago isn't 'good standing'. That aside, this user does smell like a sock. I would suggest this be taken to SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I once witnessed a policeman in Oxford being set upon by four soccer hooligans in a market place. He succeeded in handcuffing one but had trouble subduing another who he was wrestling with on the ground. The other two gleefully watched. After several minutes a crowd of about twenty had gathered round and by this time the handcuffed hooligan was taking running kicks at the policeman on the ground, striking him in the head. No one did anything to help the policeman whose strength was slowly ebbing away. So I grabbed the handcuffed hooligan around the waist to distract him. This gave the policeman time to radio for help and a couple of minutes later reinforcements arrived and the culprits were arrested. I tell you this not to trumpet my own virtue. I tell you to illustrate the point that in my experience that when a crowd see blood they either stand by hoping to see more or actively induce it. Interesting how the real point of this thread, that an editor is deleting a post without justification, has been set aside in favour of the much more pleasurable activity of mob violence. Looking over this thread, it is also interesting for me to see the over-interpretation people can give to evidence and presumably this is why they are interested in the Shakespeare Authorship problem where this weakness is particularly prevalent. In the last analysis, I came here to do one edit, to add a single scholarly citation to three articles the SAQ, the Baconian and the Oxfordian. In the process, I have met some quite sadistic and deluded people. It's like a dysfunctional family who are fighting one another. As soon as you upset one of them they all unite and support each other! Go and find yourself another victim. RewlandUmmer (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course this guy's a sock. Doesn't smell remotely like an Oxonian. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Someone mentioned anagrams. Read your name backwards it says cig-ale-pipe! That doesn't suggest that you know much about an Oxbridge education! Actually, I might stick around for a while, I'm starting to enjoy this! :) RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the point of joining wikipedia is to edit articles constructively, not tie up other editors, or administrators, with a game you now say you are enjoying. If you are beginning to enjoy the way the men who administer wiki law are distracted by this puzzle, or the way people who put paid to a former sock known to enjoy entangling the enforcement of rules may be wasting their time, you might consider for your delectation, one of your possible anagrams, 'Murder lawmen'.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And editing articles constructively, my friend, is the whole point of this thread which, try as hard as I might, I have not yet succeeded in getting you or others (apart from Throwaway85) to focus on. I think I understand why and it relates to what constitutes sound evidence in the Shakespeare Authorship debate. In my experience, people who are interested in this topic are usually given to over-interpreting evidence, because that's the only way to convince oneself that something can be proved when in fact it can't. (That includes Stratfordians too who visit here in great numbers and take any biography of Shakspere as gospel when it's a gratuitous interpolation.) It needs a personality that makes the kind of assumptions that are being made on this thread, and covertly on various talk pages, to think there is certainty in the face of few facts. It would have to be a mind that believes that someone who posts messages in Oxford actually lives in London; one that believes that no one is smart enough to pick up linking format in three days; one that believes that a person who edits for the first time has spent no time reading any of the discussions or examined the procedures before editing; one that believes that someone who "smells" like a imposter actually is one; one who believes that in comparing two texts a common authorship can be attributed on the basis of verbal parallels alone. That's why I'm enjoying this, because it's the sheer crudity of some of the logic that I find enthralling, and in Elizabethan England the innocent were wrongly hanged with this kind of arguing. Stick to the point of this thread (see first post) and so will I. Oh, and one final example of over-interpretation, Nishidani. Have you never heard of Roland Emmerich? RewlandUmmer (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

R Emmerich? Of course I have. I've edited his page, and, his name was discussed in an email I exchanged with another editor last night, on this very question!

If your mind wanders, with theatrical hyperbole, to things like the scavenger's daughter when mulling the 'crudity' of argument used against you here, I am tempted to think of Lord Bacon and his Apologia, recalling the passage where he argued against Queen Elizabeth, who wished to use the rack to extract the identity of the real author of a book she believed written with a pseudonym.

'Nay, madam, . .never rack his person, rack his stile; let him have pen, ink, and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue his story, and I will undertake, by collating his stile, to judge whether he were the author or no.'

I'm sure you're familiar with the source in James Spedding's edition, if not from Mrs Henry Pott (she does need a wiki biography by the way).

To adopt a phrasing from your neighbour Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind (1989:414), creatures with the better ἀλγο-rhythms survive, even on wiki. Stiff upper lip and all that, old chap. I'm sure you'll save your bacon :)Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - As no one has yet so much as requested an SPI, it is inappropriate to deal with RU as if he is a sock. If you think that's the case, request an SPI. If he is a sock, he will be indeffed. If not, then he keeps editing, and is owed several apologies. Defending Smartprt's actions because you agree with his findings is not helpful. RU's contributions should not have been removed before he was blocked for sockpuppetry, period. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, of course, and I do apologize for acting hastily. Franky, though, when one has had to deal with scores of socks all going back to one user (Barryispuzzled), it does get tiresome. Regardless - I apologize for jumping the gun. I have now started the SPI here: [[77]]. Smatprt (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the apology and for the SPI. RU, is Smatprt's apology satisfactory to you?

Well, this can be closed down. It was obvious from the start something queer was afoot. Smatprt deserves credit for sighting it quickly. For a bright guy and a Shakespeare man, Barry is extraordinarily dumb about the requirements for theatrical realism in creating a plausible sockpuppet. That something odd was on was evident from the name, and the first edit, though discretion and the rules required reservations. Nice to see a virtual unanimity of all editors, irrespective of their/our conflicts, in calling the bluff from the beginning. A final irony. Barry has lectured at the Brunel University course on Shakespeare's identity, the very course adduced, many think wrongly, by proponents of Oxfordism to argue that the theory is not fringe. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just so the archives of this topic will point at the relevant stuff. An WP:SPI was filed (here) by Smatprt. Shortly afterward RewlandUmmer admitted to being a block-evading sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Barryispuzzled (diff). The sock account was then promptly blocked by Andonic (block log). Thanks to everyone that helped out. Hopefully we'll get some peace for a while before he pops up again. --Xover (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Verbal long-term revert warring on my user page.

Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user has been attempting to speedy delete or full blank a file in my user space, revert warring, that was used to hold evidence for an RfAr in which I was involved. The actual case pages were courtesy blanked, and, on Verbal's request, I blanked this page as well. That wasn't enough for him. The situation is well enough explained, with full diffs, in my response to a Request for page protection, permanent link, that he filed, attempting to get the page protected in his preferred form, as he has done before. Please encourage him to stop, this is wasting everyone's time. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)add bold for Toddst1's benefit. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User was warned at [78], and previously about speedy deletions at [79] --Abd (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of wasting everyone's time, now that this page is protected, what was it you wanted from ANI? Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern, Toddst1. I had not seen the protection when I filed the report. Further, the long-term behavior indicates that, unless he is discouraged, he will just come back later, when the protection expires in a month, and repeat this, leading to more waste of time. I asked for what I wanted. I've bolded it. I still want it. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Changing to indefinite protection. It's a userpage, so I suppose there's no reason not to; in any case it can be overturned at a later date if circumstances change. · Andonic ^Contact 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why that's exactly what I thought. Thanks, Andonic. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what Abd claims above, the page was never used in an RfAr or in any other capacity and should therefore be blanked or deleted. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and especially not one for hosting unfounded and untrue complaints about other editors that cannot be responded to. These kinds of misleading statements and half truths have got Abd into trouble before. Verbal chat 09:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently Verbal wants to belabor these old issues. ArbComm decided the case, and it decided it based on, at least partly, the evidence presented, which may or may not have included Verbal's evidence and my response. Voluminous evidence was presented by others against me, and part of my evidence was a claim that this was no accident. Accident or not, I had the right to respond. Because there is a limit on the size of a direct presentation on an ArbComm evidence page, I and many others have used evidence subpages, each one dealing with something specific, in detail, and there were many subpages which were responses to individual submissions, as shown in the link to the page from the case. The response to Verbal has been the only one blanked, and it was blanked, by me, at his request. If my evidence was "over the limit," a clerk could have and would have addressed it. If it is deleted, a redlink will appear in case evidence, leaving Verbal's presentation with no response. Yes, the pages were labelled DRAFT. However, that was partly to invite correction, plus, responding to so many people,I was overwhelmed. Nobody informed me of errors, so that I could redact the pages.

• Here is what I'd do now, if warranted. I'd edit the page or a copy of it and use strike-out and append a note as to why. The original unamended version would be referenced, so that the page could then be seen as viewed by ArbComm. If not for full protection, made necessary by Verbal, I'd simply save it like that, and blank it again, with the link from the top level referring to the redacted version. Without specific objections, also invited on Talk for the page, and which still could be placed there, there are only vague claims.

• Verbal is personally attacking my work, and me as a "problem editor," supposedly repeating "what got me into trouble before." I won't review the "before" except maybe before ArbComm itself, it would be disruptive. But this is now, and Verbal is carrying on the dispute now. Revert warring on a user's page. Repeated and denied speedy deletions, a phony MfD notice, and gamed requests to RfPP, each taking up administrator time. Someone should let him know how disruptive this is. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here Verbal; I had a look at the recent history, and the page was blanked with a notice that it had been blanked, and you reverted multiple times to a version with no notice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, that blanking notice provides a link demonstrating that the page was at one point used as a response in an arbitration request; it was linked to as a response. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the page was never part of an arbitration request (and one in which Abd was waaay over the limit anyway). The problem is the link Abd keeps inserting to the misleading smears. Verbal chat 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it serves no purposes in the encyclopedia, why don't we just MFD it and Abd can save himself a copy offline. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It should simply be deleted and in the meantime protected at teh properly blanked version. It is not a courtesy blanking if you give a misleading summary and a link. Verbal chat 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it formed part of the response to an arbcom investigation, it might be worth keeping it so that anyone who wants to see exactly what Abd's responses in the investigation were, can look at the response in history. I believe that's why it has been kept and courtesy-blanked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, you are wrong. It did not form part of the arbom investigation. Verbal chat 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The link in the blanking notice demonstrates that it did. Simply saying that I am wrong without justification doesn't change the fact that the user has provided a permanent link showing that he produced the page in order to respond to the arbitration investigation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not used. Please present evidence it was used, you'll not find any. Note that until long after the case closed it was marked draft, and only abd has attempted to move it to Arb space, long after the case closed. It was never used. If it was I would have responded then to the smears. Verbal chat 09:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The link the user provided, to here, seems to indicate that the page was linked to on the arbcom page. The fact that it still said it was being drafted doesn't mean it wasn't included. If you think that the courtesy blanking message is inappropriate, you'll need to produce evidence that it is deception, not the other way around. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Giftiger. At that link can be seen that all these pages were how I responded to evidence presented by others, Verbal's page is no different, but seems to be the only blanked one. With the case already a monster, if i had responded on the case page to all that presented by many, it would have been far larger. At the end of discussion on the attached Talk page is what I'd said before: I have many times requested that errors on the page, and pages like this, be noted, so I can correct them with disclaimers, strike-out, etc, and no specific errors have been alleged. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That echoes what I originally wrote (see the link), All but one are currently drafts; they may be read for the sense of my response, but they are long and have not been boiled down and checked. If there are significant errors, I'd appreciate notice on my talk page. I received not one such notice, not from Verbal, not from anyone. He is continuing an old conflict. I haven't even read this page since then. Maybe I should, and maybe I should look at the original Verbal evidence, and maybe others could as well. But I'm not asking for that. The page should be left for the record. I blanked it on his request, and what Verbal was revert warring for is very close to what he was given, without conflict, originally, and it was only his many attempts to have the page deleted entirely that caused me to need to add the note so people could find what some arbitrators may have seen, instead of only seeing a series of blank pages with or without notices. Is he ashamed of something? You know, he could ask me to do something about this. I don't take very well to being bullied. Most people don't. --Abd (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Bendfish

Resolved

Bendfish (talk · contribs) has been editing for some time now, and yet they have a long history of creating articles almost out of whole cloth, with no sources, adding long plot summaries without the single iota of a source, creating articles based on rumors, and, in some cases, flat-out vandalism. (See their edit to Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang). I told them a couple of days ago that I had considered filing a vandalism notice against them if they didn't stop, but they continue in the same vein. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Multiple warnings, all ignored; the user can appeal if they are serious about stopping the vandalism, but at this point in time it appears they are not here to help the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicboy22

Resolved

Musicboy22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has already been blocked once for uploading copyrighted images, and received two warnings (aside from a gajillion boilerplate warnings). And yet he's at it again, this time uploading them with free licenses. Please place an extended block on this user to get the point across.Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Second time within the last seven days I've seen a report like this on ANI. As before, I have blocked the user in question for a month. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Peremptory archiving of particular threads on Talk page Talk:Matter

Resolved

 – OP was banned from the topic, so archiving the threads he started was probably a good thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, Headbomb has archived a number of open threads on the Talk page Talk:Matter that he has selected on his own initiative as something he would like to bury pematurely. These threads include a number of unresolved issues regarding the article Matter, which in my opinion, deserve to remain on the Talk page and which point out some desirable changes that should be made on that page. Headbomb has justified this action in this edit and makes the assertion there that this selective and premature archiving of these threads is justified by calling them a "brouhaha", and arguing that if anyone wants to bring these issues up they should resuscitate these threads from the archive.

Although the opposite is claimed by Headbomb, I believe this cumbersome mechanism that buries the issues in an archive is in fact a form of censorship of a few issues that he personally would like to resolve by cutting them short.

In addition, this contribution to an open RfC uses a link to this archived material, which now is broken.

I would appreciate it if Headbomb would restore the page Talk:Matter by bringing this archive, of his making, back onto the Talk page.

Headbomb has been advised of this request in this diff. Brews ohare (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just revert the edit? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

nvm, I see he claims you are banned from the discussion. Is this correct? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems you were. I suggest leaving this alone, and adhering to the ban. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no intention on my part to violate the ban. The objections to this action stand regardless. A ban does not automatically imply that my activities should be buried. I want to see these threads in the open on the Talk page, as they were, where others can participate if they wish, and do not have to jump hoops to do so, and where the arguments presented are openly displayed for all to see. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This matter is not resolved. These high-handed tactics are an abuse. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else who wishes to raise the same issues on the talk page is free to do so, including by unarchiving the threads they were participating in. I don't see that any further action needs to be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:NovaSkola

1. User reverted my edit as vandalism. I've added a name of the fortress in Armenian and in Azeri; I've mentioned that the fortress is situated in the disputed territory which is de-facto under the control of NKR for improving NPOV. Finally I've added three interwikies: in Azeri, Russian and Ukrainian. All these my edits were reverted by User:NovaSkola as a vandalism.
2. There were a discussion in the talk page of the article about the city of Martuni. Don't taking part in the discussion User:NovaSkola changed the name from Martuni to the Khojavend and after it he make a request to the administrators for protection of the name of the article. Administrator SlimVirgin protected the name of the article on the version of NovaSkola. Then there were no discussion from the users who represents Azerbaijan: User:Tuscumbia, User:NovaSkola and User:Brandmeister as they agreed that it is normal behavior of user NovaSkola. In my request that there are no consensus, administrator SlimVirgin wrote answer in the talk page (end of the page).
3. After that without any discussion User:NovaSkola has done the same with the article about Martakert (town). He moved the name of the article and after that make a request for protection of the title, but I've seen it and stopped him, mentioning about it in the RfPP. After some period of time he repeated the action. He moved the title and then make a request for protection of the title on his version. Administrator TFOWR accepted request.

• Please take concrete measures against the user, which is in conflict articles biased and unfair conducts his activities. Thanks in advance. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No idea about the content-dispute, but there seems to be some mis-use of Twinkle going on... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone needs a break from twinkle.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definatly needs a break from Twinkle Látches (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ліонкінг mentions the link to Ukranian Askeran Fortress. I just want to remind, that in the Ukranian version there is no mentioning of Azerbaijan even though the fortress is legally located on Azerbaijani territory. About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto. So I guess this user accusing me of false allegations and I want admins to check my and his records and make right decision. Also I want to remind, this user previously topic banned on Azerbaijani articles as he was falsifying Azerbaijani articles and removing references, while accusing all other users of mistreating him.--NovaSkola (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There were not only Ukrainian interwiki, there were also Azeri and Russian interwikies, You've deleted all of them. But it is even not important what is in the other language article. In the ukrwiki uses de-facto names. Anyway You don't have a right to delete interwikies and mention it as vandalism.

"About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto." - it is only Your opinion. You can't decide for whole community. By the way there were a big hot discussion on the talk page of the article. You've just ignore opinion of participants and moved the title of article and make request for protection on Your version, however there were a hot discussion. I have never falsified anything. Just You and Your collegues Tuscumbia and Brandmeister started a campaign against me and from third request I and Your collegue Tuscumbia were topic banned.

Speaking about everything else what You've said it is just Your propoganda and it does no matter to the plot of this discussion. Now we're speaking about Your behavior and Your concrete actions, not about my actions. So please give direct answers to the request. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your not admin to I force me to do something. Ліонкінг is surely, don't know his duties by showing agressive behavior against me. This user just showed his attitude against Azerbaijani users by accusing us without having constructive arguments. So I urge admins to take action.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, considering User:NovaSkola's past actions of removing information he/she finds unpalatable[80](massive deletion of referenced information),[81][82](contends Armenian sources are not neutral, yet corresponding source is written by a Turk(Özkırımlı)!),[83](straight deletion after information was given on the talk page, which was NOT used by User:NovaSkola!), why has this editor's recent actions surprised anyone? Admins should take into consideration this editor's past reverts, deletions and non-use of talk page, before allowing User:NovaSkola continued use of Twinkle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ліонкінг

I've moved this thread up to unify the two complaints; feel free to revert if you think this was inappropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have complaint against User:Ліонкінг, who constantly personally attacks me and other users without having constructive opinions. Situation follows: 1. User failed to notify me, about incident that he launched against me. While I notified him immediately. 2. User starts using aggressive behavior towards me by forcing me to do his actions, despite this user is not in admin role. An example of this could be - give direct answers to the request in here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NovaSkola 3. User also accuses other Azerbaijani users, which includes Tuscumbia and Brandmeister by trying to get back to him, while we just only complained so Lionking tries to blackmail me and others.

So I hope admins, do something against this user who is fed me up with his direct attacks.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a big contribution in enwiki, so everybody can review my contribution. The problem is that user NovaSkola try to get distracted from my request. He don't want to give direct answers on my request. Instead of it he says that I've aggressive behavior against him and smbd else. I want to listen his comment to the diffs which I've written. Am I disagree with his behavior? Yes, I'm. And I've written here why. He revert my edits and he write that I vandalise pages while I'm not do it. Then I want to hear why he without any discussion move the title of the articles which are about very disputed area and then he make a request for protection on his version. And he don't take a part in any discussion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, you don't have big contribution and now you are taking on big contribution users from Azerbaijan to ruin our reputation. Once again, I decide admins to make wise decision and make sure this user is not attacking me directly. User must know his own responsibilities and not accuse of me answering or forcing something. --NovaSkola (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just reviewed the edits by User Ліонкінг and this one in particular [84] which seems to have started this thread. I must say that the edit can't be fully justified. If an Armenian name for a fortress or any other town, village or center on the territory of Azerbaijan is added, then it should be the same case with fortresses, towns and villages in Armenia which had had a considerable Azerbaijani population in the past. See Blue Mosque, Yerevan for instance, or Sisian or Alaverdi, or even Caucasian Albania historically located on the territory of Azerbaijan; see in this link [85] where an Armenian user removes the Azeri language. The really wrong thing seems to be adding Armenian names to the de-jure Azerbaijani cities which are clearly under occupation and are recognized as Azerbaijani lands when the Azerbaijani population of those towns have been deported by force. This seems quite unjust. See how one user User talk:Vrammycowboy was rightfully banned from editing due to disruptive editing (his account was created just for the sake of adding Armenian names and disruptive editing. And this is the proper response from the admin [86]. I just checked history of contributions of Ліонкінг against those of NovaSkola. Don't know about the other. All user Ліонкінг has done in English Wikipedia is disrupt when NovaSkola has created a whole line of articles. Anastasia Bukhantseva  23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I am not Armenian, stop this nationalistic non-sense. Sardur (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You accuse us of nationalism, but why does User:Ліонкінг not add Azeri names to his pictures in WikiCommons, the pictures that he took in Hadrut, Khojavend, Kelbajar, etc. I bet this is all done with the purpose to disclaim Azeri ownership of Azerbaijani lands by falsely claiming they are some Nagorno Karabakh Republic. If I am wrong, show one reliable source from international community or organization claiming the country is legitimate.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see here only one think. NovaSkola don't have any answer to his actions about which I've claimed and now he just try to get destructed. About my small contribution. Yes, I've a small contribution in enwiki as English isn't my native language, but I've enough contribution in ruwiki (I'm autoeditor there) and in ukrwiki (I'm patroller there). Also I've uploaded some hundred images to the commons. But even it is not important. If I even have no contribution it don't make a right to NovaSkola to act in this way. About my disruptive behavior You can learn from my contribution list to avoid speculations. By the way, I'm an author of nearly thousand articles in different language chapters of wikipedia which I've created in a period of two years. About Armenian names in Azeri territory and Azeri people who have moved with forces. Nagorno Karabakh at least is disputed territory. The current territory of NKR is recognised by Azerbaijan according to the Bishkek protocol. There were no Azeris in Askeran. In NKR there are even no any mosque which is earlier of 18 century, but there are thousands churches of earlier period, begining from 1 century. I wouldn't answer here more before I wouldn't hear official position of NovaSkola on my three claims, as he just try to change attention from concrete his actions which I've mentioned to some mythical my disruptive edits, nationalism, aggression and so on. We can discuss on this tematic for ages. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Contract Research Organization

Resolved

 – Changed some wording, but if there's a problem, be bold. Tommy! [message] 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was surfing freelance job sites and stumbled across the following message. It appears like someone will be trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Please keep an eye on the linked article and make sure this doesn't go unnoticed.

"We have recently rolled out a new website, and now we would like to create a Wikipedia entry for our company as well.

I'm looking for somebody who can take the content from our current website and write a neutral unbiased article about it fit for Wikipedia. Based on keywords, links to the article should also be provided from other articles. The article naturally should also contain outgoing links (e.g. when the company is described as a CRO, it should link to the article on Contract Research Organization).

Wikipedia is becoming more and more stringent and picky about "advertising". You're not required to write an advertisement though; we just want to have our company included in the web's largest encyclopedia.

"YOU will be responsible to submit the final article to Wikipedia, as well as manage the incoming and outgoing links. Payment is contingent upon the Wikipedia staff NOT deleting the article one month after submission and acceptance of your content. " -- 87.211.75.45 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just went through the article and removed the advertisement/spam. I couldn't find any user names to report who may represent the company, so I guess, if anything, we can watch for bias/spammers. Also, don't capitalize words for emphasis, I hate that. Tommy! [message] 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, what's this "payment" you're talking about. Tommy! [message] 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the text of the advert, if the quotation marks are any indication. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

oh, he didn't but the begin quote which confused me. Tommy! [message] 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did. Look at his second paragraph. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor didn't realize that starting a new paragraph would stop the italicizing he had begun in the first graf -- the ending marks in the last graf indicate that. I've reformatted it so that the itals carry through the quoted material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:116.236.253.138 and User:116.6.19.192 are blocked User:Whu4

Some WP:DUCK socks, see the edit histories and this self admission[87]. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle

Heat > light

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. Once again User:Delicious carbuncle has resorted to sniping and rude behavior per his recent comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales where he states: "From past experience I know that you don't understand rudimentary logic". I've had enough with his rudeness and commenting at places for no reason other than to make trouble. This isnt the first comment he's made regarding my intelligence or communication skills, and it is not like I am the only or first person to ever complain about his attitude and/or comments about editors instead of content. A further look at his editing and his edit summaries (which he uses as a further means of sniping since people are less likely to find his rudeness there).Camelbinky (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC) While not particularly pleasant, I don't think this comment alone could justify a block; perhaps this should have been taken to WP:WQA instead, as it seems to be a WP:CIV problem if anything. Are you looking to have this user blocked? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) WQA is not better for anything. What's best is if editors just grow up, and accept that not everyone will agree with everything that they say or do, but that doesn't make it one of those infamous "personal attacks". Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I want to remove the insinuations of a connection with Wikileaks from the page though (It's probably a BLP violation), but am too tired - anyone else care to do it? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I have archived it, probably a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to make it clear that I made no insinuations. I see nothing in the conversation that would require archiving it in such a manner. Perhaps this is a bit of an over-reaction? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you took my comment as an insult, Camelbinky. I invite editors to read over the conversation in context before making any judgement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps an interaction ban? I know I have never intentionally entered any discussion in which he was a part of, nor have I attempted to initiate an interaction with him anywhere and yet he seems to have a fascination with entering discussions I am a part of in order to say something, and it usually seems to just be ANYTHING just to get a word, as his strange off-topic interjection at Jimbo's talk page was just a way to enter the discussion. I'm more insulted that I am working on my master's, I have a bachelors in Political Science, my IQ is in the top 1% of the nation, and his own posts are not logical (as the thread at Jimbo's shows), and yet he claims I have no grasp of rudimentary logic...! And here comes another personal attack from Malleus who has disagreed with me in the past and been rude, lovely. If this is going to be another one of those AN/I where it becomes "attack the complainer because he's complained about me" then forget it. I want Delicious to simply not have any contact with me, see a discussion I'm in and dont join. Easy to do. Camelbinky (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not accuse others of personal attacks, remember to assume good faith. While I can see how carbuncle's statement might be interpreted as a personal attack (indeed, I would take exception to it as well), I fail to see how Malleus' comment could be interpreted as such, unless I am looking at a different comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) If Camelbinky's IQ is in the top 1% then I have only two things to say; first of all commiserations, and secondly that I'm a Chinese whore on crack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Malleus, I suggest striking that. Frankly you're increasingly proving yourself to be little more than a troll. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that soliciting the blocking/banning of other editors is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. BTW, calling me a troll is most definitely a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) It's an observation, not a personal attack. I have yet to see you contribute anything constructive to a single ANI or WQA thread, despite the fact that I have seen you comment on several threads. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the matter at hand, direct your efforts to where they will be constructive. In any case, I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Can I close this, its just creating more drama than its going to solve. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Agree, but I would suggest that an editor previously uninvolved in the thread close this instead. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Enough everyone. Camelbinky, our guy who checks claimed qualifications on talk pages called in sick again, so you'll have to cut that out. Everyone else please tone it down.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 23 August 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:Donald Duck behavior

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

---

I want to report User:Donald Duck behavior. I'm clearing wikipedia from User:Zombie433 fake edits. I reported it there[[88]].

User:Donald Duck reverted my good edits, then I post a message with explanation on his talk page [89]. But he is deleting my messages and posting some stupid warnings on my talkpage. Could you explain with him his freaky behavior?--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• You need to notify any user you discuss here. I'll be doing that now. elektrikSHOOS 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't do it because he's deleting my messages.--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If an editor deletes a message you leave on their talk page, that's an implicit acknowledgment that they've read the message. If you leave them a notice of this discussion and they delete it, your obligation is over. -- Atama頭 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Calling you a vandal for posting an explanation of what you are doing on xyr talk page is inexcusable behaviour on Donald Duck's part. However, you could have acted to prevent yourself from getting into this mess in the first place. You're removing what you assert to be false information that one editor systematically added to Wikipedia. But there's no clue in your edit summaries that you're doing this. Your edit summaries do not provide any way to distinguish between what you are doing and what vandals do to Wikipedia every day. You're blanking parts of articles and statistics from infoboxes, and the very best that your edit summaries have been are "fake, pov". In many cases, you haven't provided any edit summaries at all. How on Earth is anyone to tell that you're doing this with good intentions, as part of a WikiProject Football cleanup effort, if you don't say so in your edit summaries. Link your edit summaries to a WikiProject Football discussion showing consensus amongst editors to systematically revert these additions.

  Here's a maxim for you specifically to remember (that will have Arthur C. Clarke spinning in his grave like Rama):

  Any sufficiently poorly made well-intentioned edit is indistinguisable from vandalism.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that I've run into this issue with Donald Duck. I don't believe that they have the firmest grasp on WP:VAN. See here where there were two good faith edits reported as vandalism (which I'll admit eventually led to the editor's block after some uncivil responses to the vandalism templates, but that's beside the point), and even some edit warring on the editor's own talk page. These good faith edits reported as vandalism are accompanied with less-than-stellar edit summaries, so probably no more than a trout is warranted, but I do see something of a pattern of mistakes here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Harrassment is a blockable offense. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this would be borderline at best; harassment usually occurs when an editor targets another editor or group of editors and specifically tries to make them miserable through various means. Donald Duck's behavior has been untargeted, and more importantly I believe that they truly believe that their vandalism warnings are genuine. Mistakes can be blockable if they cause disruption and the editor has been warned about them and willfully continues them, but that hasn't happened here from what I can see. I still feel that a nice fish-slap is all that's needed. -- Atama頭 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything Atama has said. I know I'm not perfect and make mistakes, but there is a bit of a pattern I see with Donald Duck. Tommy! [message] 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I was referring to Wrwr1's repeated harrassment of Donald Duck. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Then you need some sense of perspective. Three user talk page edits and no interactions other than on the football articles that the user talk page edits were discussing and explaining is not harrassment by any stretch of the imagination. This edit summary should not be taken as gospel. It's Huggle Happiness, just hitting the Huggle buttons that one hits all of the time because it's easier than doing things right according to specific cases. Notice that Donald Duck reverts and dismisses/ignores every editor who doesn't have an account or a user page, whatever the discussion. This response is a good indicator that Huggle Happiness is setting in, too.

        Indeed, the talk page message there, again blithely ignored by Donald Duck because it comes from someone without an account whom xe has dismissed as a vandal, is an attempt to communicate, made by an ordinary editor, with someone who has gone Huggle Happy. The recent edit history of Worksop makes for interesting reading: Two Huggle using editors ganging up with robotic edit summary explanations against that editor, not only whose information is correct but whose intent to correct is explained in the talk page edit that just gets ignored by the Huggler.

        If this weren't bad enough, at Milieu therapy Donald Duck has just used Huggle to reinsert a blatant copyright violation four times. Attempts to communicate about that were ignored too, and the editor who was doing good work keeping us free from content that is "Copyright Focus Alternative Learning Center All Rights Reserved" is now blocked for "vandalism". Huggle Happiness is not acting to the betterment of the encyclopaedia here.

        A quick word in the ear of Spencer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems warranted at this point.

        I'm going to leave it up for the next few hours for the edificiation of people without administrator privileges reading this discussion, but since the copyright violation in Milieu therapy goes back to its very first version (as noted in 2007), the entire edit history is a copyright violating derived work, and has to go. It's unacceptable that a Huggler should edit war to keep copyright violations in Wikipedia and blatantly ignore the people coming to xyr user page to discuss it. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

        • @Everard Proudfoot: I assumed you meant Donald Duck because I couldn't imagine how Wrwr1's communications could be considered harassment.
        • @Uncle G: Thanks for that extra information. I didn't realize how extensive this problem was, I've apparently only seen the tip of the iceberg (and I admit I didn't take the time to really look into their behavior, I've only seen Donald Duck's behavior in passing a couple of times this week). This looks like a serious problem and I'm wondering if this uncommunicative editor is far too disruptive to allow unblocked. I think I will take the time to look into this. -- Atama頭 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I see nothing disruptive in my edits. Per Ungle G's comment, he / she should have put clearer edit summeries. "Fake" is not a clear edit summary. Anyone in my place could have done the same as me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Edit summaries are not always clear, hence why we have diffs. Anyone in your place would have looked at them. ANowlin ^talk 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• He posted a very rude response to a warning I gave him after he reverted a blanking at WP:AfC, that was done after the original author. He asserts that he has done nothing wrong, and that we are treating him like he is dumb. He also says that everyone makes mistakes with HG. IMHO: Someone needs to be brought back down to earth. HG doesn't make you God. ANowlin ^talk 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that "HG doesn't make you God" is fair or applicable in this case, let's try not to make this discussion unnecessarily heated. Donald Duck, I am glad you have decided to participate, but don't you see that the sheer volume of mistakes you're making is a problem? I'm willing to cut any recent pages patroller some slack, fighting vandalism is very admirable, but all of the "friendly fire" going on is really worrisome. Even more troubling than the mistakes is ignoring the repeated pleas to be careful, and an unwillingness to listen when someone protests a vandalism tag. -- Atama頭 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Anowlin, there is nothing rude in my response; don't accuse me. Atama, how's this for a start at resolving this discussion? - Donald Duck (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I simply do not understand how you reverted the removal of copyvio 4 times at Milieu therapy despite clear edit summaries asserting it was copyvio. Most users would be blocked for that. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Woah! He wasn't blocked for this? ANowlin ^talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • His / her edit summaries actually weren't that clear. Yes, he pointed towards WP:COPYVIO and such, but what was copyrighted in the article? He / She never said what was copyrighted by linking to where the text came from. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If it's a removal, that points to WP:COPYVIO, maybe you should check, instead of pressing Q or R. ANowlin ^talk 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for striking out those warnings, that's a helpful gesture. I'm wondering, is Huggle the whole problem here? Maybe avoiding that tool is a good idea. Just throwing that out for consideration to all here. -- Atama頭 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Also, I agree, the response to Anowlin wasn't rude... Curt, perhaps, and dismissive, but not necessarily rude. (Rude would be saying that Anowlin was stupid.) -- Atama頭 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, I recently came back from a hiatus because my PC was broken down from July 1st, 2010 to July 26th, 2010. In that time period, I either used my mom's PC or my Dell, which I now call a substitute PC since the Dell is just there as a back-up PC now. Neither of them had Huggle, so I figured it was a good time to take a break. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Not an excuse. Calm down, and lay off the Q and R keys. You're wearing them out. ANowlin ^talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • I wasn't using my PC as an excuse; quit accusing me of things. - Donald Duck (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Please. If you see anything in an edit summary that suggests text has been removed as copyvio, don't put it back unless you are sure it isn't copyvio. Ask someone else to check if you don't think you are able to check it properly. Ask me if you want to, I'm not bad at finding copyvio although (like today) I hate finding it as it can cause a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, xyr edit summaries were fairly clear, and the content being removed had "captured from: www.focus-alternative.org/milieu.htm" in a section title and a {{copypaste}} tag at the top. 75.173.6.133 wasn't exactly being mysterious and secretive (unlike 71.198.107.182 who, if xe had pointed this out more clearly all those years ago, would have saved us a lot of this trouble).

            Incidentally:

            edit

            What's wrong with 67.87.110.178 trying to tell us what Connecticut judicial marshals are armed with? Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have had numerous problems with DD's edits. A quick look at his/her talk page will show three different reverts that were unwarranted and unexplained by DD which I protested. This has now moved from annoying to disruptive, IMHO. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've just discovered that s/he's also filing false vandalism reports.[90] Will somebody with some authority around here wield a trout, or perhaps even remove Huggle access? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a saying to remember: "Everyone makes mistakes". Anyway, your edit summary "stupid 'bot" was very misleading. Please use clearer edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Also, here's a suggestion. If you don't want your edits showing up on Huggle, create an account. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I cater to your inability to actually look at an edit as opposed to over-relying on Huggle and making assumptions based on an edit summary? Creating an account isn't going to correct the problems you exhibit. Even a quick look at the history would have shown that I very clearly indicated at every step what I was doing and why.69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called being civil. Also, I did look at the edit, and I found nothing wrong in ClueBot's revert. You removed content without an explanation. Creating an account will solve the so-called problems I don't have. You'll be automatically whitelisted by Huggle, meaning your edits won't appear while someone's using Huggle. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a heads up this was an incorrect revert (which is what the IP is talking about) rollback and warning is only for clear vandalism - which this was not. A good look at the diff (and the used edit summary) should have prompted you to check the article history - which would have provided good context. Even then rollback is inappropriate - it is a content issue and so should be undone instead then discussed on the talk page. I agree anyone can make mistakes; but you have made a good number in a short space of time - it might be worth refreshing on vandalism policy (in a nutshell; err on the side of caution and prefer to treat it as a content issue if you can). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I too have noted incorrect warnings, reverts, and uncivil behaviour from this editor. This reversion was incorrectly marked as vandalism in the edit summary and posting a level 3 vandalism warning was also uncalled for. When the editor queried this on User talk:Donald Duck, the response was a warning about test edits on User talk:Donald Duck, which was also inappropriate. A question or comment about an editor's actions cannot be considered a test edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The above behaviour came to light following a post at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Threats from Editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I also saw it. I considered posting here but Jezhotwells beat me to it. Not good. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this has gone long enough. The original post / report was regarding Wrwr. I stroke out my warnings on his talk page, so this has been resolved. The above issue, which is unrelated, is from August 12th; therefore, it's not necessary to post about it. Next thing you guys will do is look for something else to use against me in my 2009 discussions. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, and I'm sorry I hadn't checked the date that the actual edits occurred. By the way, I almost didn't look at your edit here, you marked it M. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite all right. I'll post on your talk page shortly with a question. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What people are trying to do, DD, is to ensure you understand that you have a long history of bad reverts, misuse of rollback, not responding in a meaningful way to legitimate questions, and, most of all, that you understand the missteps you've made and will strive to do better. Simply dismissing something as old when you haven't learned from it is just continuing the pattern of unrepentant, errant reverts. I'm still not seeing acknowledgement of any of this. And nine days is not that long ago. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading that sounds very patronizing. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If nine days is so long ago that it's the mists of memory, how about three hours? Take these edits:

• edit
• edit

Tolgagurcan is happily and quietly writing an article on the TAI Hürkuş. A 'bot warns on the article's talk page that one of the links is to a disambiguation. Writers fix the problem and Tolgagurcan removes the warning from the talk page since it has been deal with. Then you come along, put the 'bot notice back (even though it's no longer true) and give the poor article writer a Huggle vandalism warning. And this is while this very discussion on this noticeboard is drawing everyone's attention to your use of Huggle. What on Earth are you thinking? Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, and I did what any normal Huggler would do, which is to revert unexplained blanking of content or removal of content. I also gave the appropriate warning, which was a "huggleblank1". In that message, there is nothing that says the edit was vandalism. Quit looking for things that aren't a problem as excuses to get after me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any normal Huggler" is expected not to warn editors for undertaking normal talk page maintenance. If you don't see such behavior as a problem, that's a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck, you don't seem that understand that your editing behaviour is the problem. Why do you think som many editors came here to report so many diffrent incidents. Please desist from this behaviour is it is disrupticve. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DD, no it is definitely not what any Huggler should be doing. Lack of an edit summary does not mean vandalism - it means the user might need a friendly (NON template) talk page note about using edit summaries. If you see no ediit summary you should (even must) take time to check the edit and it's context before reverting. I will consider edits for anything up to a minute when Huggling. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, guys, can we just call this resolved? Let's let bygones be bygones. If anyone has a problem with me a in the future, please don't hesitate to come to my talk page and discuss said future problems, and, if I don't respond within 24 hours, feel free to also bring it up here at WP:AN/I. - Donald Duck (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I see no evidence that you've actually learned anything from this, only that you want to ignore past mistakes and move on. No apologies, no regrets, no answers to still-outstanding concerns on your talk page, just "let bygones by begones." 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be posting if you're just going to be negative. Also, did you not read the part about my talk page? - Donald Duck (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I also see quite a few complaints there that are still unanswered (including my first interaction with you, when you issued me a vandalism warning for putting a spam tag on a page). Are we expected to just sweep those under the rug and pretend that they didn't happen, that you're starting anew with no prior history? In that case perhaps you should retire this persona and create a new ID, one without Huggle and/or rollback privileges. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that, but one shouldn't hang onto the past; instead, they should just move on and learn from any mistakes they've made. That doesn't mean said events in the past didn't happen, it just means they're moving on. You're trying to take this out of proportion. - Donald Duck (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DD, a frequent response to misuse of Huggle is for us to remove it. But we need not do so if you are willing to promise to edit without using it, or any other automated editing tool? DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the option of improving. There are a lot of people, myself included, that have bad streaks of things sometimes, whether they're in real life or something on said person's computer. Also, there are more good Huggle reverts from me than there are bad. It just seems bad right now because of what's being read. In fact, there were a few months this year where I barely got any messages. Here's an example: For my July 2010 archive, there are only four archived discussions. Here's another one: Although there were a lot of discussions for February 2010, a lot of them were positive. - Donald Duck (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You could demonstrate a true desire to improve by going back and dealing with some of those unanswered posts on your page, rescinding the bad warnings you've issued and otherwise dealing with the problems that already exist because of the way you've been using Huggle. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. I replied to you on my talk page and took care of my bad reverts / edits that remained for August 2010. Also, I apologize for reverting you. I believe I've only reverted you twice, but I'm not sure. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The only concerning thing is that this has been going on for a while looking at those archives - i.e. you haven't taken on previous advice about what does constitute vandalism. If you've read the advice above, though, and taken it in, then this thread is probably over. You do have a lot of previous "false positives" for a Huggle user --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, can someone mark this as resolved? - Donald Duck (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck has a history of Huggle abuse, unwillingness to communicate, disruptive editing, harassment, and attacking others by accusing them of vandalism and/or harrassment. He does not stop even when informed or blocked. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck reverted one of my edits too, deleting a redlink. Had Donald Duck paused to consider, or even looked at my other edits, Donald Duck would have seen there was a good reason for my edit. On Donald Duck's talk page are some complaints about how Donald Duck uses Huggle ... I guess this is a tool for fighting vandalism. Donald Duck seems to have trouble telling the difference between vandalism and good faith edits. Perhaps it is time for Donald Duck to take a break from fighting vandalism and instead spend some time learning how to contribute to Wikipedia. That will help Donald Duck understand what other contributors are trying to do, and be able to help them rather than revert them. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I understand there have been some issues with me, which I have no problem admitting, but it is not necessary to bring up every, little petty thing on here. The same goes for any user. Bring it up on their talk page first; then, if they're unwilling to discuss said issue, that's when one brings it up at WP:AN/I. 68.167.224.215, I've replied on my talk page. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to this Donald Duck replied with the remark I saw that you created the page, so I have no further objections. Objections? Further objections!? Is Donald Duck a designated gatekeeper here? I find this behavior rather disruptive. Even if each inconsiderate edit by Donald Duck were as trivial as Donald Duck suggests, would the cumulative effect be trivial? I think not. If it is Donald Duck's job to raise the bar for contributors like me, then whose job is it to raise the bar for Donald Duck? 68.167.224.215 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The main issue seems to be Donald Duck's misuse of Huggle. Can this tool be taken away from this editor. Studying his talk page and contributions and his responses here leads me to believe that he really does not learn form these "mistakes". There is a futher incident today where a comment by another editor was removed from another thread on this page. DD blamed it ion edit conflict! talk#ANI deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because it was an edit conflict issue. Do you really think I would lie? This has gone long enough. - Donald Duck (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue is Donald Duck's consistent reverting of other editors' appropriate edits. Huggle is merely the tool at hand; the problem is in the user. This ANI has been open 5 days now and in that time Donald Duck has continued in this disruptive behavior. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the repeated misuse of Huggle after many warnings warrants at least a month block, the continued trolling and harassment is what really concerns me and makes me fully support an indef block. Donald Duck was already blocked on 24 April 2009 for harassment [91] and should have learned his lesson, but continued to troll afterwords [92]. David Kovic (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Huggle misuse is continuing [93]. I have removed Huggle for 6 months. Given that the last block was a year ago, I am not willing to block indefinitely at this time. I will, however, support a blcck for a substantial period if problematic behavior continues. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck also has rollback permission. It was removed once before and given back. Can it be taken away until Donald Duck demonstrates a good understanding of what is not vandalism? In the meantime, perhaps Donald Duck will try contributing to articles. This user has so few contributions here that perhaps this user has not experienced being on the receiving end of disruptive reverts. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I bet you're happy that this happened, and yet you're still trying to cause trouble for me. You and others accused me of continuing my "disruptive" edits, but that is not true. When this discussion was supposed to be over, I learned and improved and made no further disruptive edits. I don't see where I continued my so-called disruptive edits. I've raised my concerns of this unfair removal of Huggle to a couple administrators. - Donald Duck (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What about your trolling? AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What trolling!? - Donald Duck (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Try this. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[94] AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. I made one little mistake. Now the world will end! Seriously, get a grip. I don't want to play the blame game, but I feel part of this is your guys' fault. The discussion was pretty much over, and then you guys had to come and heat it up again by pointing out petty things. As to the IP address, that's not stalking nor trolling. The talk page was on my watchlist, I saw an edit was made, and I commented. Speaking of mistakes, please see the very last part of Oh-No-It's-Jamie's second comment here. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider trolling as being petty. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As already stated, Huggle was removed from you because your amount of mistakes was extremely high. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on User talk:Pinethicket was trolling as well as it was a personal attack. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit uncivil, perhaps, but it was by no means a personal attack. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of "trying to cause trouble for this user" can be considered a personal attack and harassment. Your comment was also disruptive because it did not belong on Pinethicket's talk page. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKPAGE, I see nothing wrong there. Again, a bit uncivil, but nowhere near a personal attack. Also, one edit does not make it harassment. It also wasn't disruptive. There was no accusing there, as I simply made a comment. However, it's a different story here since it's a much bigger discussion on a more important issue. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A user's talk page is for discussing that user's work. Since your comment was directed at 68.167.224.215, it should have been placed on User talk:68.167.224.215. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) I understand completely why people are so angry here, truly, but things have spun a bit out of control with name-calling, and such. I think a rest of a few hours or so could be really helpful at this point. I'm weighing in, very briefly, because I was referred to above by Jezhotwells re DD's claim of an edit conflict, which he doubted, and because DD asked me to do so re that mention. I do understand Jezhotwells skepticism in this context – I might doubt the explanation too, if I were in his shoes – but I'm certain that in my own case at least, where DD deleted my edit, that his doing so was an entirely good-faith mistake. I've explained here what happened, and have also made a now-somewhat-belated recommendation for resolving this unpleasantness, too. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

While editing mistakes, personal attacks, and other disruptive editing may be good-faith, trolling[95] is not, nor is it "little" or "petty" as he calls it. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am sympathetic to DD and made a good amount of mistakes when I first used it. However, it seems that there are 2 fairly upset users here, DD. I'd recommend being more careful about the intent of the edits when reverting with Huggle. There are many seemingly unconstructive edits, but few of them qualify as VAN. Tommy! [message] 10:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that Huggle was the biggest problem here, or at least it was enabling many of these problems, and now that DGG has removed it I hope that most of the conflict will die down. Donald Duck does have rollback, and it has been misused in the past but has it been misused any time recently? If not, I don't see why it can't be left in place. I don't believe an indefinite block is warranted (or any other kind of block); I do believe that Donald Duck has been unnecessarily combative with some editors who questioned certain reverts, warnings, and accusations of vandalism, especially considering that in many cases (as noted above) those reverts, warnings, and accusations were wrong. WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE have been issues. I weigh this against the positive things that Donald Duck has done, and note that trying to clean up after vandals does often bring one into conflict with disruptive people, and suggest that the Huggle removal is all of the action warranted at this point. I very much hope that Donald Duck can be more civil when dealing with new and anonymous editors in the future and be more open to criticism and more careful when reverting other editors. -- Atama頭 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So am I allowed to use rollback or not? Even though it's enabled, I'd rather wait so I don't get in trouble. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, temporarily stopping Donald Duck from using Huggle may be enough. I agree that Huggle is a factor here. Huggle is a rollback tool and I think abuse of Huggle is abuse of rollback. In terms of both operations and policy, I would suggest that the corrective action should be to revoke rollback permission rather than disable one of several tools that rely on rollback permission. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, it seems like your only intention is to get everything that you can revoked from me. First you do it with Huggle, which, unfortunately, succeeded; now you're trying to do it again. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck, I could be dredging through your edit history to make a case that you should be blocked again. I am not doing that. I think the fundamental problem is your very apparent lack of experience on Wikipedia doing anything other than fighting vandalism. Responsibility for that lack is not yours alone. People who contribute content here have their behavior scrutinized in every detail, and quickly learn or leave. There is no comparable scrutiny of so-called vandal fighters such as yourself. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You only started editing yesterday. However, I've been here since December 30th, 2008. While, yes, no one knows everything, myself included, you only started editing yesterday, meaning you're pretty much new to Wikipedia. No offense, but if anyone should be going over Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be you. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck, DGG has said on, I think, your user page that he considers his 6 month "block" to cover all automated tools - I read that quite explicitly not to cover use of rollback/undo. I'd advise getting clarification from DGG but I think that using rollback/undo manually should be fine. I'd suggest spending a month or so doing "normal" editing and maybe some light new page patrolling etc. - taking care over rollbacks and keeping up to date on what can be considered vandalism (which is the main issue here I think). I think very little is served by continuing this discussion; 68.167.224.215 if you still have specific complaints you are going to need some diffs to show systematic "abuse" of rollback (and specifically rollback rather than automated edits). Otherwise I'd support closing this. I think the main "issue" has been that DD has not overtly taken responsibility for his actions (i.e. "mistakes happen") when his number of errors seems disproportionately high. A short break using manual rollback seems the right medicine in this case. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at Donald Duck's last 1000 edits to articles I find just 6 edits using rollback.

• Donald Duck used rollback 5 times directly after using Huggle, correcting Donald Duck's own mistakes. (Why doesn't Donald Duck use Huggle for this?) Affected articles are Sexual Offences Act 2003, Larvik HK, Body modification, Monarch Park Collegiate, Ah Kin.
• In July 2010 on Charborough House Donald Duck used Huggle repeatedly against 86.7.164.107 and rollback once against User:Drakesfamily (probably the same person as the anon).
• Since the July 2010 incident Donald Duck has used rollback twice on User talk:88.246.253.242.

To me, this abuse of direct rollback seems minor. But that is not my point. My point is that rather than removing access to tools that use rollback, it would be better to remove access to rollback itself, for the sake of transparency. We can all see from logs that Donald Duck has had rollback taken away only once before, but here Donald Duck mentions also having had just Huggle taken away. How many times has Huggle been taken away? And has Twinkle ever been taken away too? 68.167.224.215 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can get it down to three months, as I think six months is a bit much. This is only the second time Huggle's been taken away from me, although last time it was because I edit-warred with it, which I have not done since. If this were my fourth time getting it taken away, I would understand. I do think, though, it would be a little more fair if this were to follow in the same category as blocking IP addresses (Ex: Starts at 24 hours, then 48 hours, then 72 hours, etc.), but I won't ask for that much reduced time -- I'm just stating a suggestion that could possibly become a good one in the future for Hugglers. Anyway, for now I will just use the "undo" button or "rollback" button since those two are my only choices to continue my reverting vandalism work -- unless, of course, Twinkle isn't disabled. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anything going to be done about the trolling? The "Don't try and hide it" comment shows that he saw what he was doing and was not accidental. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm being WP:BOLD and closing this discussion - I think the original issues that required admin attention have been addressed with DGG removing access to Huggle and other editors explaining to DD where he needs to review his actions. A cooldown of manual rollbacks is probably the best medicine for all. The other issues being raised by AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC and 68.167.224.215 appear to be matters of civility/behaviour which do not necessairily need admin intervention - I suggest raising the issues as WP:WQA or through a WP:RFC. It doesn't look like there is anything else to be served in extending this discussion, and, in fact, it is going downhill somewhat rapidly. (admins; feel free unequivocally to revert my closure if you disagree) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

just to clarify. I did not intend to remove rollback. If abuse of rollback continues after this, please notify me on my talk page and I will do. I do not intend to shorten the removal of automated tools to 3 months--I chose 6 months after first considering even longer periods. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 23 August 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.

Blacklisted title?

Resolved

 – - Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I received the following email from a user today:

I am trying to change the title of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Mdaust/RICHARD_ERDMAN to RICHARD ERDMAN (artist) and keep getting the message that the title is blacklisted. There is an actor with the same name. Can you help me to do this correctly, please?

Is this a prank? I've not heard of blacklisted titles. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's the capital letters. Moving it to Richard Erdman (artist) will work. Doesn't look very notable (or at least sourced) at the moment, though ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for your help. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are blacklisted titles though such as Pon and Zi a popular web comic that due to not being deemed "notable" enough has been deleted, and because of repeated attempts to re-create it no new pages with that name can be formed. If you try to create a page whose title has been blacklisted you will receive this message. Just so ya know.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: That page is not blacklisted, it is protected to prevent it from being created again. Similar effect, but completely different mechanism. —DoRD (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon user posting links to Indonesian hadith site that loads a novel script that MAY be malware

Someone connected to the site http://lidwa.com is posting links to the site to several articles concerning hadith (Muslim texts). The site in an Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia?) and not appropriate to the English WP. Also it loads what seems to be a handwritten script (http://lidwa.com/app/ Online Hadith Viewer). The script may be benign or it may not. I don't think we should be taking chances with our users' computers. (I hope I'm safe; I use Firefox with NoScript.)

He/she/it has posted to six pages as 222-124-66.70. [96]

and to one page as 125.161.139.128 [97]

I haven't searched all of WP for links to lidwa.com; there may be more postings.

Zora (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Google doesn't show any extant links, but who knows when their webcrawlers will drop by. I'll do some more digging. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Derp. Only works for plaintext urls. My smarter method turned up 8. I'll break out the erasers. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the other 8 links. I'll keep an eye on things and hopefully they don't reappear. I agree with you, that site is not appropriate for en.wiki. Also, that applet took a bloody long time to load. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Add 125.161.154.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the mix: [98] Throwaway85 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• lidwa.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

If there is malware, or likely malware and no use, that is enough reason to blacklist it on meta. Malware sites do go there without question until the server has cleared it out. I've asked COIBot for a fresh linkreport in the meanwhile (but that may take a bit .. bit of a lag on the bot). But I would say,  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like malware, just sloppy code. Unless the aim of this muslim, indonesian site for researching holy books is to infect other indonesian muslims who research holy books. If it proves to be a larger problem, I suggest we block it locally. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see there is a linkreport, and a m:User:COIBot/XWiki/lidwa.com. It is cross-wiki. If someone could clarify use in other projects (mainly id and ms wikis) in the latter report at the bottom, we could consider blacklisting there, or otherwise local. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to cross-reference categories to find overlap? Say, like this and that? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

89.100.58.51

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

A user from this IP has recently been making significant changes to pages - often blanking large sections of text - and often without any rationale. This has resulted in a number of reverts and subsequent re-blanking by the user. They have been asked on their talk page by several people to participate in discussion about these edits but so far seem uninterested in this.

For example: recent changes to Au pair. In this case they seem to think anything without a reference should be deleted (even if tagged with Template:CN) Similar on Coddling.

Part of the issue is that their edits appear to be vandalism (in part because they are an IP, and in part because of the nature of the edit), even though it seems unlikely that is their actual intent; some edits do make sense but it is their conduct in the controversial cases which is basically becoming very annoying and time consuming to other editors.

I'm not sure what to do next but posting here seemed logical.

Thanks

Dhollm (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always discouraging to see anti-IP bias rear it's ugly head. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP's bring that bias upon themselves due to their frequent vandalistic behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying that Irish-Americans bring bias upon themselves due to their frequent drinking. Blanket discriminatory statements are almost always a bad idea. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't neglect to inform the editor of this thread, as you are required to do. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified, though mid-page.

My bad, I inserted in context of a discussion but the bottom might have been more obvious. Dhollm (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit to "Au pair" is absolutely not vandalism. Misguided, perhaps (well, quite a lot misguided, if I'm honest...) but definitely not vandalism. 89.100 does use edit summaries, but needs to use them more. They also need to communicate better: they know where their talkpage is, but "it was constructive" doesn't go very far in justifying an edit described as "unconstructive".

Still looking into this, but I don't regard this IP as a vandal, nor do I regard their editing as disruptive at this stage. A friendly word would probably go a long way here. 69.181, would you be up to the task? TFOWR 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(I really should regiester as 69.181 - it seems to be a popular way to refer to me.) Dialogue seems to be happening now, but I will drop a note on their talk page about using edit summaries, however brief they may be. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"They have been asked on their talk page by several people to participate in discussion about these edits but so far seem uninterested in this. " I was asked only to discuss on Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field. Any other time I can think of, I've have just been warned for vandalism. Re: my au pair edits : [[99]], Au pairs need not be necessarily female, nor foreign, and I did not see the need to give advertising to au pair agencies. 89.100.58.51 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 89.100, thanks for responding. I think your edit to Au pair was a little excessive, in that - although much of what you removed was uncited - the edit removed a great deal of text without much by way of explanation. I'd suggest making more use of edit summaries, and be more descriptive in them. The edit I highlighted also removed an external link, which is fine, but you might want to consider either making multiple small edits or detailing each action in the edit summary. TFOWR 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for responding. It should not be too hard to recognize that the same behaviour on other articles will cause the same irritation to other people. Hopefully this discussion will encourage you to enagage in contructive dialog more often, that would seem to be the best possible outcome for everyone. Dhollm (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The external link was to a listing of au pair agencies, so I considered it an advertisement 89.100.58.51 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, and that's fair enough - my point is that the edit summary didn't mention it. That's why I suggested either breaking down one big edit into several small edits, each with one short edit summary - or use a long edit summary covering everything ("Removed uncited claims; removed external link - advert; copy-edited second paragraph" - that kind of thing). TFOWR 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was about community processes, not the content changes themselves. There has been a lack of participation in a process to resolve disagreements with other editors. When someone reverts a change (particularly multiple times) some kind of discussion needs to happen. (I am not excusing edit warring, but it should be a signal). Dhollm (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FOX News IP Check

Resolved

 – Editor pointed to wikiscanner. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to do an IP check for any commentary by FOX News, DailyKos or any well known liberal or conservative think tanks that have not identified themselves if possible. Manticore55 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering DailyKos is a group blog with dozens of posters, hundreds of diarists, and thousands of commenters (including me on occasion), trying to get IPs would be an exercise in futility. Also, Checkuser is not for random fishing expeditions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. And what about those from NewsCorp? Manticore55 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming by IP check, you're asking for some sort of investigative checkuser. That goes against our checkuser policy. AniMate 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikiscanner: http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich_rnd345/scanner_final/ Fences&Windows 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing admin needed

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Proposal probably ought to be closed soon one way or the other by an uninvolved admin. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Closed NW (Talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus fatorum

Heat > light redux

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. Um, can I get a 24 hour block on Malleus for what he said on the above closed thread?! Look at the edit history, he had an earlier insult against me which he then removed and Giftiger I believe didnt see. And then that comment right that Giftiger asked him to strike. Plus his previous history of insulting me and others?! Come on! If nothing is done to Malleus then AN/I is a joke and I think all the many articles I have created, expanded, and everything else should get dumped for good, especially since I'm so stupid and ignorant, they shouldnt be missed. I had multiple edit conflicts and I'm on a wifi that is having issues so I was not able to get in before it was closed. Please, seriously, Malleus gets to say that type of stuff and this is hidden away?!But I'm sure I'll just get attacked here for making another complaint and this wont be taken seriously and it will continue because everyone knows "make fun of Camelbinky and nothing will happen".Camelbinky (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I understand where you're coming from, but believe me you are wasting your time. Malleus is functionally untouchable. →ROUX ₪ 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) That's odd, because I don't recall Malleus ever making anything quite so offensive as some of the comments you've made. Parrot of Doom 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC) One certainly hopes that comment brought someone some joy and pleasure, otherwise it is merely rude shit-stirring in an attempt to bait me. I shall choose to believe that you merely had a brainfart, and didn't intend to stir up shit that is utterly irrelevant to this thread. →ROUX ₪ 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I think its most certainly relevant to point out to people reading this thread that some of those commenting upon it, mainly you, like to tell people to "go fuck yourself with a chainsaw". Perhaps you could demonstrate to me where Malleus has ever said anything quite so offensive? Or are you just bitter? Parrot of Doom 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I believe I did see the first comment (and I didn't see any evidence that Malleus removed one of his comments), but disagree that it was a personal attack. The second comment was rather more of an attack, in my opinion, but please remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC) So, if I promise to only insult Malleus once and that it wont ever happen again then I can insult him right now and not get blocked since the block would be after the insult and would be punitive? The block not being preventative since I have stated I wont be insulting him again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The fact that you are taking such an attitude suggests that you are missing the point. Camel, all I can suggest at the moment is take an hour off-wiki to calm down, and return to this when you have a clear head. Exploding and getting yourself blocked isn't going to help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The sooner that admins stop parroting the lie that blocks are not punitive, the closer Wikipedia will get to becoming functional on the back end. →ROUX ₪ 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) FWIW, it looks like Malleus' addition to his posting was removed by the infamous edit-conflict glitch [100] but it was not an attack in itself. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I will take that time off in one second after I post the diff here that shows Malleus' first insult and him removing it with the edit summary of "addendum" (which btw addendum ADDS things to a post, not removes them, but what do I know? Apparently not logic or grammar).Camelbinky (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The diff actually shows him adding the comment; it was removed by a glitch as Black Kite suggested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Quite right, I didnt catch that. Of course that's because I'm an idiot as Malleus has stated many times. This isnt the first time. At what point does Malleus' actions sanction teaching him a lesson? I know the sarcasm of the editor who did the closing was wrong, but there was a good point. It's not like Malleus' contributions are of such a high quality that he deserves multiple passes to the point of driving me away. And yes, I would GLADLY put my best ARTICLE contributions against his best article contributions any day.Camelbinky (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You can match him FA for FA? Funny, I thought only about 15 of us or so got to use the executive garderobe.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 23 August 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.

Perry High School (Gilbert, Arizona)

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for 1 month GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We may have an IP hopper here. This anonymous user claims to keep on exposing a security code to the high school.

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

It appears the 173.0.*.* range of IP addresses might be used for this. Given Fastily's response, AIV doesn't seem to be enough. mechamind90 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• EDIT: Most recent additions by 173.0.10.50 have since been deleted, but the user is not necessarily stopped. mechamind90 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected the article for a month. Incidentally, I know little about network administration, but would giving away the SSID (only) of a network actually be a security issue? I know the SSID can be hidden, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • They're usually publicly broadcast, so it's not exactly a security issue. If the SSID is hidden though, it's privileged information regardless, and shouldn't be released on wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, just wanted to judge how much of an issue it was. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Footballer BLP enabled pending changes

• Ola Toivonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been more edits to this article in the past 24 hours than in the whole of 2008. I've turned pending changes on, but the actual facts of the article need sorting out. At the moment it's a self-contradictory mess thanks to the silly back and forth by people who think writing things in Wikipedia will make them come true. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest semi-protect, just so the little bastards stop. I think I've finally fixed it. HalfShadow 21:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That smells like 4chan... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • No. It's the Daily Mail. Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it definately isn't 4chan; all the IPs seem to be UK based, and the chantards have their own 'style', if you could call it that. HalfShadow 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't geolocate the IP addresses, but I'd only ever seen such enormous anon-only attacks from 4chan. I guess they're not the only source of vandal armies. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's 4chan, they really don't care about soccer. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We see it on the hockey side from time to time off forums - particularly from Detroit. Resolute 03:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll keep an eye out when I can for the next day or so. If the back and forth is goes up again, I might swap pending changes to semi-protection. Thank you for helping to sort out which Wrong Version is the right one. ☺ I haven't envied you that task. Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional

Xnacional (talk · contribs) has received several blocks for edit-warring. His one-month block ended 29 July, but for most the intervening time he's edited under 205.211.213.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Under this IP and his registered account, he has resumed or initiated edit wars at WWIV and Template:Star Wars. This is exactly the kind of edit that led to several blocks. The user has not heeded multiple requests from multiple editors to use the talk page to discuss edits, and seems content to edit war, be blocked, rinse, repeat. The IP has apparently been blocked on other languages' Wikipedias. *shrug* Thought I'd give a heads up. Although the editor does apparently update some facts and figures about the War on Terror (although uncited, so I dunno...), to me he seems more trouble than he's worth. [FYI, previous ANI thread.] --EEMIV (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Next block should be indefinite, in my opinion; based on his block log. His talk page is all warnings and blocks. Tommy! [message] 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional keeps edit warring.Sjö (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pricer1980 evading block

Resolved

^{I blocked indef Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)}

A few days ago, an editor named Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) added false company information to film articles. I started a WP:ANI discussion as seen here, and it resulted in him being blocked for one week. (He had been blocked once before and has never communicated with anyone except to blank his talk page.) The IP 86.174.166.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is editing in the exact same manner and is evidently Pricer1980 evading the block. Since the WP:ANI discussion supported undoing all of his contributions, I've done that so far, but the edits continue, and I think a preventative block of the IP is necessary. Could someone please take action? (I contacted JohnCD, who had blocked the user account, but he has not responded yet, so I wanted to notify a larger group.) Erik (talk | contribs) 10:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week as an obvious block evasion. Question is whether to extend Pricer1980's block as well. Favonian (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[EDIT: I forgot to say: Thanks!] Considering the lack of communication that has taken place, the harmful and easily-overlooked contributions to Wikipedia, and the continuance of disruptive editing on his IP, I would favor an extension of Pricer1980's block. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me making it into two weeks? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't objec to you making it indef, to be honest. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm always careful on WP, as my home wiki (WN) tends to issue stronger blocks than here. I'm happy to indef; I'll sure not miss them. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will watch for the editor's pattern in the future. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens

Resolved

 – I AFD'd the article, no admin action needed --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this in other venues, there is no obvious formal reason to AfD it, so I decided to put it here. The article is an unreferenced mess, which has been subject to sockpuppetry and edit-warring for the inclusion of unreferenced and utterly fictitious information for months [101]. Maybe I am out of touch with reality, but the list looks completely bogus to me. 30 days of visa-free travel to Canada, the US, Austria, Belgium and visa on arrival elsewhere? Kinda hard to believe, given that the Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Israelis have much less opions. Please take care of it to make it verifiable. I can't monitor it on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD, borderline {{db-hoax}}. The information is very clearly wrong and not supported by any sources. -- tariqabjotu 12:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD it as unsourced and possible hoax. There isn' really any admin action that can be done/needed. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncram at List of Masonic buildings

User:Doncram is becoming increasingly disruptive at List of Masonic buildings. Since he started editing the page he has demonstrated increasing lack of good faith... especially towards me. He consistently demonstrates WP:OWNership of the article, and has a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. Multiple editors are telling him the same thing... The article continues to have serious OR and sourcing problems... but his response is to stonewall, ignore, change the subject, and blame the messenger. His repeated removal of issue tags (specifically a {{refimprove}} and {{Original research}} tag, without any effort to address the issues is the last straw for me... rather than continue to edit war (both of us have been guilty of that), I am seeking assistance. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is approximately #84 in a series of discussion sections opened by Blueboar, regarding the List of Masonic buildings article and related others, including at their Talk pages, at ANI, at various Wikiprojects, etc. I have participated reluctantly in many of the discussions, responding to the consistent demonstration of WP:OWNership and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT in one or two other editors' comments. At the talk page and in the article, the current effort by Blueboar seems to be to question by tags whether there are any buildings in the world that have Masonic association, and whether any of them are listed in that list-article. I have explained why I was removing the tags in the Talk page discussion. I'll watch here too, but can't participate a lot today. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page and made some article improvements. I think the article does need work - but seems mostly a content dispute that is better solved with a WP:RFC or on one of the content dispute noticeboards (maybe WP:RS/N) before coming to AN/I :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This has now gone on for some significant time, and I would support the suggestion that Doncram is refusing to engage with any discussion about inclusion criteria.

I've now explicitly asked him three times in the last few days what obvious actually means in evidence terms. This is a behaviour issue, Doncram has been called on his personal comments a number of times, but there is no evidence of Good Faith given that he's ignoring any objections to his inclusions.

ALR (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've shown plenty of Good Faith in efforts to engage with blueboar and other editors, inlcuiding trying to help them channel their interest into actually reading and using sources to add to wikipedia articles in mainspace. I can't keep responding indefinitely to the same complaints forever, however. Eventually i do question the other editors' interests in tagging and otherwise disrupting some sensible development going on. About the inclusion criteria, i pointed out early on that the general discussion was pretty useless until some more material was actually developed and the significance of various buildings became clear (as has been proceeding slowly by efforts of a couple editors including me). I believe that progress in their understanding has been made. For example I believe they are relenting in their wish to make the article a directory of current Masonic meetingplaces, knock on wood. And a big discussion about a useful reference has wound down. These topics are properly covered at the Talk page of the article. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you given any though to why the same complaints keep getting raised over and over again? There are more ways to develop an article than just "adding" material. Defining the subject, removing material that is questionable, and requesting sources is article development. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is some form of clear statement of inclusion criteria. You keep saying that its obvious but you will not articulate what obvious means in real terms. Once we have some form of inclusion criteria then evidencing inclusion can be pretty straightforward.

What I do have an issue with is expecting that we can treat each entry as an independent entity and do enough Original Research to eventually conclude that entry can remain. That way we quite quickly end up with a list of items which have different inclusion criteria, so the value of the list itself is questionable.

If inclusion really is obvious then it should be pretty straightforward to articulate that. I've asked for that articulation a number of times now, and each time the question is just ignored and you continue trying to force entries in without any real clarity around why.

All I'm asking for is some clarity around why something should be included, what evidence do we expect to see.

ALR (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am asking for is that you stop complaining about the number of times I and other editors have raised issues at the article, and start addressing the issues we have been raising. That you stop attacking the messenger when you don't like the message. That you stop assuming that every edit I make and every issue I raise on the talk page is focused on "killing" the article. That you stop removing tags that notify both readers and editors that there are problems with the page until you have shown a good faith effort to address the issue that cause the tag to be added there in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may, what specific administrator action is required here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The complaint is around the intentional and persistent removal of quality tags on the article, identifying the risk of Original Research and the lack of credible sourcing for the list rationale and the content. The further discussion is clearly demonstrates the need for those tags and some meaningful discussion around how to resolve the issues.

Whatever sanction appears reasonable given that behaviour would appear appropriate.

ALR (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the persistent removal of tags was simply the latest incident in a pattern of behavior. Whatever sanctions appear reasonable is fine with me. But I think a short block (say 24 hours) is called for to drive the point home. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Who is this Doncram editor. From what i can see, this editor responded many times to unreasonable demands, patiently adding sources, developing articles, providing responses to endless complaints.

The cruel and unusual punishment most readily available is to torture him/her with endless discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings. How about opening a new discussion section about inclusion criteria, to add to the previous few dozen. And how about claiming anew that there are no relevant sources, that no architectural history book and no Masonic books have ever talked about buildings, and that no building-specific sources exist (ignoring the content of all such sources). How about breathlessly asking, anew, the same stuff, ignoring now-vast archives of responses to the same.

On the general principle that no good deed should go unpunished, it would seem best to punish this Doncram by more of the same endless complaining. Please proceed! --doncram (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

*dumps a load of WP:TROUT in Doncram's car a la Mystic Pizza*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did laugh at that. :) --doncram (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this "endless discussion" would be progressing more if you accepted that the list should have inclusion criteria and suggested some, instead of complaining that other editors are harassing you about it. Maybe those editors have been total jerks, I don't know, but from skimming the last few days of discussion at the article talk page, it looks like they keep asking you to define criteria more explicit than "the items that doncram thinks are significant," which seems a reasonable request, and you keep flatly refusing to do so ("You don't own this article, and you don't get to judge that 'Masonic building' must be defined in some formal way" -- no, we have a guideline that says it must be defined). I don't know why you see that as so burdensome -- you must have a thought process about what items you think belong on the page, so just make it explicit. Maybe if it's listed as a Masonic building on the NRHP, it should be included. Maybe if a reliable source states that it is an NRHP, it should be included. You can have multi-pronged criteria. Propaniac (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Propaniac seems to want more responsiveness by me there, and because ALR is showing frustration, I replied just now with this reply about what i previously said was obvious at the Talk:List of Masonic buildings discussion. Propaniac, you are welcome to join the discussion there and try to sort out inclusion criteria now. After about 40 discussion sections on that article alone, and many related ones, I no longer believe that any good interpretation of fact or wikipedia policy, or any proposal for anything, even if agreed upon by consensus of all, will stick for any amount of time. Anything settled will be reopened. I don't have infinite patience for this. There are one or a few editors excessively close to the topic of Freemasonry there.

Anyhow, about this ANI report, I see no merit in any complaint here, and no specific request worth considering. There's no need for further discussion here, IMHO, and this should be closed. --doncram (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I disagree. Your behavior is in question here. If you do not have the patience to propose inclusion criteria, you should probably step away from the article entirely. Also, unless you have specific evidence of a conflict of interest, I strongly suggest you refrain from claims that editors are "excessively close to the topic of Freemasonry." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editting at Defamation of religions and the United Nations

Could I get some eyes at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy_tag_dispute? There is a dispute over the factual accuracy tag on the lede section. User:Pyrrhon8 is justifying the tag with issues that have already been addressed, and his comments look like ownership if you ask me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As on the article section, looks like a content dispute. Dispute resolution is probably indicated, if a third opinion didn't work, there's always RFC or mediation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, god forbid, someone could read a few paragraphs and take a stand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

well, I would, but I've run into Pyrrhon before (with unpleasant results) and my entry onto the scene would not improve the situation. Pyrrhon has his own peculiar take on UN Human Rights issues, and he has a truly tendentious manner of approaching it, but he only has 600 edits or so, so... It would be nice if sysop with a calm, reasonable manner would stop in and have a discussion with him about collaborative editing. as it stands, though, the article doesn't look too bad, and the continued presence of the tags is not too painful. ask Pyrrhon if he's willing to abide by a wp:3O on the matter. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We already had a third opinion, by his request, and the third opinion sided with my version. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

and what happens when you remove the tag, with a 'per 3O' summary? --Ludwigs2 04:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon is still calling his version the "consensus" version, referring to the article's recent AFD result of "keep" I guess. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would do that, but I've also had less than favorable interactions with Pyrrhon, actually with Ludwigs2, so I'll recuse from doing anything. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He says he will not remove the tags until the "consensus lede" (his version) is restored, and makes no mention of factual inaccuracies in the current lede.[102] Also, amusingly, he filed a complaint against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Can someone please act? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrod2 being uncivil and posting messages on my talk page after he's been asked not to

I contested a PROD placed by User:Jrod2 who then (against policy) restored the contested prod [103]. Jrod2 then placed this uncivil post on my talk page - basically telling me to not contest his PROD. The top of my talk page states that I will reply to messages left on my talk page on the sender's page. At Jrod2 talk page I left this post thus starting a thread for Jrod2's further replies (if necessary) But instead he deletes my post on his page [104] and posts this uncivil post on my talk page. I reply here telling Jrod2 directly that he is not to post messages on my talk page. Ignoring my request to not post on my talk page, Jrod2 taunts me by posting this rude message on my talk page. I request that Jrod2 be sanctioned for his uncivil behaviour. Inniverse (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with the message he just posted on your talk page, Azviz. –MuZemike 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Editor talk pages exist to allow other editors to post notices, etc. Forbidding users from posting there, absent a clear history of harassment, is inappropriate. You can always delete messages after you've read them.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You can still ask people not to, which is a good way of avoiding drama. But then, running to ANI to get "sanctions" straight away runs somewhat counter to that strategy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• The only thing that I can see wrong on JRod2's part is in thinking that Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people applies to an article created in March 2007. Inniverse, on the other hand, is seeing incivility where it doesn't exist; and this report is ill-founded and possibly a continuation of a long-standing pattern. MuZemike's note back in June on Inniverse's past behaviour with respect to Proposed Deletion is informative. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've noticed this with articles that I've PRODded recently. Inniverse removed the PRODs with spurious rationales ("has a large fanbase"), then !voted Keep on the resulting AfDs (here, here, here, here and here) with an equally spurious rationale (as Uncle G - clearly a notorious deletionist, I don't think - has pointed out to them), and then tagged them for {{rescue}} for no apparent reason. He does dePROD correctly sometimes, but some are very shaky. And the talkpage issue isn't appropriate. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The only "-ist" I espouse being is encyclopaedist. ☺ I'm less happy about Jrod2's interactions with Off2riorob. The advice some days before to not template the regulars didn't sink in. Perhaps that practical experience of the reaction of some regulars, who don't just chuckle to themselves at the naïveté when someone does that sort of thing, will help it to do so. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see anything uncivil in what Jrod2 has said, and I do not think Inniverse has the right to forbid people to post on his talk page. That's what they're there for after all. Reyk _YO! 10:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree I see no incivility. In any case, WP:OWNTALK permits messages to be removed at will and even rolled back; if you don't wish to receive the messages, revert them. Short of actual harrassment, it's inappropriate to administer a ban on posting to the talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Usurped account - history incomplete and talk page

Resolved

Hello,

I requested at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations last week to usurp the account User:Amakuru, having been known as User:Muraho. This was carried out successfully. However, there appear to be two issues:

1. My talk page has not been moved, so is still at User talk:Muraho, while the User talk:Amakuru page is now a redirect to User talk:Amakuru (usurped), which is the talk page for the now usurped user (who has never made any edits).
2. My edit history has only been merged into the new account up until May 2006. All edits made as User:Muraho and another username I was previously known as, between then and now, have not been merged. I understand that it may take some time for the servers to catch up with the move, but it's been five days now. Is this expected?

Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved your talk page. I think the merger of the edits may take quite some time, though other people are probably more familiar with the technicalities of user renaming. Ucucha 08:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Ucucha, and for the renaming of old links. I will wait and see what happens with the edit history. — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BN#CHU processing delays? may be of interest. TNXMan 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks for the heads up. I will follow the "2 days is no cause for concern. 2 weeks, start to wonder. A month, ping a developer" rule then. — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:23819 will help with this. –xeno^talk 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse

Resolved

 – IP blocked by User:SarekOfVulcan HalfShadow 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

I submitted a complaint last week about abuse by Centpacrr and Jamie. I don't see it here anymore. I don't have my own computer and was using one at the place where I volunteer. I left a note saying I had to leave for the day, and couldn't continue the discussion, but I guess no one paid any attention to that. Can someone please tell me what the results of the complaint were? Thank you. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I certainly can. It's right here. I don't think you'll like it, though... TFOWR's left sock 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Oh my! It took a long time to read through all that. All the abusive comments by Centpacrr. And he got his pals to chime in too, Jusdafax said he was asked by Centpacrr to comment. I bet the others were too. I'm stunned at what horrible things people say about each other on Wikipedia. There is a lot I don't understand. Like why Eurytemora says we're the same person as someone from Stratford. New Britain is nowhere near Stratford. I also don't understand why someone would not believe me just because I don't have access to a computer and can only contribute when I'm here at the outreach center. Centpacrr said that "that he/she also only has access to the internet at the "church outreach center" and nowhere else, a truly preposterous contention" No, Centpacrr, YOU are preposterous. To think that everyone in the world has the same amount of money as you. Don't you read the newspapers? Don't you realize we're in a recession? Last week when I went for a walk in the park, I came across a tent set up by a homeless person. Yesterday I saw that the tent was burned to the ground. Everything that the homeless person owned had been burned. I saw what was left of a sweatshirt and a towel, but everything else was ashes. Centpacrr, you are no better than those thoughtless, heartless kids who burned that man's house down. You have no idea about how most people live and probably don't care either. Not everyone can afford the latest electronic gadgets. I do not have a computer. I use the one in the outreach center when I'm here. And your claim that "he/she has a record of making thousands of edits at all hours of the day and night and on every day of the week over at least three years" is a lie, just like all the lies you wrote on our page. The only contributions I have made to Wikipedia were removing the abuse you posted on our page and filing this complaint. I don't have a lot of time on my hands to waste writing on Wikipedia. I just don't understand why you would make up such outrageous lies or what you have against us. I'm angry, but I also feel sorry for you. You must have some serious problems to go around lying like that all the time. You seem to know a lot about lying - you wrote a lot about how to do it in your comments. Maybe if you got out more and made some positive contributions to society, you wouldn't be festering away in your fantasy world. Helping others would also make you feel better than bullying poor people. I truly feel sorry for you. I will add you to the prayer list at my church. I feel sorry for all the other people who believed Centpacrr's lies too. I really don't understand why you would believe all his exaggerated, dramatic claims. But I'm praying for you too. It's sad that nothing can be done to stop all this abuse.64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC) WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, given that it's been effectively proven this is an IP sock, perhaps we could just nail him to a tree or something and be done with this little parade of stupid? HalfShadow 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The above postings of the community banned User:Techwriter2B (as anonymous IP sock 64.252.140.128) seem to provide a perfect demonstration of the telltale signs and issues inherent when a fabulist engages him/herself in the creation (and ongoing promulgation) of multiple, complicated fabrications of events, identities, and other unsupported, unverifiable "facts." For instance does this user really think that anyone believes his/her demonstrably false claims that: "I do not have a computer." or "I also don't understand why someone would not believe me just because I don't have access to a computer and can only contribute when I'm here at the outreach center." or "The only contributions I have made to Wikipedia were removing the abuse you posted on our page and filing this complaint." or especially "I don't have a lot of time on my hands to waste writing on Wikipedia." all of which he/she made in just one posting above? Really? (The detailed, verifiable evidence presented here demonstrates that each and every of of these "claims" is absolutely false.) As Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott cogently observed two centuries ago in Canto vi., Stanza 17, of Marmion, his epic 1808 poem about the 1513 Battle of Flodden Field: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" Yet again it's another case of Res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Will someone now delete Ross Moody?

Resolved

There has been a PROD on Ross Moody since March 2010, with no objection by anybody. Please, can it be removed now? The subject is not Notable enough to be in WP. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a {{prod}} template on the article. Nakon 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears you've mistaken a maintenance tag for a prod. See WP:PROD. –xeno^talk 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just added a prod tag, since there wasn't much in the way of notability asserted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A speedy tag was added, but I declined it because the article asserts importance by playing up his journalism. I still think it fails notability and left the proposed deletion tag alone. Unfortunately the article was created 11 days too early to be considered for WP:BLPPROD. -- Atama頭 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Official Languages Act vandalism

The Official Languages Act has been a target of vandalism on August 11 3 times by User:198.103.109.141. It has been blocked once before in 2009 for 24 hours. What's particular about this is the location of the IP and the vandalism in question. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Official_Languages_Act_(Canada)&oldid=378446635 is such a example. It compares us Québecers to nazis by adding this at the start of the article: Quebec Nazi Act. The IP (followed by a simple IP whois) points the IP to Correctional Service of Canada's office in Ottawa. CBC and Radio-Canada have reported that vandalism. Canadian MP Denis Coderre said he was angered when this was revealed. What do you think we should do? I have sent a email to the foundation... --Zalgo (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The Correctional service has begun an investigation according to the CBC. I suspect whoever made the vandalism will be reprimanded by their employer. From an administrative perspective, there is not much we can or should do at this point. But, I will watchlist the article in case there is further nonsense as a result of this news story. Resolute 19:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I am rather amused that Coderre is calling for an inquiry into how the page was altered. That will be the shortest inquiry in history. "Official findings: They clicked 'edit'." Resolute 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing nobody at a school in Quebec has ever vandalized wikipedia. We might have to get the PM involved. :p Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I often thought that someone setting up an open proxy through Quebec would cause chaos... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that it's Official Languages Act (Canada) instead. The vandalism continued a bit; I've put it on pending changes for now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the posters of comments to the newspaper article reporting this article, calling himself BostonWalker posted "Mr. Coderre, I just edited your Wikipedia page." (Denis Coderre is the MP who noticed it & entered the complaint.) And so he did; I have reverted the vandalism [105] and indef blocked the Wikipedia editor, who has made no other contributions. (and semiprotected his page for a few days) DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BACKLOG is backlogged

I only wish I was being funny. We have images in Category:User-created public domain images that have been in backlog since 2002. Articles in Category:Articles needing additional references are dating back to 2006. Same with about 4 other categories. So, could a group of people (admins too) take a look WP:BACKLOG and see if we could knock some of this mess out, please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is pretty funny. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn. That page is depressing. I'll see what I can do, but... Damn. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. 26,421 unsourced BLPs. If an admin is feeling particularly bold and wants to delete the lot of them, I'll write a bot for it. Half-joking. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms again? Personally, I'd like to see something akin to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people instituted for ALL new articles. That, and some diligence to the backlog, should have things cleared up in, oh, five years or so. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That works great for new BLPs, does nothing about the 26k existing. I'm actually more in favour of someone deleting all of them during quiet hours and seeing if anyone notices/cares enough to go through and restore them. Permanent solution. But no, I really don't want to open that can of worms, particularly here. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was that kind of tactic that eventually led to the PRODBLP policy in the first place. Mass deletions, or at least mass tagging, started the whole ruckus. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my method. Take em out in one fell swoop. Rather than bickering, anyone who restored them would have to admit that they are worth having, and I don't see many admins making that admission. It'd also probably get admin desysoping pushed through as well. Hell of a way to go out. Anyway, on to the actual topic of this thread, what are some of the categories where my help would be most meaningful and appreciated, without sapping my will to live? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And they'd have to provide sources since the burden would then be upon them. Brilliant, if a bit Machiavellian. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't see the mess last time someone tried that. Mass-delete went to mass-reinstatement, which led to wailing and gnashing of teeth. Wouldn't be any better a second time around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have an alarming 311,000 articles with no sources, out of our 6,440,128 articles. One tenth of our articles have no sources. After I read Neutral Homer's post last night I added coordinates to eight articles; that took 30 minutes (there are 180,000 articles tagged as having no coordinates, so at this rate I will be done, uh, never). I am always puzzled when people argue for retaining poor articles when we don't have time to look after the stuff we've already got. Here is something positive people can do: The WP:GOCE has been hard at work on our backlog of copy edit requests and we have reduced it from over 8000 articles at Chrismastime to 6300 today. Another backlog elimination drive starts September 1. Feel free to sign up. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know we had backlog elim. drives, my goof. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The public domain images aren't actually from 2002. That was caused by a SmackBot date tagging error. I've been trying to help deal with that backlog by tagging them with the correct date. It doesn't really help clear the backlog, but I like to think that it's at least somewhat helpful in identifying which images really are the oldest and should be dealt with first. Reach Out to the Truth 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a setup for prods on any unsourced article a while back, but it never did get off the ground. Really too bad, it could certainly cut down the number of unsourced articles we've got. BLPPROD is a step in the right direction, but we really ought to require sources for every article, first edit onward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was over three years ago. Time to try again? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first two BLPs I picked were easy to reference. Also some articles have had refs added, but the refimprove tag hasn't been removed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar-Baby-Love

Resolved

 – This is primarily a content dispute that is being discussed on various forums. Suggest sorting content out first and/or using the various dispute resolution techniques available.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to report user Sugar-Baby-Love for continued violation of WP:OR and edit-warring and wikihounding. I also suspect he has a sockpuppet (user:Cybermud) but I will take these specific concerns to another notice board.

Sugar-Baby-Love has been adding original research to articles and disguising it as viewpoints advanced by reliable sources. He then starts edit warring with anyone who points out to him that material needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Here are a few examples.

• [106] This entire section is original research because nothing in the source [107] lends support to anything said in the section as I have pointed out here [108].
• [109] Here his original research is the claim In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism and as a source he provides this book [110] which doesn't even remotely support his original research and doesn't even mention the term masculism or masculinism.
• [111] Here his original research is the claim that the first definition [of masculism] is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law.. His two sources ["Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." - Oxford English Dictionary][112] don't support any of his claims as I have pointed out to him here [113] and here [114].
• [115] Here he yet again provides a source but the source does in no way support his claim that The term masculism itself gained currency in the late 20th century, particuly in the 1990s as advocated by authors such as Warren Farrell Jack Kammer, in the context of changing gender roles in society.
• [116] Here he adds a bunch of original research not supported by the source [117]. He writes misogynistic false interpretations when the source says misogynistic interpretations, he adds sentences like Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations and in the end of a deadlocked personal dispute which are never even implied in the source. He misrepresents a source that is about the religious sanction of violence in Islam and its implication for domestic violence and writes a paragraph about misogynistic false interpretation adding original research not supported by the source.
• [118] Here he adds things like self-described biblical egalitarians and and Christian theology emphasised equality between the sexes which are unsupported by the source.
• [119][120] Here he he just adds extremely controversial claims without even sourcing them.

User Sugar-Baby-Love has been engaged in extreme edit-warring and removal of reliable sources. At this point it's impossible to add anything without Sugar-Baby-Love reverting it. Here a few some examples:

• [121] Here he reverted an edit although I explained that the source doesn't support his claims
• [122] Here he reverted an entire edit and reinstated his original research
• [123] After I have rewritten his edits and removed original research, he simply reverted the edit and called it "revert POV pushing" ironically
• [124] Here he simply deletes a viewpoint advanced by sociologist Allan Johnson during an interview on GenderTalk Radio
• [125] Here he reverted an edit and called it revert POV pushing (again, ironically) even after I explained my actions here [126]

This user has been following me around and joined discussions to attack me or discredit me. Just a few examples:

• Article about misandry: [127] Here he accuses me of ‘’making huge changes of material based on nothing but [my] own personal bigotries’’ because I added this reliable this view [128] attributed to this source [129]
• Article about masculism: [130] Here he accuses me of censoring information because I pointed out that he needs reliable sources for his original research
• Article about Warren Farrell: [131] Here he states that he agrees with a source and therefore I have no right to include it in the article.
• Article about Christina Hoff Sommers: [132] He states that the interview with Allan Johnson on GenderTalk Radio is not a reliable source and therefore the material has to go. “Zippo.”

The most important problem with Sugar-Baby-Love is that this user doesn’t react to explanation on talk pages as to why he can’t just add original research and then add a random source and hope that nobody will check them and see that it doesn’t support his claims. And then he simply reverts edits that he doesn’t like and follows me around to attack disrupt my work. He has been using Wikipedia to circulate his original research, edit-warring and wikihounding me and perhaps other editors and I believe that he should be banned from Wikipedia. Randygeorge (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Sugar-Baby-Love also appears on-going. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What we have above is an example of an editor who has made huge, dramatic changes in context while being reverted by multiple other editors. Then, her or she falsely accuses the other editors of doing exactly what him or her is doing.

When you click on every single link above, you see context that shows that George is being deliberately misleading. For example, he or she has highlighted these two edits without noting the fact that I did provide citations for that information later-- which you can see at Masculism right now.

In any rate, what we have here attempting to circumvent genuine content disputes already in discussion-- see here and here-- by banning involved users. This is a clear mistake.

I humbly ask George to retract his request for a user ban. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also at the content noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard and is some kind of content dispute spread across multiple articles and related to a similar topic field . IMO both editors need to back off a bit and take their time and use discussion of the talkpages more and try to find additions acceptable to both of them and get some outside opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with content noticeboard and BLP noticeboard. Those are content disputes. This is strictly about an editor who has been circulating original research and disguising it as content advanced by reliable sources. An editor who keeps edit-warring and wikihounding people. Please check the incidents I described and tell me if Sugar-Baby-Love hasn't been using original research and edit-warring with people who told him that this he needs reliable sources. I tried to use talk pages but said user doesn't react when I tell him that what he adds is original research. Read this [133] and this [134] and notice that the user hasn't addressed these issues. I haven't even begun to address what I believe is sockpuppetry. But I think his habit to add entire sections of original research and refuse to work with people who point out that it is original research and then engage in edit-warring and wikihounding should be banned. Randygeorge (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can clearly see from that one link (that he or she linked twice for some reason) that George disagrees with what is stated by two reliable sources. When you look at that article's history, you find George promoting a particular view that he or she feels is correct coupled with the removal of a view that is opposed to him or her.

George has a habit of making drastic, fundamental changes in article information without editorial consensus, edit warring when he or she does not get his or her way (with many different users reverting him or her besides me), and then making wild attacks on those who criticize his or her actions.

If George is not willing to drop this patently frivolous complaint, then I hope that an administrator can do it for him or her. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency Randygeorge, could you please detail your wiki-editing experience prior to starting this account? Your edits do not appear to be those of someone who's only been here for three weeks, and your use of templates in your first few edits is a little more advanced than what we tend to see from new users. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I take serious issue with being called a sockpuppet and am, quite frankly tired of dealing with George as I've documented in the other discussions on him/her being an obnoxious drama queen (never used that term before but if it walks and quacks like a duck...) and refusing to play by the rules or respect other editors opinions. I should have been notified of this discussion (since I'm an alleged "sockpuppet") and was not -- yet another of the many problems with George's behavior. It is pretty clear that George is here to promote Wikipedia:The Truth and sees a conspiracy theory behind every attempt to censor it--Cybermud (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple points. If you think someone's a sockpuppet, and have enough anecdotal evidence to back it up, report it at WP:SPI and request a sock check. If you think someone has been naughty in their editing behavior, open a WP:RFC at the user conduct section. I've now seen variations on this theme reported at about four noticeboards with no discernible impact on the level of vitriol between these two or three participants, so perhaps you should consider another route to working out your differences. MedicationMediation or an article RFC, or as I mentioned a user conduct RFC for the individual participants. — e. ripley\^talk 12:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A few more points. Only one of the "two or three" editors is making these noticeboard requests. I don't think anyone's a sockpuppet and am defending myself against that accusation for agreeing with SBL. And suggesting editors defending themselves seek "medication" is a pretty despicable thing to do unless you're genuinely trying to be helpful and suggesting what has worked for you (something that is not at all clear in your comment.)--Cybermud (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was simply a typo, I meant mediation, as I have made clear in one of the other venues where this dispute has been discussed. I apologize for any confusion, but really, WP:AGF. — e. ripley\^talk 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all of the details here, but I just want to add that on one of S-B-L's most edits at Misogyny (bullet point #5, above), Randygeorge appears to be 100% correct--S-B-L's edit does actually add false statements, exaggerates others, and places statements together to imply things the original does not state. I have no idea about everything else, but others may not want to dismiss his claims out of hand. After reading the citation, I'm sure enough that S-B-L was flat out wrong that I reverted. It's certainly possible that both editors here are pushing POVs, but it doesn't appear to be quite as one-sided as some above have stated. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I will deal with the sockpuppet issue on another noticeboard.

This is not about working out my differences. It's about an editor who uses Wikipedia as his soapbox and a platform for his original research. It's about an editor who habitually disguises original research as facts by reliable sources. An editor who engages in endless edit-warring even after you explain to him that he can't add original research to articles. The wikihounding has gotten worse and now he has stalked me to another talk page [135]. It's about an editor who tries to rally support by posting this on various talk pages [136][137][138][139]. I think that these are very serious issues and shouldn't be dismissed as one editor harping on another editor for petty reasons. Randygeorge (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These are not very serious issues, this is a open free to edit website, not a life or death situation, you disagree with his position and he disagrees with your position, please find a meeting place somewhere in between using talkpage discussion, thanks. Users that only edit a single topic field and want that topic field to reflect their strongly held position are a lot of trouble for little editorial benefit, why not branch out and contribute to other areas of the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

Again, this is not a petty content dispute or a disagreement of positions. Please look at the diffs I provided and tell me if the sources in some way support the user's extremely controversial claims. You will see that this user continues to add his original research to articles. This research is not supported in any way by the sources he provides. So I disagree with original research disguised as reliable sources rather than his position. Wikipedia is not a soapbox but the user uses it as a soapbox. In addition to that, he stalks me to most articles I've edited (with the exception of one article) and reverts my edits. When I explain to him in detail that his theories aren't backed up by the sources ([140][141][142][143][144]) he ignores this as long as his theories stay in the article. This is not a content dispute. Content that is sourced and verifiable is always welcome. But the user just adds original research and Wikipedia doesn't like or allow original research. I ask you to please read the diffs. Edit-warring, wikihounding, and misusing Wikipedia as a place to publish one's theories are serious issues in my opinion. Randygeorge (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Same old same old, do you see anyone queuing up to sort this rubbish out, no. If think this is a serious issue perhaps you need to reassess your position here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means I would be more than likely to leave Wikipedia forever if George would agree to leave with me. I'm very, very tired to having to clean up his or her messes. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps this seems resolved, but this does not actually appear to be a content issue. If either SBL or RG are doing what the other one says, then either of them is clearly violating the requirement to edit in an NPOV way. Again, in the one I checked so far on S-B-L, he flat out misrepresented a source. I don't know if this was a competence issue (in the sense of being able to capture the essence of a source in an NPOV way) or if it was a deliberate attempt to spin the source to say what he wanted, but it was very much a violation of WP:NPOV, and in a deceptive way. If this is a pattern, it's a very difficult one to root out, because his paragraph on the face of it looks accurate, but, in fact, is not at all what the source said. Again, RG could easily be just as bad for all I know. But, again, if either of them are doing this regularly it's not a content issue.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is not at all a fair representation of the editorial disagreement. I included a citation in which I referred to some things in the citation and not others. This is typical discretion undertaken by every editors. Qwyrxian and George have an editorial disafreement in which they want to and have referred to other things mentioned in the source. I very strongly encourage all interested users to go to Talk:Misogyny and see what is actually being disputed. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Misogyny I note how I absolutely have not "misrepresented a source". Further discussion should take place there. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Eddie Schluessel

Resolved

Since yesterday (August 23), User:Eddie Schluessel has been inexplicably reverting any edits I make to articles despite being warned not to. It started with their very first edit after creating their account on an article about a 1924 film where they did what appears to be a blind revert which I reverted back because, in addition to removing some material (which is wholly unneeded), I also made stylistic changes (flag icons removal & proper date formatting) and added more specific categories. The edit also restored a bit of long-standing silly vandalism as I'm certain Leo Sayer wasn't in a silent film (well, maybe he was but not this one). After that edit, Eddie Schluessel seemingly went though my history reverting any edit I made to articles. A few were reverted by another IP user ([145] and [146]) and I restored the rest. I left a rather curt message on their talk page regarding their edits as did User:Jeff G. Today I come on to find yet another one of my edits from yesterday inexplicably reverted. It seems this accounts sole purpose is to follow my edits around and revert them. Can someone have a word with them? 70.241.16.221 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had the requested word. I gave him one chance to get his act together, if he fails he's blocked. The way he rather appeared from nowhere suggests an SPA sockpuppet to me; can you think of any likely candidates for a sockmaster? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• User indefblocked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. 70.241.16.221 (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MZMcBride re-opening his closed RfA

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe just closed MZMcBride's most recent RfA as NOTNOW because it's obviously not happening. But now MZMcBride is going through, un-closing it and adding it back to the list of current RfAs. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 05:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an unwise action for MZM to take, but would perhaps be best dealt with via BN. →ROUX ₪ 05:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is nothing that admins would probably walk into. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe is a crat so it belongs elsewhere. This will handle itself, no need for drama. Shadowjams (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Early closure of RfAs for a more appropriate venue. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter0123 off the tracks

Just to save uninvolved editors time, the posting of this matter on the dailykos website which may have influenced the RFC can be found here [147] BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

During an epic RFC (Addendum: that was reported on by DailyKOS), editor Wikiposter0123 (talk · contribs) has declared that "We are restarting the voting process anew down here, thus the double vote". I am unaware of any policy or precedent by which an editor has the authority to declare an RFC (most especially one this lopsided) invalid, especially when his justification is based on a lawyery definition of "meatpuppet". I suggest that his actions warrant (at the very least) some administrative attention. I'm not willing to strike or otherwise modify his declaration, but I certainly don't think it's valid or should remain. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by User involved After like five or so people voting over the course of about a day we all of a sudden had a massive influx of around 50 nearly identical votes of inclusion from SPA's, people who had not posted in over 3 weeks, and people who had never posted on the topic. I decided to make a new section after the massive pile-on was attributed to the Daily KOs site which has been edited since its discovery to sound less like meatpuppetry. I simply assumed the voting would start over, and that any editors actually involved in would just re-cast their vote. Besides, I didn't voting really mattered. I'm not declaring the RFC invalid(despite Blaxthos suggestion that perhaps the Daily Kos article was an attempt to invalidate the RFC process) I am just resetting it and allowing users to bypass scrolling down the epic pile-on to get to the relevant arguments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hell on that page because of blatant attempts to rig that RFC, its not hard to see how someone could go "off the tracks" with that much crap on the track. The RFC should be closed and the debate restart. If that RFC results in the issue in question being included in the article then it is going to encourage clear cheating like that in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With a ratio of something like 70:5, and you're one of the 5, I'm not surprised you want to just ignore the RFC. Doesn't the policy actually require us to find consensus through discussion? As I understand it, there can only be "cheating" if we're counting votes. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're not counting votes why does the ratio matter, and how can you delcare consensus. We've heard from a number of people who happen to read about the story from a source that doesn't always think kindly of Fox News. I'm not saying they should be thrown out, but to say there was absolutely no disruption is silly. We have no consensus, let others who aren't DKOSers respond before declaring such. Misread, See comment below Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Blaxthos, IMO the material is relevant to the page and should be included. IMO an untainted RfC would also reach that conclusion (perhaps not at 70:5) ... but this RfC does look like a smelly pile of something. It might be good to start over. Where did all those editors come from? In fact its so ridiculous that its hard to even imagine that someone who wants the material included initiated that. More likely someone is trying to derail the entire process for fun or because they fear losing the RfC (probably the former).Griswaldo (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone supporting exclusion would go to all the trouble of finding editors that would vote include, and then contact them all (possibly hundreds if only a small percentage responded).--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Blaxthos, don't take this the wrong way, but did you contact users about this RFC?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not -- I do not participate in mixing Wikipedia and anything else in my life.  :) To Griswoldo's point, I submit that the consensus among any cross-section of the respondents is that it should be included -- even if you ignore all the anonymous IP's and obvious SPA's, there is still a clear consensus amongst the established editors to include the material. The three or four opponents are trying every trick in the book -- it was unreferenced, then it's not relevant, then it's really about newscorp, then it is meatpuppetry, now it's about "restarting the vote". Time to call a spade a spade. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am then calling you a shovel, because your statement is not true. The very first comment, mine, was that this article was FNC and the issue was about NewsCorp thus not relevant. It was never an unfreferenced issue. The SPA's, and Established Editor Meatpuppets are just extra dirt for the cause. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is clearly what is taking place there. The policy clearly states Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy. . All those new editors in the RFC are attempting to sway the debate and cause certain material to be included in the article. The RFC should not continue. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to run a check-user on all the accounts that were otherwise dormant and all these IPs. I'd freeze the RfC until that is done. See what shakes out then continue it. A normal RfC would definitely come down on the side of inclusion IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to run a checkuser on IPs; by the nature of the checkuser process, it wouldn't be able to reveal anything you can't already see. Checkuser is only able to reveal otherwise-hidden data about logged-in users. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to William S. Saturn and Griswaldo and other's interested, This is where all those editors came from. I think Blaxthos is pointing out that Meatpuppetry doesn't matter as long as we look at arguments made and who is making said arguments, rather than number of arguers (my case in point, I am for inclusion despite being not of the DKOS persuasion). Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon is correct. My apologies for not including that in the initial report -- it's kindof assumed knowledge over in the asylum, and I lost track.  :) To Arzel's kneejerk attack, that's just another WP:AGF violation. There is no "coordinated effort" here, nor is it meatpuppetry... a third party website pointed out an RFC already in progress. No, it wasn't me. No, no one was "told" to go !vote. I have no doubt this is all smoke and mirrors in an attempt to discredit an RFC with which 3 or 4 editors are dissatisfied. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any closing admin is just going to ignore all the spurious !votes anyway, so their presence there is fairly irrelevant. The only question would be what the consensus is when they are disregarded. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Arzel's comment was retracted, it looks like it was accidentally removed in an edit conflict. As for the meatpuppetry, if a biased third party website brought up the RFC, it was encouragement to a particular group of people with their own POV, destroying the legitimacy of the RFC. Also, the votes from the DailyKos may have encouraged a pile-on from non-Kos editors unfamiliar with what was going on.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Kos post specifically asked people to come here.

A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS forum has been called to resolve this matter in the talk section (bottom):http://en.wiki.x.io/... It's essentially two guys against Fox...so if you have an account on Wikipedia, please contribute and let your voice be heard! Wikipedia is always a top search result of just about any topic, so this does matter--Fox knows it.

The language has since changed. Arzel (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, this was orginally addressed here. Blaxthos, you know what you can do. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User involved After like five or so people voting over the course of about a day we all of a sudden had a massive influx of around 50 nearly identical votes of inclusion from SPA's, people who had not posted in over 3 weeks, and people who had never posted on the topic. I decided to make a new section after the massive pile-on was attributed to the Daily KOs site which has been edited since its discovery to sound less like meatpuppetry. I simply assumed the voting would start over, and that any editors actually involved in would just re-cast their vote. Besides, I didn't voting really mattered. I'm not declaring the RFC invalid(despite Blaxthos suggestion that perhaps the Daily Kos article was an attempt to invalidate the RFC process) I am just resetting it and allowing users to bypass scrolling down the epic pile-on to get to the relevant arguments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple of issues there, though. Firstly, there are comments from regular editors mixed in with the "pile-on" votes; you clearly can't ignore those, and nor will a closing admin. Secondly, you've now !voted twice (I haven't checked if anyone else has). You need to strike the duplicate. I would let the RFC run and collapse the extraneous arguing about the re-set, the closing admin will take the pile-on into account. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment First, to get my biases out of the way, I believe mention of the donation and the resulting controversy should definitely be included. That said, I do share BritishWatcher's concerns that the DailyKOS article has fatally damaged the integrity of the RfC. I would be just as concerned if Fox News had admonished its readers to "lend a hand" on Tea Party to combat "radical leftists". The rapid influx of editors unfamiliar with our policies and practices pretty much tanked any chance at reasonable discussion, and made what discussion there was impossible to follow. Let's redo it, in a lower-key venue. Some interesting points were raised on both sides, but it's nearly impossible for someone to make sense of the discussion at this point and respond to well-reasoned, well-supported arguments with ones of their own. Wikiposter should not have made the decision to "restart the poll" unilaterally, and I am highly suspicious of his motives in doing so. That said, it does appear to be the right course of action. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, is it your contention that we should not consider the reasoned offerings of editors who just happened to learn of the RFC through a third party? Is it your belief that any "legitimate" editor should have to come and explain his position twice? I just don't see how that's a more reasonable position than for the closing admin to simply consider the discussion in its entirety. All your solution does is reward grossly inappropriate behavior (like unilaterally declaring "I am starting this RFC over" when things don't go your way) for disrupting the process and ignoring the policy. The vast majority of respondents offered a rational opinion, and did not just show up and !vote "include"; admins are not idiots, and are certainly skilled in reading the signal from the noise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For the same reason that I would be crying foul if Fox did it. It has nothing to do with "legitimate" versus "illegitimate" editors, it's the fact that an outside organization with a political axe to grind admonished its readers to come here and influence the RfC. Now, I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious about it, but I am worried about setting a precedent. What happens when the next I-P conflict boils over and a conservative Israeli news agency tells its readers to make sure their view is reflected? The project is far better off protecting itself against undue gaming by outside organizations, even if that involves more work and wasted effort, than letting itself be used as a political chessboard. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than letting "an outside organization with a political axe to grind" disrupt our process, we should ignore them and move on. Their comments will be considered accordingly, as noted by other editors in this discussion. In other words, the process of starting over is the precedent we don't want to set; because if we have to start over every time someone disrupts the process, then we'll never get anything accomplished. Akerans (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary question then becomes "How do you determine who was part of the disruption?" There were only a few editors involved before the Daily Kos disruption. The new editors and IP's are pretty easy to ignore, but there were a substantial number of registered editors that clearly fall into the same realm. Editors that actually care about the project should still care about it even if the process is restarted, and would be far easier than having an admin go through all of the editors to determine which are which. The worst part about this, and I should have cached the entire DK post right away before it was changed, was that the DK poster fully realized that this approach may not work, but at the minimum they would suceed in wasting our time. They have certainly suceeded at that! As a secondary note, could we please close any action against Wikiposter0123. He was certainly following the spirt of the WP project regardless of whether anyone feels he went against any WP policies. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really worried about the process of weeding out the grain from the chaff, as that's the closing admin's job and it's no different from any RfC close, just more complicated. I'm worried about the precedent it sets, and the taint that will hang over it. If the admin decides to close in favor of the inclusionists, then the exclusionists cry foul and say it was all because of the Daily Kos. That in itself is fine; people on the losing end of arguments throw tantrums all the time round here. The problem is when other people look at it and think "hey, the daily kos ran a piece getting their readers to influence wikipedia and it worked! We should do that!". If, on the other hand, the closing admin finds in favour of the exclusionists, there will be a huge uproar (given the overwhelming consensus), and a new RfC will be started anyway. I think we're just better off doing it again now. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As Akerans points out, we should ignore them and allow the policy (which deals directly with this circumstance) to work. Regardless of whether you restart the RFC now or later, calling a mulligan and starting over only rewards a persistent and vocal minority who have stopped at nothing to derail an RFC that didn't go their way and sets a very dangerous precedent. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Inserting the text now will reward the vote rigging that took place, it will certainly be seen in that way by those responsible. Far better to restart the debate sensibly than expect someone to close that RFC and sift through all the comments by those who are not meant to have taken part. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(I don't generally get involved in policy discussions, being more of the gnome/sloth persuasion, but hey there's a first time for everything.) I think the problem is that either way we're going to be rewarding someone's bad behaviour. Either you come down on the side of the SPAs/vote-rigging, or you come down on the side of obstructionist tactics. Both set a bad precedent, but I think it's unavoidable. It'll just have to be made clear that the result was not due to the messing around, but rather points made on Wiki policy. In that case, I agree that we should just deal with the current mess and let an admin close it. EvilStorm (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Several comments: (1) Wikiposter0123 was incorrect to unilaterally declare a restart/do over/reboot, as that is a consensus process. Even eliminating the obvious SPA votes, there still is overwhelming consensus in the RfC to include the questioned content, both in terms of numbers and strength of arguments. (2) We have had many contentious discussions before, even some major battleground ones. America is deeply polarized and the US Senate is nearly totally dysfunctional with almost every vote partisan. Considering the societal forces, is it surprising they play out here as well? It would help, I think, to avoid flinging labels around and questioning motives. (3) The neutrality of Fox News is clearly a politically charged issue and there is bound to be passionate involvement, even by editors that didn't participate before. (4) If an uninvolved admin can't separate the wheat from the chaff in that RfC discussion, he/she shouldn't be closing it. (5) Totally against restarting the RfC, as that would be caving in to pressure, internal and external. We spent far too many resources to throw it away. — Becksguy (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the overwheliming concensus. There were only two editors (Blaxthos and SemDem) involved before it was hijacked by the DK's (per the original Daily Kos poster). A SPA initially asked why it wasn't included, to which I responded and then Blaxthos then made a snide remark. SemDem then started to insert the material with no discussion to which I and a couple others removed. Blaxthos then started the RfC (for no real apparent reason since there was almost not discussion at that point) and then DK hijacked the process. A few other valid editors weighed in after, but there is no valid overwhelming concensus. The vast majority that actually have accounts have little or no contributions to this topic and are clearly the result of the off-site canvassing. The process was corrupted and given Blaxthos' recent actions here I am starting to question whether Blaxthos had anything to do with it. The original DK post clearly stated that "They" had tried to add it and were unable. The "They" can only be user:SemDem or Blaxthos, there was no one else before the SPA Meatpuppets showed up. Failure to restart the RfC will only encourage similar tactics in the futre. Better to restart now, if it really does belong then it will come to that point regardless. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of an RfC is to get other people to look at the matter. Just because there were only 2 inclusionists prior to the RfC is no reason whatsoever to believe there wouldn't have been many more after. You can't say "The vast majority that actually have accounts have little or no contributions to this topic and are clearly the result of the off-site canvassing". An RfC is intended to provide visibility, and it did. Also, your liberal use of the terms "SPA", "valid editors", etc is unhelpful, as is your insinuation that Blaxthos is behind the Daily Kos article. Those kinds of accusations require strong evidence, and you don't have any. I'd ask you kindly to stop. Nevertheless, we do agree that a new RfC should be held. In addition to the reasons I listed above, I simply can't see the editor interactions on that page improving if this RfC is used, especially with Wikiposter's attempted redo. Let's just get it over with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous four RfC's on the more visable FNC main page were 13, 10, 9, and 5. Since the 2008 election, there has been a decreasing interest on FNC. Now over 70? Sorry, I don't buy it. I stated that I didn't think Blaxthos was behind it from the beginning on my initial report, yet he insinuated that perhaps I was, and then he files this pointy ANI? This whole process smells of manure, and you don't have to be a statistician to see the statistical probability of what has happened to be inconcievably statistical significant. The vast majority that chimed in, where canvassed to do so, and the obvious evidence is overwhelming. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no guarantee starting over will prevent another pile-on. So, we'll have to keep starting over until all those people are no longer interested, or we can simply ignore them. Soxwon has taken the time and effort to mark new editors as SPA and mark existing editors as "haven't edited in X weeks", and I believe the closing administrator will take that into consideration. Akerans (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We just recently had a contentious RfC on WP:RSN about whether Fox News was a reliable source. There were about 60 participants (including me). So the roughly 70 participating in this RfC is not that unusual. Not for a hot button issue like Fox News. — Becksguy (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite this ridiculous argument going on here where people like Blaxthos are inventing quotes by me saying "like unilaterally declaring "I am starting this RFC over" when things don't go your way" which I did not say, the RFC is still going uninterrupted. I created a break after the pile, told people to continue discussion. After I and some other guy recast our votes Blax questioned why we were voting twice, I then said "We are restarting the voting process anew down here. Because votes don't actually matter these are really more just statements of our side." which in response to this I have written:

We are restarting the voting process anew down here. We just assumed the voting process had started over, thus the double vote. Because votes don't actually matter these are really more just statements of our side.

Despite Blax and others claiming I have unilaterally declared a restart of the RFC, what actually happened is I told people to continue the discussion, and after myself and another recast our "votes" twice I said we are restarting the voting process because that is what I thought was happening.

There has been no damage to the RFC, it is ongoing without any problems, so what Blax is asking for assistance for I do not know unless he is trying to get me banned from posting arguments. Before the massive influx is was multiple editors against Blax and Sem who were the only people for inclusion, so his representation that I am trying to rig this RFC because I'm losing is absurd. I think our arguments are getting more steam, and expect a consensus to ultimately be reached in our favor.(which is why I have not once suggested a restart of the RFC).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, your actual wording was "We are restarting the voting process anew". Sorry for any confusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys. Relax. RfCs are not votes. Stacking the vote and starting the vote over don't change that, so there's no point losing your temper. EvilStorm (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)