Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576: Difference between revisions

 

Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Axmann8&diff=324066905&oldid=313295550] asks for an unblock. He admits to block evasion since his block, and claims his block was "politically motivated". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::''Ja!'' ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Since he admits to evading his block, I wonder if it's time to re-open the SPI on that guy? Maybe I've been falsely blaming PCH for stuff that Axmann has been doing? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

I was in communication with Axmann and attempted to help him adapt to and understand Wikipedia culture back in march before he was indefinitely blocked, I'll chime in with a note here: My efforts to help rehabilitate him were greatly hindered by the constant attention some people decided to give him (I'm definitely looking at you here, Bugs, but you weren't alone). Constant AN/I posts for every potential misstep, especially where admins are already well aware of the situation, are not helpful. I believe he could have been counseled to become a productive editor, but it would require peace and quiet for some time and an understanding that he will make further mistakes during mentorship. <strong>[[user:henrik|<font color="#B38F00">henrik</font>]]<small>•[[user talk:henrik|<font color="#AFA29F">talk</font>]]</small></strong> 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:I'm all in favor of giving every opportunity and extending good faith. How Axmann was chased off was unseemly. But I think an editor who chooses a Nazi username would be pushing our limits even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear. :) [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::::::::Your historiography is false. Obviously, you are biased towards Smith and against me, and I see no point to talk to a self-appointed wikilawyer. If Smith wanted to have a logical dispute or a mediation with me, he is welcome. - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::Per policy [[WP:DP]], "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and it should be performed only after due consideration is given to issues of fairness." I don't think anyone can come up with a very good reason why an acknowledged socker and vandal should have his/her RfA blanked for "fairness". I recommend we just leave it as unblanked, and all walk away from the battle here. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Searches in histories are extremely tedious, even in a single page, not to say in many. - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::The page in question, in the "oppose" votes gives a clear summary of objections to the behavior of this account from the whole wikipedia community. Did anybody ask any represenative selection of voters whether they want their contributions blanked? - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:The reason is courtesy. It was an acrimonious and unpleasant experience for most involved, and was therefore best blanked. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::By that reasoning, we would blank ANI on a regular basis. Even the policy itself does not say that we do it solely as a "courtesy"; it needs to be ''fair''. I don't see any reason why it is "unfair" to leave this RfA unblanked. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Yeah, mine too while were at it. --'''''[[User:Skater|<span style="font-family:Chiller;color:#0000CC">SKATER</span>]]''''' [[User_talk:Skater|^{<span style="font-family:Impact;color:Black">'''Speak.'''</span>}]] 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:If it were a real name and the concern was privacy, then there are proper procedures for this. Page blanking is not among them. - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:: I am not arguing for blanking or unblanking; I think debating it to such length (either ways) is [[WP:LAME]] especially since there don't seem to be any strong arguments for keeping ''this'' page blanked or unblanked. For example the three editor reviews for the account, as well as the user page, are all blanked and no one seems to care. Anyway, I'll follow my own advice and step back from this discussion. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is rank [[WP:LAME|lameness]]. I have blanked and protected the RfA. Comments about the propriety of that action may be made here or on my talk page. I would suggest that participants simply disengage, work on content or at the very lest find something marginally less crazy to argue about. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

:::The explanation should be self evident. It is a stupid thing to edit war and argue over, but evidently that fact hasn't been impressed upon the participants of the discussion. I'm just cutting the gordian knot and allowing people who I assume to be otherwise productive and collegial editors getting back to whatever it is they normally do. If the fact that the page itself is blank/non-blank is so distressing to the particular parties that they have to argue about it even after some option is foreclosed, then that is a separate problem. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::::You are entitled to your opinion what is stupid and what is not, but this gives you no right to violate the rules of admin's actions. Also, in case you failed to notice, the edit war was over for some time, until you contributed to it without adding extra arguments. - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::Reverting is editing. Protecting your own action is abuse. Again, at the moment there was no revert war. There was discussion in this board. Reverting amid a discussion is blatant disrespect to people seriously engaged. It is not my fault that a certaiun person littered the section with digressions from the section topic. The discussion was about a serious issue whether an abusive user has rights to cover their tracks. Several respectable wikipedians have no disagreement with my action. - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::(ec)Protonk was involved as soon as he reverted someone elses edit wasn't he? If there was edit warring why didn't he just protect the page. I don't understand how he can choose a side and then claim to be uninvolved. And let it be known that I haven't looked at and don't care about the content dispute itself. But Protonk's actions sure don't look good and no explanation has been forthcoming. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::::So... you're saying that it's implied that closed RfAs are still open to edits? Even if people don't bother archiving every closed RfA, I think it's still safe to say that people know the matter is closed. (Archiving or protecting them immediately would kinda imply the assumption that someone would come down the line to fiddle with it just for ha-ha's) I still see this as normal bookeeping, but I also won't fault you for disagreeing.

::::::::On a side note, however, I feel I must protest the renaming of this section. Even though I think protonk behaved admirably and correctly, there's no need for the ''heading'' to be neutral when an editor feels they've been wronged. They think power was abused, and want input on that, so it's a logical heading. [[Special:Contributions/139.57.101.207|139.57.101.207]] ([[User talk:139.57.101.207|talk]]) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that protection should go to whatever version is up at the time, not to a prior status quo. This seems confirmed by the wording of [[WP:PROTECT]]. Protonk's actions were incorrect here. This doesn't seem to be serious but it is clearly against policy and general practice. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

====Topic Ban proposed====

::(ec)That's incredibly excessive and far less than practical. Are you really saying that CoM shouldn't have ''any'' methods of addressing concerns, even if he/she (sorry, don't actually know your gender) is legitimately wronged? If you don't like what CoM is saying, nobody is forcing you to read it. But to take away a person's speech just because you find it tedious... I don't recall seeing ''that'' in any of the policy pages or guidelines... [[Special:Contributions/139.57.101.207|139.57.101.207]] ([[User talk:139.57.101.207|talk]]) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::There is precedent for this. Everyking was banned by arbcom from commenting on Phil Sandifer due to continued vexatious and ill-researched commentary. He was also banned from the admin noticeboards for a substantial period of time due to essentially the same thing. It should be noted that admin noticeboards are not by any means the only way of adddressing concerns - just the most confrontational. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Quite possibly, but each RFC is different and some have had useful results. It is, of course, worth a try. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:...Over-reaction much? [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::That's b/c half of these threads revolve around Ottava, Malleus, and the actions around them. CoM hasn't been warned, been taken to an RFC or had any action directed at him to this point. Just topic-banned for six months out of the blue. That's bullshit no matter who it is. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::GWH is directly related to Malleus' controversial block, WTWAG has had a history with Malleus and made a rather ill-advised edit to Malleus' take page. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::::No, now you are doing a CoM: you are not bothering to do your research. Nobody has been topic-banned here. Horologium has simply proposed one for discussion. Nothing has been implemented. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:Inadequate: given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Statement_by_ChildofMidnight this], which was only notable for its sheer sloppiness of thought as he accused me of being "involved" when I blocked a SPA who edited economics articles when even a brief review of the relevant contributions would have told him I have '''never''' edited a single economics-related article, nor had I interacted even once with the editor I blocked, the ban should cover commenting on RFAR except in cases where he is directly involved. I have no problem with my actions being reviewed but only if the reviewer '''bothers to do his research''' and isn't just lazily firing off blanks in my general direction because he has a bee in his bonnet about "abusive admins". [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::This kind of behavior is unfortunately par for the course with C of M (at least from where I sit), and there are literally several dozen previous examples. But I don't think an outright topic ban from these boards is the way to go. [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight]] is a redlink and probably it should not be. Many folks (including myself) have expressed frustration with his methods of communication, to put it mildly, while noting that he does good article work, AfD work, etc. Some polling of the community on these matters might be useful. My past encounters with C of M rose to such a level of unpleasantness that I chose to avoid interacting with him altogether, but if one or two other editors are interested in starting a user conduct RfC I would be willing to co-certify (or whatever they call it these days) and dig up some diffs. I have "tried but failed to resolve the problem" with C of M about 37 different times so I think I would qualify as one able to certify an RfC. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[[User talk:Jimbo Wales#Trouble on WP: an open letter|One rule for Prof. R. Brews]] another rule for ChildofMidnight here on Wikipedia. Was [[User:RickK|RickK]] right after all? [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:Seriously, if you guys want input on CoM (ie, are requesting comment on CoM), then turn the RfC link into a blue link. I don't know the situation, but this has been developing into a massive series of threads on ANI, when RfC would be a much more appropriate venue.--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] ^{[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]} ^{[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]} ^{[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Unionhawk (2)|Review]]} 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

The article [[GetJar]] has been recreated when it was deleted by an adiministrator previously - it still contains direct copyrighted information from the bussiness source. [[User:Reubzz|Reubzz]] ([[User talk:Reubzz|talk]]) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::Salted. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Is it possible to get somekina 'review' of this indef-block? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:What's the problem to be reviewed? Looks like there was a lot of discussion about it back in September, from the editor's talk page... [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::I wish the best of luck to you in trying to get this overturned, but I really wouldn't hold my breath. Indeed, the original block was a mistake, as the poll was presented incorrectly (ideally, each side should have prefaced the poll with their own arguments; rather than one side being allowed to set redking up with a strawman argument). ''However'', the moment people resort to sockpuppets, well, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin more often than not. When a mistake has been made, there ''are'' options for remedy; creating another account isn't one of them.

::Simply my opinion, mind you. I just don't want you to get your hopes up, or waste too much of your time on something that isn't likely to happen. [[Special:Contributions/139.57.101.207|139.57.101.207]] ([[User talk:139.57.101.207|talk]]) 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

{{ip|195.138.71.154}} admits to being {{userlinks|CSOWind}} evading a block for purposes of disruption and promotion. Please do the needful. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:: Thanks. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::::::I have attempted, in the past, to initiate dispute resolution between these two, to no avail. It concerns me that this is still going on. -[[User:FeralDruid|FeralDruid]] ([[User talk:FeralDruid|talk]]) 17:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

{{archive bottom}}

 

 

Hi, I am suspicious that {{user|Joeberto}} and {{IPuser|198.160.77.20}} are one and the same editor; the former edits exclusively on just two articles ([[Daniel Adam Ortega]] and [[Christopher Austin Ortega]]), while the latter has edited exclusivley on said articles today. Also, they have similar MOs i.e. disrupting the deletion process of those two articles (which are now at AfD) - firstly by removing all traces of PROD tags, then removing AfD tags; both have also removed other editor's comments from the two article's respective talk pages. Do you think I'm on the right lines or just barking up the wrong tree? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::I looked there first, but didn't want to make people go to the bother of using CheckUser if I was just being a tad paranoid or whatever! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

::And [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Telugu_language_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29|forum shopping at RFPP]]. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] ([[User talk:Syrthiss|talk]]) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

****[[WP:BRD]] is an ''essay'', and not one we can reasonably expect a newbie to have even heard of. [[WP:SPA]] from a handful of edits, and then a complaint (with various followups due to poor handling of it) is a ludicrous leap. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

 

*I notice that Bwilkins said the IP made mistakes and promoted bad data, while the admin was trying to prevent bad data. I looked at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telugu_language&diff=323514304&oldid=323435814 the edit as well] and see the exact opposite. The edit changed the article to say that Telegu is the third-most spoken language in India rather than the second. The cited source which the IP added, [http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.htm an Indian census page], says that Hindi is the most spoken (257 million), Bengali has 83 million, and Telegu has 74 million speakers. So on that point the IP appears to be correct unless I'm missing something? On the other factual point is ambiguous because no sources are provided. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{od|:::::}}NuclearWarfare went ahead and rolled them all back. [[User:Tim1357|Tim1357]] ([[User talk:Tim1357|talk]]) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:That is a rather interesting way to show outdents/indents isn't it. This place never runs dry on the jaw-droppers.--[[User:The Legendary Sky Attacker|The Legendary Sky Attacker]] ([[User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker|talk]]) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== User Softvision on talk pages ==

I'm not here about the category – that's something I can ultimately take or leave. What does concern me is RaseaC's attitude towards concensus building, the notion that concensus can be forged by two editiors within the space of two minutes, that differing opinions don't matter, comments like "As far as I'm concerned a consensus is reached when a majority of editors reach an agreement" and "It's not my fault if the policy is flawed", and the aggressive manner in which the presumed concensus has been enforced – none of this is consistant with my understanding of Wikipedia's concensus policy. I've made my arguments on the article talk page but RaseaC doesn't seem particuarly interested in any constructive discussion. I'm really not sure how best to proceed here. [[User:Small-town hero|Small-town hero]] ([[User talk:Small-town hero|talk]]) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:This seems to be an inappropriate forum for a discussion about which you apparently have no interest. If there is a problem with my understanding of a particular policy then it would probably be better to hold such a discussion on my talk page. Unless you want administrator intervention against my edits on WP I see no reason for this discussion to be conducted on this noticeboard and therfore have no interest in taking part in this particular discussion. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== WebHamster Threats? ==

:::Talk page access blocked, WP is not his or anyone else's battleground, although any admin is free to reverse if they feel I was in error. Furthermore, there appears to be nothing we can do on this side to deal with this ongoing harassment so alluded to, unless someone has an idea that can be solved by my array of buttons or a stern message?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Yiwentang has been blocked and warned in many guises many times. Unfortunately, another warning for the latest sock wouldn't have any effect. The best policy is [[WP:RBI]] whenever one pops up. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yes. Eternally remove WebHamster from Wikipedia. He has done good things here, but outing threats (even if it were against another potential outer) is just not acceptable. Not to mention his long, dark history of incivility warnings, blocks and the rest...WebHamster was a good contributor but is no longer an ingredient in Wikipedia's recipe book.--[[User:The Legendary Sky Attacker|The Legendary Sky Attacker]] ([[User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker|talk]]) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

{{resolved|All blocked. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Loobasooba}}, who has a single edit, for has [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JoSePh3993|nominated for adminship]] {{Userlinks|JoSePh3993}}, a vandal who has 25. {{userlinks|MISSKITT99}}, who also has precisely one edit, has helpfully decided to answer the ''Questions for the candidate''. Evidently the user can't keep straight who s/he's logged-in as. I think I smell [[WP:LTA|LTA]], but can't identify the culprit. The number 99 evidently holds some significance for this editor. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]]^{<small>([[User_talk:Rrburke|talk]])</small>} 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::Yeah, if you block him, [[Marty McSorley]] will not be happy. --[[User:Smashville|'''Smashville''']][[User Talk:Smashville|<sup style="color:#03F">talk</sup>]] 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

{{resolved}}

 

:Closed. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

== Possible legal threat from an IP, but one who gives full contact information in real life ==

 

 

: [[WP:DOLT]], please - we have the foundation for this sort of thing. I directed the poster to the contact email at [[WP:LIBEL]], but someone else should feel free to direct this to [[WP:OTRS|OTRS]] if you think it necessary. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

*Done. I've probably hosed something up, and generally 'dual' history merges are problematic because of simultaneous editing on different 'parent' pages. I suggest that we write something explaining this in the talk page so that investigating wikipedians don't get confused. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

**Sounds good to me. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::A grossly unhelpful comment, as many of your comments at ANI are today, if you don't actually have anything to add to the discussion, that will help resolve any of issues at hand, please don't say anything at all. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::[[User_talk:steveb|steveb]]: Thanks for that, most of our users are away from home so the "register from home" thing is pretty inconvenient. [[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:::The school may be trying to prevent autoblock from causing massive disruption. One student could cause much of the university of lose Wikipedia editing access. For that student, it's fun. For others, it's hell. For that student, just cause a block and other computers get blocked. Just one visit to the computing center and another to the library could disrupt a lot of users. [[User:Ipromise|Ipromise]] ([[User talk:Ipromise|talk]]) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 

*one year is excessive. The students change from year to year, and this year's sins should not be visited on the incoming class also. The block should run at most till the end of the school year this spring. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Has the individual (Steveb) that claims to have jurisdiction over this IP verified their identify with OTRS? Just a thought. [[User:Netalarm|<font color="#FF9933">'''Netalarm'''</font>]]<small>[[User talk:Netalarm|<font color="#330000">'''''trick or treat!'''''</font>]]</small> 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:[[User_talk:steveb|steveb]]: If I had ever heard of OTRS I might have used it. [[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:::[[User_talk:steveb|steveb]]: I don't really see that proving my identity makes any difference if WP admins will never read a response to a complaint, and it's moot now anyway - my institution has what amounts to a permanent ban on anonymous contributions, so it really doesn't require any further input from me.<br/> It would be great if account creation can be left in place so that those that wish to make a positive contribution can do so with a minimum of fuss. [[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::::OK. So can those students requiring access for legitmate reasons not register? Then the IP block safeguards against the vandalism? I'm not sure if this helps [[Template:Schoolblock]], whether it's already been considered or whether it is a total distraction to your problem. Anyone having problems registering could do so via you presumably? [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

::Account creation can better be handled by e-mail requests, or the account creation module, where we can control it better. Once someone creates an account outside of these functions we can't easily connect them to the university absent grounds for a checkuser, which wouldn't be likely. I would prefer that steveb would verify his identity through OTRS, then I'd be inclined to give him account creation rights. BTW, I don't understand why we should care what the university does to the students, that's their business.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]^{([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])} 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::1) That's the second reference to OTRS, again without any clues to how one can verify one's identity "using OTRS". As far as I can make out, OTRS is a ticketing system for handling requests; there's no reference to an identity verification system that I can see. Maybe I'm not looking closely enough.[[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::2) I quite specifically do ''not'' want account creation rights. I'm more than busy enough with the stuff that my institution pays me to do - which includes investigating misuse, but does ''not'' include becoming the bottleneck for WP account provisioning.[[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::::OK, I was sceptical before, but now I call [[Wiktionary:Shenanigan|Shenanigan]]s. You're saying that there's a secret, undocumented procedure, that somehow I should have known how to follow in order to prove my identity, and you say that it can't be documented because then Bad People would use it. Plenty of other sites have been able to verify my identity; I've written systems to verify the identities of other people (it's not rocket science). On top of all that, I'm less and less convinced that I care if any WP admins know whether I'm "the real Steve Bennett", because it will make no difference to how the users at my institution get treated. I think I'm going to go back to the Real World for a while.[[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, never mind OTRS. It doesn't address the issues at hand. Bottom line is you want an e-mail every time someone from your IP address vandalizes? And then you'll ''immediately'' stop them on your end, even on nights and weekends and holidays? For the e-mail, try [[WP:BOTREQ]]. For your claim to immediately stop vandalism on your end, now ''I'' call Shenanigans. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Hi; I have PRODded three articles - [[I Will Be By Your Side Forever]], [[Manah Sharif]] and [[Chondron]] - as none of them quite fit into any of the CSD criteria. However, I feel that all three ate 110% non-notable and should be speedily deleted; I could backtrack 10% and still be entirely in favour of speedy deletion. What's a boy to do? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 01:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::OK, thanks for the answer, just though I'd check. I'll let the PRODs run their course and, if I need to, take to AfD. Thanks again, [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree that the second article Manah Sharif is not deletable and unless GiantSnowman can tell me (feel free to go to my talk page and post there) '''why''' I'll take the prod off. Being poorly written and/or written by someone who doesnt know "our way" of doing things is not a reason to delete either through prod or AfD.[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]] ([[User talk:Camelbinky|talk]]) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::a) they disclose the connection to their main account or

::b) that they only use the account in a way which is acceptable under existing policy, which includes avoiding all editing at the project space.

 

 

Per [[WP:SOCK]], using an alternate account for the purpose of editing project space is prohibited. It may be legitimate to use an undisclosed alternate account to edit articles that might be controversial or embarrassing to an editor who's real life identity is known. That legitimate use is not what's happening here. Clearly, they have created a sock to edit project space, which is prohibited. Therefore, I am soft blocking the alternate account. The editor is welcome to continue contributing through their main account. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

::Yes, it's always good to get ask before taking an action, rather than after. The account only had a small number of edits, and the user still has their primary account. There is no reason to link them publicly. (I don't even know the primary.) Hopefully they will quietly go back to using the main account, and there will be no inconvenience to them. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 03:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[[User:RazerCrane]] is [[User:CosmicLegg]]. [[Special:Contributions/202.108.50.22|202.108.50.22]] ([[User talk:202.108.50.22|talk]]) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::See [[User:DavisHawkens]]. [[Special:Contributions/202.108.50.22|202.108.50.22]] ([[User talk:202.108.50.22|talk]]) 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=DavisHawkens&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=9 Month ov Septembre.] [[Special:Contributions/202.108.50.22|202.108.50.22]] ([[User talk:202.108.50.22|talk]]) 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

{{Resolved|Nothing that can be done as of now, worth keeping an eye on--'''''[[User:Skater|<span style="font-family:Chiller;color:#0000CC">SKATER</span>]]''''' [[User_talk:Skater|^{<span style="font-family:Impact;color:Black">'''Speak.'''</span>}]] 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)}}

:Definitely uncharacteristic. Maybe worth checkuser investigation? Or is that against policy? (forgive me for not knowing checkuser policy...)--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] ^{[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]} ^{[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]} ^{[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Unionhawk (2)|Review]]} 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::It wouldn't produce anything anyway. The account had last edited in February, so data for comparison is gone.--[[User:Chaser|chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|talk]]) 05:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::Equazcion could also practice what they preach.--[[User:The Legendary Sky Attacker|The Legendary Sky Attacker]] ([[User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker|talk]]) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::In response to concern of impropriety, my experience with HarryAlffa began with the bot-posted notification at [[WP:VPP]] that Harry had marked [[Wikipedia:Politeness Police]] as a policy. My comments at his "arbcom" draft deletion discussion came ''after'' I had expressed my disapproval of the politeness police page. [[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#006;font-family:Verdana">Equa'''zc'''ion</span>]] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">[[User talk:Equazcion|<span style="color:#006">(talk)</span>]] 21:38, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)</span>

::Equazcion is one of the most open-minded fair individuals I have "met" during my experience here at Wikipedia. I saw nothing wrong with his MfD and cant imagine Eq being "uncivil" or trying to unfairly "poison the well" by putting his ideas in an unduly POV spotlight. We need more people like Eq and not ANI threads like this that may discourage or demoralize him or others.[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]] ([[User talk:Camelbinky|talk]]) 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that all editors who, like me, have previous experience with HarryAlffa refrain from participation in this thread. Unfortunately I couldn't make this suggestion without (sort of) breaking it myself. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Vandal warned, nothing to see here [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)}}

I wish to report a threat made against [[User:Orangemike]] on his talk page from an unsigned IP. I deleted the message but thought it best to report it here.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for your swift response. Death wishes against somebody are always unpleasant and frightening.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 13:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::::I know it's a childish remark, but it's still a nasty thing to put on somebody's talk page, IMO.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#User:TJ_Spyke_using_wikicleaner_to_bypass_redirects_contrary_to_WP:R2D]

 

:Wow, a block for violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:BITE]] is definetely warranted.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::Assuming the editor has already been warned about their inappropriate behaviour (you 'find' it unacceptable because it ''is'' unacceptable) then why not put him forward for a block? Maybe a couple of days will reiterate that his behavior is incompatible with what is expected on WP. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::Someone else being incivil first doesn't give you the right to also be incivil.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If he's been warned and continues to do it then this is an open and shut blocking case. As Giants says, he's clearly breached two pretty fundamental policies. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::We're not discussing whether or not you have been uncivil, it is clear you have and if you are unable to understand that then we have a serious problem. You absolutely are supposed to take incivility on the chin, reacting with incivility is completely the wrong approach, is very childish and makes you as bad as the first editor, so that defense doesn't wash. Finally, whether or not iMattew cherry-picked these contributions or not is irrelevant, the fact that there are that many in less than a month is a real issue and one that either you need to address yourself or the community will have to address for you. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&curid=24552220&diff=324520173&oldid=324517796 see here] [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== Vandal encouraging illegal activities ==

[[Can you get high of smartys|Here's said article.]] [[User:Thewtfchronicles|Thewtfchronicles]] ([[User talk:Thewtfchronicles|talk]]) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:[[WP:AIV]] is probably a more appropriate venue than AN/I, although I, personally, would only list them at AIV if they continue to vandalise, however you may decide to list them now. However I don't really think this is a discussion for AN/I [[User:Spitfire|Spitfire]]^{[[User talk:Spitfire|Tally-ho!]]} 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

== User: StephenPaternoster ==

 

:Whatever else comes of this, he earned a block for the edit comment. You aren't coming off too sterling yourself (calling his edits dross in edit summaries), btw. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] ([[User talk:Syrthiss|talk]]) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

:::Implied threat of violence in the edit summary. Paternoster needs to become Our Father Who Art Indef'd. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Mentoring is one thing. But who's going to teach him how to write English? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::::One would assume it was more a lack of attention to his language rather than lack of knowledge, considering his location. I've often seen mentors copyedit propose edits as well. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::Hold on, he has communicated on his talk. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::He is sorry and won't do it again...well I suppose everyone deserves a chance, I could support a block of at least a week to show him how serious the community takes that kind of comment, it would be illegal in some countries, and then keep an eye on him. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:Totally reprehensible though the comment was, and deserving of decisive action, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of a block has to be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. He needs to get himself over here and provide apologies and assurances.[[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

I wouldn't unblock him yet - I gather he's only young and it's poor form to encourage the young to believe that just apologising will make everything all right instantly. Give him a week, and discuss some of his worse edits on his talk page in that time. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::I was thinking more along the lines on not coming back until he’s shown an appreciation of proper behaviours. If, as suspected, he’s a school student, ask him to produce an essay based on the 5 pillars or some suitable civility topic. If it passes in a week (or longer) fine, if he cannot be bothered let the block remain. We are allowed to be creative aren’t we? [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::::I suspect the editor may have taken [[Beer|Dutch Courage]] to post his unblock request. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::And....blanked again. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::The edit summary certainly was, no doubt about it. The discussion above is whether his "apology" on his now blanked talk page reiterated the threat. Having just re-read it, it is unclear, although I don't think he is reaserting it. Either way, he is a problem user and should be reinstated only once Admins. are satisfied about his future behaviour (and editing style).[[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 9pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 17:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::Sorry yes, I was joking earlier (mostly). Refering to the past tense. He said he regretted his edit summary and while he meant it about me, never meant it in an antisemetic way (To denigrate the thing). TBH I forgot I had those pics there and it took me a while to understand why he had made the comment at all. I think we should perhaps wait for him to put up an unblock and leave it up for 24h before engaging with him about it. He obviously is trying to work out how to get his message across. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:Seem possibly similar, but I can't be sure if the first was appropriate, and the second one actually may be appropriate. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

:::::Done (under ResearchEditor). — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== IP block request ==

 

Can somebody block {{user|68.49.45.180}} for block evasion from {{user|98.204.183.125}}. Clearly the same user. Thanks. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]^{[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]}''' 06:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== Immediate Block needed ==

 

 

(ECx2)

 

also: [[User:97.84.15.75]] --- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ongar_the_World-Weary&diff=next&oldid=324609930 diff] [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] 08:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::[[User:ChrisG]] seems to be on it. I've also let him know about this thread so hopefully he can keep up! Durova, you may want to give him a hand and watchlist that talk page for a little while. [[User:Frmatt|Frmatt]] ([[User talk:Frmatt|talk]]) 08:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Yeah, they're probably a joke. Yeah, it's probably just a vandal. Anyway, I just thought I should toss it up here anyway to see if people agree with me, because I simply don't think this is obvious enough for one person to make a decision. {{User|89.243.191.126}} made a couple fairly explicit threats of violence, between two of the edits giving both victims and a location where the violence will occur. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zimbabwe&diff=324525850&oldid=324470276] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaica&diff=prev&oldid=324524384] [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 22:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::I don't have the contacts/info to report this (I presume a checkuser would?) but the school referred to is likely to be Queens Park Community School, in Brent (not Queens Park High School, which is in Chester). The school can be contacted by email on info@qpcs.brent.sch.uk (published on their website), but of course it's sunday here. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know if a checkuser if being done on this? It probably is worth forwarding it to the authorities and I guess the IP alone would be enough info but it would be worth seeing what a checkuser throws up. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Queens Park Community School in London has been informed of the threat, a quote and a link if it is still valid. I do not have an email for the Salusbury Road, MET Police, but their number is +44 20 7372 1212, if anyone feels the need to call them. [[User:Neuromancer|Neuromancer]] ([[User talk:Neuromancer|talk]]) 01:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:A link to the third diff has been forwarded to the met along with a quote from the diff incase the link doesn't work and the second IP (81.100.220.76) which seems to be the same person. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I assumed that would be the case, is there an admin that is able to report this to the authorities? [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/user/18464-evangelical/

<br>

== Inappropriate WP:OWNing of an article by [[User:William M. Connolley]] ==

 

 

I have found it necessary to block an editor for 48 hours for repeatedly adding a defamatory link to multiple pages. The rationale for doing so is on my talk page, at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=324532133&oldid=324529693] & the link in its edit history. a few edits before that. I have asked two other admin to check my work, and their supporting comments are on the [[User talk:Truther truther|user talk page]] . Since the editor involved persists in considering me prejudiced, I mention it here. If any admin so considers it , they are at liberty to remove the block. Alternatively, any admin is also welcome to extend it, if they agree with me that this editor's conduct here has become a personal vendetta against the subject of the article involved, based on off wiki events . '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:I had a look at his edit history--he's been here since 2007, and virtually all of his edits have been to the [[Joseph Schlessinger]] article. He was warned as early as his first month here, and still kept it up. I'm not only endorsing this block, but extending it indefinitely, as I don't see any prospect of him ever getting it. [[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::fine with me--the one-subject concentration will easily indicate what's up if it resumes under another name. I agree ghat this is the sort of enmity that is unlike to die down with time. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::::If they even know it exists, that raises suspicions. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::It happens legitimately all the time. Collectively unregistered editors are responsible for fixing a whole load of vandalism, and some are more competent than most autoconfirmed users. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] ^{[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]} 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== Serious BLP violations ==

 

There are apparently several users acting in concert to shove the [[Template:DBpedia Template]] template (created by, unsurprisingly {{User|DBpedia}} throughout all of the infoboxes on Wikipedia. This template is being used by [[DBpedia]] as part of its "live-extraction" project, apparently out of some attempt to make it easier for their own website to extract content from Wikipedia (rather than doing it on their own systems). {{User|Jens Lehmann}}, {{User|SebastianHellmann}}, {{User|Aklakan }} are ones that have been identified so far. From DBpedia's page and what I saw on Meta[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DBpedia/ontology], I do not see anything that supports this as being a valid effort by, nor did I find anything on DBpedia that either encourages or requires this. There are far too many edits being done for just one editor to deal with, and at this point, I believe administrative intervention is needed. Jens Lehmann has already been blocked, but if there are three, there are likely more. They have already infected hundreds of templates. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:::A short notice, would have been enough. We take the concerns of Wikipedians very seriously, so we will stop editing now. We have discussed to include the Template Annotations at the doc pages for months now, especially with Brion Vibber and Daniel Kinzler form Wikimedia. I also talked to about a dozen Wikipedians, who did not subject to this. I will post some more in a minute, but please do not act so fast and listen to me first.[[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:::(EC) It appears to be multiple users. Two are the names of people listed as contributers to DBmedia. Hellmann is claiming this was done with permission and after talking with two people, but I could not find anything on Wiki to support this claim. The only thing I could find was that they were given access to the live data stream, but not permission to create and flood infobox docs with this template or their links. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::Can you unblock the users, there are mybe 4 or 5 total, no more editing will happen until the matter is resolved, but at least they can discuss here.[[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::: I also informed them[[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::'''Subject has been moved''', please discuss here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#DBpedia_Template_Annotations Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations] [[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::We will ask explicit permission, would it be enough if we post it at village pump or do we have to post it somewhere else, also? [[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::'''Subject has been moved''', please discuss here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#DBpedia_Template_Annotations Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations] [[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:::DBpedia is not a website, but a community effort to enrich the encyclopedia Wikipedia with structured data. The resulting datasets are available to everyone under the same license as Wikipedia and currently used by thousands of users, e.g. for data integration purposes, but also by Wikipedia authors to identify inconsistencies and incoherences. The strategy of the DBpedia live extraction, was discussed with Daniel Kinzler and Brion Vibber. In order to support the DBpedia live extraction, Brian e.g. also granted us access to the Wikipedia live update stream. The addition of special DBpedia infobox templates to Wikipedia was only done to enable the Wikipedia authors to better employ DBpedia for increasing the coherence of Wikipedia. --[[User:Soeren1611|Soeren1611]] ([[User talk:Soeren1611|talk]]) 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

: You wrote "village pump (proposals)", but you linked to [[WP:VPP]], which is [[WP:village pump (policy)]]. Did you mean [[WP:VPR]]? [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::Subject has been moved, please discuss here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#DBpedia_Template_Annotations Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations] [[User:SebastianHellmann|SebastianHellmann]] ([[User talk:SebastianHellmann|talk]]) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

See also [[Wikipedia_talk:Editing_scientific_articles#new_ESCA_template_being_spammed_across_physics_talk_page]] and [[User_talk:Count_Iblis#ESCA_template]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:This essay has absolutely nothing to do with Brews Ohare and the speed of light Arbcom case. I note that Dicklyon was heavily involved big edit wars with Brews Ohare and he simply cannot think objectively about this essay (apart from him being wrong about the origins of the essay).

 

:In conclusion, I'm not spamming rather only including the template on those few pages where it is essential to stick to the guidelies. E.g., I added it to the entropy talk page, because I'm writing a new verion of that article off-line and I forsee discussions on the talk page which, given the history of that page, requires precisely these guidelines. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::Agreed, we can change the wording "guideline" to something else. I think though that Dickyon has been behaving in an aggressive way here, by calling what I did "spamming", even though it was added to a limited number of pages and by also removing it from pages where he is not directly involved in. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 18:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:Note that on the [[Scharnhorst effect]] page, Tim Shuba, Dicklyon and TenOfAllTrades have made no contributions toward editing that article nor in the discussions on the talk page about editing that article. The only active editors there are Michael C. Price, BenRG and me. The articles to which I added the template were (with the expeption of the two relativity related pages) similar articles where the active editors would welcome it. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::As I just pointed out in the template deletion discussion, that is hardly surprising. This began life as a personal essay. I don't know when I first referred to it but that is all it was. I disagreed with it then but ignored it: as a ''personal'' (singular author or plural) essay you are free to write what you want within reason. That doesn't mean that when you find you don't have objections it can be portrayed as having a consensus behind it. I suspect I am not alone in deciding that it was not worth debating with you over a simple expression of your personal views. The difficulty arises when you alter its status to a propsoed policy - that requires a much greater level of scrutiny. [[User:CrispMuncher|CrispMuncher]] ([[User talk:CrispMuncher|talk]])

 

 

::If this is not allowed, then things will proceed in a way it always has: ESCA will be the de-facto policy on may pages, but uninvolved editors will know nothing about this. So, in each step where editors have rejected changes in policies from high up to the local level, they have lost influence. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::::Many articles have been and are edited according to ESCA, which means that the articles are '''protected''' against OR being inserted. What is your definition of "de-facto"? [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::That contentious sentence is only so contentious because you can misinterpet it as allowing OR. I don't really feel that strongly about keeping that sentence in ESCA as Likebox does. If you look at the editing history, you see that I did come up with a comprimse wording which was acceptable that was then changed a few times. The basic issue is simply that a mathematical derivation of some theorem cannot always be presented here on Wikipedia in exactly the same way as is presented in a standard textbook.

::::::That can then be problematic w.r.t. OR, V etc. because you cannot necessarily give a source to the derivation that appears in Wikipedia, or at least the reference you do give is to a derivation that proceeds in a (slightly) different way. I would say that this is an interesting issue that the people at NOR should think about. But when this issue was raised there, the people at NOR were not willing to address the problem. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::All of this is a little too verbose for me, but this isn't the first or last time that a well-meaning editor "spams" the encyclopedia with an essay that they wish to promote into a guideline, or a template they wish to remain on talk pages as an editing suggestion for a family of articles. Sometimes you do have to nudge, cajole, and advocate a new proposal to other editors because for the most part editing advice does not promote itself. In this case it looks like the effort is a little too ambitious and is meeting some resistance. My advice here would be to go a little slower and less aggressively, to accept wider input from other editors, and perhaps to narrow the scope, e.g. to the hard sciences. The basic premise of the essay makes sense to me, and speaks to a wider point that is true in nearly all articles, that "verifiability, not truth" should not be taken to the extreme and that sometimes what we want is "verifiability ''and'' truth". Truth-testing verifiable statements is fairly helpful because some sources suffer from errors, interpretation, the vagaries of language, differing explanatory contexts, and so on. That has to be done carefully to avoid original research, or over-reliance on primary sources. Another reasonable claim is that sourcing requirements, and editing methods, should be adapted to fit the subject area of the article. Technical scientific articles surely work a little differently than articles about politics, entertainment, or current events. There are some overarching epistemological (or perhaps I should say encyclopedic) similarities, but also some specific differences. It makes some sense to write an essay about this, and perhaps even to encourage enough editors to abide by the essay that it does become a guideline and/or is well enough accepted to add to a talk page template. A good measure of acceptance would be whether it can be added without people objecting or removing it. Nobody objects, for example, if someone adds the "calm" template to politics articles, the "BLP" template for living individuals, or the "current event" or "recently deceased" templates where appropriate. By that measure this essay isn't quite ripe yet. Whether it will ever be ripe or not is a matter for the editors interested in the subject matter to decide, IMO. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::[[WP:ESCA]] says among other things: <blockquote>Check non-trivial statements you intend to insert into an article. Determine whether your statement could be invalid under some circumstances. To find out, you may need to study the entire source in which the statement is made, or look in other sources. The validity of a statement made on some particular page of a technical book may well rely upon necessary conditions mentioned many pages earlier, or even in another source. If you find that the statement is valid only within a specific context, you need explicitly to include that context in the article.

</blockquote>

::::::That section may not be useful ammunition for edit warriors. But this section:

::::::<blockquote>It does not constitute [[WP:OR]] to provide the logical connection between sourced premises and sourced conclusions, when the arguments are well understood by experts in the field.{{disputed-inline}} Remember that [[WP:OR|“Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.”]] </blockquote>

:::::::It clearly says "when the arguments are well understood by experts in the field". Now, since the Wiki-Project Math editors did not agree that Likebox argument is something that is "well understood", Likebox cannot put his proof in the article. All that the proposed guidelines allow Likebox to do, is put forward his argument and debate on the basis of it. Of course, not endlessly or disruptively, we've other wiki rules that deal with that problem.

 

 

:::::::The policy is intended to deal with all those other technical science articles where there are no editing disputes. In most such cases there is only one editor active. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 01:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Problem: John Doe with no mathematical background is not able to understand the relevant sources. So, you do need to have expert editors who have enough knowledge to understand the sources. Even they should not overestimate their abilities and be careful (that's what ESCA explains). We are fortunate to have so many expert math editors at Wiki-project math.

:::::::::"no editing disputes = no problems"? Read what I wrote about the "real problem" here. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:Where on Earth did you get the idea that ESCA says that you do not need textbooks or journal articles? Arguing from first principles is or can be essential for editors to get the correct understand of the topic as presented in some ournal articles or textbook. E.g. on the Helmholtz free energy talk page I explained to an anon in detail why his simple argument that dF = 0 fails. Also to another anon why the article does not include a statement from Feynman's book. These sorts of arguments were useful there, as it lead to me include extra explanations in the article. Also, the anons did not edit in what they thought was correct in the article.

:If you were to simply say that they are wrong because your book says so, the atmosphere on the talk page would not be so friendly. The other editor could then also invoke some wiki rule giving him the right to present his equation from his book in the article. And before you know it, you have a full blown edit war. So, even if you are an expert who knows everything there is to know and you can easily cite sources to back up what you're saying, you see that debating from first principles in the talk page is very useful. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree with Jayjg. I read this part of the present essay ''"If you find yourself in a dispute with other editors about a technical point, then discuss the issues as much as possible from first principles using the underlying theory and/or from the empirical evidence. That approach often brings out the needed context, which often is the source of the dispute. Do not simply appeal to direct quotes from textbooks or scientific articles, as then the proper context may be missing."'' Textbooks or journal articles in mathematics or mathematical physics are rarely ambiguous. This is not what the quote implies. If a [[WP:RS]] has been used to write a passage for an article, I don't see how this kind of dispute can ever arise. As I wrote, this particular quotation from the essay just seems to be a recipe for disaster (as far as standard mainstream content is concerned). I have no idea what people would feel from other disciplines such as chemistry, biology or medicine. Do "first principles" make any sense there? [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::I suggest you start examing yourself. I have already admitted that on the specal relatvity pages addition of the template may have been provocative. But your behavior on pages where you are not an involved editor is just abominable. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

:::It is absolutely not in conflict with NOR policy at all. Also, like it or not, it is already the de-facto policy on many science articles, albeit an unwritten one. The essay '''strengthens''' the NOR policy by giving advice on editing technical science articles. On the NOR age itself, writing anything about editing articles with a heavy mathematical content is taboo. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::It may be in conflict with the text of the NOR page when interpreted very pedantically, not with the idea that Original Research is not allowed. I think this is the point made by Carl on the NOR page. I have not heard any plausible arguments showing that ESCA would lead to real "original research" (apart from simply violating the literal text of the NOR page). There is no problem at all with ESCA when it comes to careful citations to reliable sources. ESCA simply gives some guidelines that help to make sure that whatever is edited in the article will indeed reflect what the sources say.

:::::Of course, I have to accept that at this time there is little support for ESCA. But when I think about how I can improve ESCA, I can only deal it constructive criticism and not with knee-jerk rejections. Unfortunately, 95% of the nay-sayers have rejected ESCA because of flawed reasons. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::What on earth does 'appears in invisible form' mean? [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

::::You may be right, but I'd prefer to hear from Iblis what he means by his self-contradictory statement. He certainly doesn't mean it literally. —[[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 22:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:<small>Procedural note - Chuck Champion notified about this thread.</small> [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:<small>Procedural note succeeding previous procedural note - Chuck Champion was given a mere one hour to respond.</small>--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Wow! That [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThird_opinion&action=historysubmit&diff=154803474&oldid=154801328 takes me back]! (Please pardon this moment of nostalgia. I will go back to my copyright violations now. :)) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Haha, glad to see you're still around, Moonriddengirl. And thanks for taking care of this, Black Kite. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] ^{[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]} 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:Uh two people Agree and one Oppose..I oppose too. Thats not exactly consensus. Born2cycle explained it perfectly.--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::?? Please read the talk page. There was no actual discussion.--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:::::Well they can unlock the page. At which point a discussion can continue. Then, an actual agreement/consensus can be reached. THEN, its resolved. --[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::As the talk page is ''not'' locked, there is nothing except pride currently preventing a discussion.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

== Suicide threat (first) ==

 

:Some time ago [[User:Aervanath]] created a template for this situation: [[Template:Suicide response]]. It may be helpful. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 16:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

::Looks like a hoax saying that a ban will lead him to suicide but probably not worth taking a risk, similarly that template would probably do more harm then good. You need to respond to a cry for help with help, not 'piss off and use this site'. The checkuser/local authority route seems the most appropriate. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

== de:? ==

 

Hi, I am never cared about admin status, so I think I'll let you guys know. For those that have not heard, there is a bit of a war going on on the German WP. Ask anyone who ''has'' heard, they are bound to have an opinion (warranted or not) on it. It is pretty major-scale, has already spawned publich debate meetings and flamewars in blogs etc. So I primarily speak to those with ''real'' higher up status on WP.

 

(EC response to Seb) We'll hope not permanently. Unfortunately, you do run across some bizarre and disturbing stuff while dealing with some of these things, sometimes it is a bit of a shock and requires some time to deal with. Regardless, however, I'm not about to let someone be harassed just because they're not currently actively editing. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 07:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

(EC times 4!!!)They've moved on to my page...can you please indef-protect? [[User:Frmatt|Frmatt]] ([[User talk:Frmatt|talk]]) 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

::I think some other IPs are targetting Alison's talkpage now. I realize that blocking for two weeks without warning looks very harsh and draconian, but coordinated attacks with different IPs require strict and swift countermeasures. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I have semi-protected Alison's talkpage for one hour. I know she unprotected it a short while ago (and I realize I ''really'' shouldn't be wheel-warring on another admin's talkpage), but four attacks with 4 IPs is too many. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

* I suspect the abuse filter may also be of some use as the text does not change much if at all. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

*I believe this should be a serious concern. Grawp seems to be using /b/ to attack non-admins, and now newer editors. This can have the effect of driving away said newcomers, as it did to Ongar. We need to take some sort of action now to prevent this from happening again. <font face="Segoe Print">[[User:Until It Sleeps|<font color=#F80>Until It Sleeps</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Until It Sleeps|<font color=#E50>Happy</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Until It Sleeps|<font color=#D00>Thanksgiving</font>]]}</font> 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

**The problem is that we are only capable of stopping on-wiki activity. We cannot prevent Grawp or others from using /b/ to solicit vandalism, even though I wish we could. Our best defenses are to revert quickly, protect when neccessary, and deter such activity by blocking the IPs involved (I am in full favor of long blocks without warning for this kind of activity, even for copycats.) In the most serious cases, those involving threats of violence, we should contact the internet service provider even for those who were "just" solicited. What the service provider does though is beyond our control, unfortunately. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 15:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

== Legal threats against the ''subject'' of an article ==

{{resolved|Got to agree with Beetlebrox on this one! [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)}}

I don't know if this falls under [[WP:NLT]], but {{userlinks|Realcaptainfantastic}} seems to be threatening to sue [[Elton John]] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Fantastic_and_the_Brown_Dirt_Cowboy&diff=prev&oldid=324819342 this edit]. It doesn't seem serious at all, but I thought I'd point it out. --[[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 11:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::Good block. [[User talk:Chillum|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.2em; class=texhtml"><font color='#4D7312'>'''Chillum'''</font></span>]] 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:He's now moved the article twice. [[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#006;font-family:Verdana">Equa'''zc'''ion</span>]] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">[[User talk:Equazcion|<span style="color:#006">(talk)</span>]] 12:08, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)</span>

::[[User:Closedmouth]] has blocked this user and deleted the pages. AIV is still backlogged, however. [[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#006;font-family:Verdana">Equa'''zc'''ion</span>]] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">[[User talk:Equazcion|<span style="color:#006">(talk)</span>]] 12:26, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)</span>

 

== RS / edit war problem - Wessex Institute of Technology‎ ==

I have a user, [[User:Aww40]], who is edit warring on [[Wessex Institute of Technology‎]], inserting information taken from a self-published source. The information she/he's adding has been discussed at length on [[talk:Wessex Institute of Technology‎]]. The user is ignoring friendly advice posted on her/his page pointing to WP:RS and the WIT Talk page. I don't want to get into a edit war ... would anyone fancy taking the problem on? thanks --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:Much obliged to [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] for getting involved & issuing another warning. I'll come back if that warning does not work. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:::The warning's did no good. Ban hammer, please. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

::::The user was blocked --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

== Request for "Pole Charges" Redirect Page ==

 

Hello,

 

 

[[User:Deejaye6|Deejaye6]] ([[User talk:Deejaye6|talk]]) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:: PhantomSteve, thank you for your help, and for the advice on the Help page. I came to this page because when I tried to create the redirect page, I was blocked from it. Apparently, the use of the word "pole" caused an automatic block which told me that only an administrator could create it, and it gave me the link to this page to request assistance. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Deejaye6|Deejaye6]] ([[User talk:Deejaye6|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deejaye6|contribs]]) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

 

== I'm confused.... ==

*Without discussing the actual content, I'd suggest the proper process would be to raise the issue at [[WP:MFD]]. I believe that's the usual location to get broader consensus on issues such as userboxes that may be problematic.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

*It may be best to leave the general question whether this userbox is appropriate undecided. In Germany it would be illegal, but that needn't concern us in this project. What's more important to me is that the mere existence of this template is likely to shorten the wiki career of a certain kind of editor. We can decide in every specific case whether the editor using this userbox is editing in the way that you would expect and needs to be banned. (Added after edit conflict: And I agree with Cube lurker.) [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::It was never properly transcluded. Fixed.--[[User:Chaser|chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|talk]]) 17:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

::::So does that mean notability is ''de facto'' policy, then? [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

::in a sea of reversions that were not BLP violations, [[User:Richmondian|Richmondian]] ([[User talk:Richmondian|talk]]) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

*{{la|Go Chuck Yourself Tour}}

 

 

 

===Another one?===

 

== User:Pmanderson ==

Let the record show, that I have done what I need to do as a good faith editor and civil wp editor to deserve to be free from these attacks. [[User:Gregbard|Pontiff Greg Bard]] ([[User talk:Gregbard|talk]]) 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

:This is one of the rare cases of everybody else who has an opinion on a dispute agreeing with Pmanderson, so I see no chance of any fellow editors from [[WP:MATH]] telling him to stop. The editor who really needs to stop is Gregbard, who is trying to obfuscate articles related to mathematics and logic. Latest example: According to Gregbard, a theorem is "an [[idea]], [[concept]] or [[abstraction]] [[type-token distinction|token instances]] of which are formed using a [[string (computer science)|string]] of [[symbol (formal)|symbols]] according to both the [[syntax (logic)|syntactic rules]] of a [[language]] (also called its [[grammar]]) and the [[transformation rule]]s of a [[formal system]]." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theorem&action=historysubmit&diff=324916676&oldid=324840163] In case you find this as confusing as I (a logician who knows the meaning of all the words in this gibberish) do: The article previously said, correctly, that a theorem is "a statement [[Mathematical proof|proved]] on the basis of previously accepted or established statements such as [[axiom]]s."

::::An article on a winery is definitely not the place to discuss an area's political or legal status. The whole purpose of wikilinks is to make it possible to find more information on a linked subject, such as [[Golan Heights]]. [[User:Tomas e|Tomas e]] ([[User talk:Tomas e|talk]]) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

I do nothing but correct false information propigate by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel! I also think the ADMINISTRATOR who instigate personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness should be admonish by wikipedia, because as admin and respect member of wikipedia, the editor should know not to make personal attack and should know difference between personal attack and regular response. I question neutralness of admin because of his personal attack against editor who not share same view has him, and there fore this admin do not belong making decision in this case. [[User:Ani medjool|Ani medjool]] ([[User talk:Ani medjool|talk]])

:'''Comment''' Lest there be any doubts remaining as to this editor's blatant bias, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel&diff=324934215&oldid=324933567 this] should set them to rest. The Golan categorizations are being dealt with. The question remains as to whether this editor can be trusted to edit articles having anything to do with Israel or Jews with any semblance of neutrality, objectivity and good faith. I think the answer is clear. I suggest a topic ban. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 

 

== user Gilabrand ==

::This is a case of off-wiki [[WP:Canvas|canvassing]] and [[WP:Wikilawyering]]. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I have removed the request from my blog and have requested people not send emails any longer. If any particular person that has emailed becomes a problem, please let me know and I will approach that person personally. My desire is to operate withing the framework of the proper process, but I also am very new to that process, so please bear with me as I learn. I understand that there are pages and pages of information about the proper decorum, and, while I generally try to follow norms of etiquitte (netiquitte?) I don't have the time to read the amount of information about how things work around here. If there were a somewhat brief "getting started" version, that may help. However, I believe my actions have shown that I am willing to work in the process and that includes removing the request from my blog and trying to discuss things orderly on the talk page. I apologise for my error in making the off-wiki request.[[User:Cajun tiger|Cajun tiger]] ([[User talk:Cajun tiger|talk]]) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

::::As I said on another thread, I believe I am partially to blame for this. I directed Cajun tiger to get "community support" and consensus for the change. I meant the Wikipedia community but, being a new user, this could have easily been mistaken (especially in the context of our exchanges) as support from the community who find the images offensive. I apologize for this. [[User:Wperdue|Wperdue]] ([[User talk:Wperdue|talk]]) 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 

:Hey, we're not supposed to [[WP:BITE|bite the newcomers]], are we? :) [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

:: They're not supposed to [[WP:VANDAL|bite]] us, either! [[User:MirrorLockup|MirrorLockup]] ([[User talk:MirrorLockup|talk]]) 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)