Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive483

Odd template problem

Resolved

 – Punctuation is once more important. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone more familiar with {{Recent death}} and {{Unreferenced}} take a look at the page James Benson and fix whatever is happening that's messing up the first line of text?

Some wierd interaction with the templates? Did a template get mangled recently by accident?

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a missing apostrophe. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Astley-related vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked handed out, rollbacks done, my edit history looks like I'm a bot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user is randomly redirecting articles to Rick Astley. The first one I encountered was 67.185.122.33 (talk · contribs), who is a Comcast customer out of Washington state. When I gave them a vandalism warning, they stopped, and 72.178.108.234 (talk · contribs), who is a Road Runner customer out of San Antonio, Texas, picked up the same behavior. After I gave them a warning, they stopped, also, I don't know if this is one user or multiple people disrupting, but it's good to keep an eye on Recent Changes. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A What Links Here check on the Rick Astley entry shows lots of vandalistic redirects. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some kids doing some Rickrolling. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert them and block if necessary, same as always. Chances of sock/meatpuppetry are slim to none. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I've reverted all of the IP's edits and gave the IP a {{uw-redirect4}}. S/he seems to have stopped after I gave the final warning, but it's worth keeping an eye on. – RyanCross (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably something been announced on 4chan or similar. That's why the IPs are completely different - lots of different people. -- how do you turn this on 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I found 66.153.158.183 (talk · contribs) also which was just blocked by Cirt (talk · contribs). – RyanCross (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We now have users undoing the vandalism reversions. See the history of Watermelon. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is playing Whac-A-Mole with them. They'll get bored soon. -- how do you turn this on 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are blocking on sight now if they see this type of redirecting. This will probably be taken care of soon. Just revert if you see this kind of redirecting if you see it. – RyanCross (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked several IPs and rolledback (ha!) all the rickrolling. Boring... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Should also protect the vandalized articles since (I've been told) 4chan people often set up automated vandalism mechanisms. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes related to "Rick Astley" (show linked to) is a useful page for seeing these types of edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Off wiki problems re project from jidf.org

NOTICE: As per my talk page this is a one off account I have created to preserve my real identity from off wiki attacks. I will not use it again after this posting. Please do not C/U or anything else that would violate WP:Outing!!! I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID for this one off posting.

The website http://www.thejidf.org has posted a list of wiki editors and asks that people track their edits. This is off wiki harassment and has bearing on the editors as there may be WP:Outing involved. I would urge oversight on any of the individual editors accounts in case this is the case.

The latest posting comes a a few hours after a wiki editor has been blocked. This editor has been editing in a pro jidf way. I think it is fair to state that the jidf.org posting is connected to the blocking.

Under the heading List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors there are 15 wiki editors named with links to their talk pages.

The posting goes on to say "Behind the scenes, we have been studying their "contributions" to the site and we encourage others to do the same. Please alert us to any problems of POV-Pushing and bias and subtle antisemitic jabs and the standard "Jew baiting" found on Wikipedia (WP) so we may update this list and cite examples. Also, we are looking to get a lot more active on Wikipedia, since many people have pointed out unfair policies there, especially with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. Please keep us posted as to any problems you experience on Wikipedia as it will aid in our research and approach."

This is a serious form of harassemnt and presents serious problems for any editor involved in I/P wiki projects and /or pages.

Thought you should be aware cheers and goodbye from this account .

JIDF Threats (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the list, and I don't see any "outing" nor do I see any harassment or calls for harassment. It is mostly an expression of opinion about the nature of the contributions by the editors listed. In order to stay on the safe side of WP:CIVIL, I will refrain (for now, at least) from stating whether I agree with the characterization of most of the listed editors, or not. While I do not find such off-Wiki lists to be helpful to the project, I don't see a big deal here. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The website mentioned by JIDF Threats is not helpful for the project, but we can't do anything. Nobody can stop people from creating such websites. We should simply ignore these websites and continue making productive edits to Wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Only once they become a problem here can anything really be done about it. And when and if that happens, we deal with them as we deal with all troublesome editors. HalfShadow 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree; not really "outing" editors beyond what's already on their userpages. It's just a list of links to various userpages with the title claiming they all have a heavy anti-Israel bias. In any case, along with the others, it's not our jurisdiction. Find out the username of whoever runs JIDF however, and some reasonable requests might be made. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I make one last point to clarify one thing. This should possibly have been posted above at [1]. The posting on Jidf came mere hours after User:Einsteindonut was blocked again. He has been involved in problems with some of the named editors. I imagine some of his "friends" may have been involved in disputes with the other named editors. That may be a place to start re unravelling which users are working for or are indeed jidf. I am sorry to remain anon here but the external threat of being called an anti semite is a big stick that when used the way jdif use it could cause users off wiki real life problems. This problem from jdif will not go away and they still are all over their page on the project [2], [3]. Hope that clarifies my original posting here. JIDF Threats (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"JIDF Threats" is a self-admitted sockpuppet account which, in their own words, was created in an effort to try to complain about an off-wiki site and to try to connect me to the JIDF - a baseless allegation. I have fully stated my pro-JIDF bias. By doing so, it does not mean that I have anything to do w/ the content on their site. It should be noted that I have fully discussed these issues on my talk page including, but not limited to, my request for checkuser for the account in which I think created this "sock" in order to make these allegations. Is there a better way to request a "checkuser?" I'd like to know as it appears nothing has been done in this case except for this suspected sock puppet thing, despite the fact that, as you can read a precedent had been set in the recent past w/ someone else doing the exact same thing and it appears that the person's sock and master account were indef. blocked. (Or maybe not?) I guess now anyone can create socks in order to try to hide behind baseless allegations and not face any sort of sanctions whatsoever. Personally, I'm happy that the JIDF is paying attention to these double standards and bias in WP and if they are paying attention to all this and do anything on my behalf, I'm thankful, because G-d knows the majority of editors, admins, and Arbcom members haven't done squat except complain about my valid complaints and try to block and threaten to ban me, etc. All of this is discussed on my talk page. Feel free to contribute in an effort toward justice, so the air may be cleared and I can at least TRY to get more involved on WP at a more productive level (which would have happened a long time ago if everyone would have just stopped freaking out on me because I'm a pro-Israel, proud Jew, and a vocal supporter of the organization in question, etc.) Due to complaints about me posting on this board, this is all I want to say here. Please bring it to my talk page if you have any issues with me. I just got out of a block and I'm not looking to start any more trouble. Just wanted to state my piece here and get back to business. Thank you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'm gonna' go notify the editors mentioned in the posting about it. I figure they oughta' know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is really not that much different to what the Wikipedia Review mob do, though the evident extremism of this outfit is concerning. I noticed that someone mentioned above contacting the people behind the website. Do we actually know who these people are? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this site and it's article been brought up here multiple times? HalfShadow 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's been discussed many times. Here are a few links: 1, 2, 3, 4. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, what appears on that page regarding Wikipedia is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the stuff that appears on Wikipedia Review. It is not even in the same league. I am talking specifically about the Wikipedia-related stuff, as there is some other stuff on that page that I have major issues with, but it has nothing to do with this project so we don't need to talk about it. As for wanting to know who "these people" are, why do you care? Do you want to ask them why you aren't included on their list? 6SJ7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this listing of "anti-Israel editors" is no way, shape, or form, anywhere near as bad as the stuff found on that other site ChrisO mentioned for comparison. It's astonishing someone would even think it, much less post it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big step from posting a list of targets to trying to out specific editors, and from the comments below it seems that someone has in fact taken this step. We've seen from WR where this kind of thing can lead. That's why it needs to be taken seriously - certainly more seriously than either of you seem to be taking it. I'd suggest that you also quit the juvenile sarcasm, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is highly relevant for us to notice such lists and report them here. Very helpful in characterizing responses to individual edits or comments or trolling. If those with strong POV identify their targets, it's good to know. DGG (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG is on target: regardless of ideology, when some offsite group begins publishing enemies lists of Wikipedians it's good to be aware of it. If anyone from that site is reading this thread, please be advised of the risk that such a thing can backfire. Durova^Charge! 02:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Both DGG's and Durova's comments seem reasonable enough, as long as one realizes that in any given case (and I'm speaking hypothetically, for now) it may not be the "identifiers" who have the "strong POV" (and edit accordingly), it may be the "identified", or at least some of them. Or it may be both the lister and the listee. In other words, just as Freud knew that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, it may be that the reason that someone is on a list of POV-pushers, is that they actually are a POV-pusher. Hypothetically speaking. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

They are apparently reacting to this [4] provocation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that. Some anon put a swastika flag on that article. It came up in my watchlist, and I reverted it as routine vandalism. [5]. The vandalized version was live for three minutes. --John Nagle (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this anon vandal who I (and you?) had taken to be some kid turned out to be a long standing editor and admin with a history of denying that Jews are a people.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually. Having been asked about this offline, I now can't find any evedence that this guy was an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The proximate cause of their latest outburst is the block that Einsteindonut received and the recent situation involving Eleland. Their "provocation" is that Wikipedia is "Where the antisemites an anti-Israel POV pushers roam relatively free. Where Holocaust denial and revisionism are given nice platforms". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, when Einsteindonut is given an indefinite block for saying Israel should re-take the Sinai (subsequently modified to 72 hours), while Eleland's indefinite, and then 72 hour block for unrepentantly and repeatedly referring to a pro-Israel editor as a "c*nt" is widely protested, then one realizes that something is amiss. And when Einsteindonut's accuser, Puttyschool, is not given a similar block for insisting that the New York Times can be referred to as the "Jew York Times", using a link to Jew Watch as evidence, then the extent of the problem becomes more clear. The latter inequity, has, however, been fixed, by me. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Every time Einsteindonut throws a temper tantrum, the JIDF starts attacking WP editors. Please don't rationalize their behavior. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't defend Einsteindonut's behavior or rationalize the JIDF's. I do recognize some obvious recent inequities on Wikipedia which could lead people to make incorrect assumptions about Wikipedia. And I can also act to redress those inequities, at least to a degree, which I have done. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Malik is voicing the suspicions of many of us that ED is big in the JIDF. If these suspicions are correct then it does merit pointing out and issues such as WP:COI and WP:NPA would come into focus. But, yes, there are troublemakers on both sides and I personally was surprised that it took so long for Putty to be blocked too.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I share Malik's opinion somewhat. The level of drama ED has incited on this board has been decidedly unhelpful to any sort of online peace, as have some of the more extreme comments from himself and his supporters. I don't think we should be defending users on either side who do not appear to have any reason beyond drama to be here. Orderinchaos 11:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just point out that Einsteindonut was not blocked for saying Israel should retake the Sinai, he was blocked for this [6], followed by this [7] - in other words, a deliberate attempt to do exactly the same thing as Eleland to see if he would be blocked for the same time. In the end, he was blocked for less time than Eleland, thus making his protest moot. Such disruption does lead me to believe that we would be better off without him (and the same goes for Puttyschool, for that matter). Black Kite 15:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully refuted this bogus claim in a long discussion with Nishidani which people may find on a previous version of my talk page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

A few weeks ago, User:FayssalF indef blocked the account of User:Obaminator, and remarked that "Creating sockpuppet accounts to question other people's accounts" is not appropriate. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. Notice the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, the same insinuations with regard to User:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. At a minimum, it should be privately communicated to him/her that such behavior will not be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a little empathy is appropriate. The JIDF has tried to "out" two editors — going so far as to publish a photo in one instance — and it has dug up and published detailed information about others. I can understand why an editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, especially when, as noted above, "I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to User:FayssalF's comment the last time this happened. It is simply not appropriate to violate WP policies by creating sock puppet accounts for this purpose. If the editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, they should not be making provocative comments against other editors, or useless AN/I reports about off-wiki groups. NoCal100 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When the id was pointing out JIDF's targetting of individuals, then it was fair enough to be anon. However, the id has moved on to make accusations against ED. Now, several of us do harbour suspicions about him and his connection with the JIDF, but it is clearly moving beyond the initial emit which the account user had set and it is fair enough for NoCal100 to point this out as well as the similarity to Obaminator.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

← Have we all not had enough of this. These accounts need to be reviewed for what contributions they have made to improving the main space and how much WP:SOAP and WP:POINT they engage in on article talkpages. We are building an encyclopedia here, not an open forum or blogspot for the discussion of whose race is superior to whose and throwing labels around in order to incite contention, that ultimately leads to Wikipedia preventative action. This strikes of an agenda other than improving this project. Religion, politics, nationalism, etc. all are prone to biases and POV. We can't allow these to bleed Wikipedia to the point where we forget our objective here. If editors are using this as a forum for pushing a personal point of view, then take action immediately. If after taking action they engage in the same activity, then they need to join an off wiki forum or blogspot, but we don't need them here. I'm amazed at the amount of time that is taken up on debating whether someone should or shouldn't be dealt with, when it is so obvious that they are acting in a manner contrary to our purpose here. I'm no wikilawyer to quote policies and procedures and there should be no need to sing to the choir here. Identify the problem, take action, and if the action fails to remedy it and it's repeated, finalize it and move on. Nothing is always black and white, but sometimes the shades of gray have the effect of deflecting us from the original point. This shouldn't be occurring as often as it does.--JavierMC 06:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question is whether such individuals can be "reformed" so that they become useful editors. WP:IPCOLL does try to keep track of such things and suggests that at least soem individuals do change their manner of contribution.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have got 4 good reasons to...

...block Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Puttyschool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely and help the encyclopedia. Please note that some of the details below have been unknown to most administrators (if not all).

1. wp:ARBPIA and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying#Community urged;
2. wp:NOT; this includes wp:soap and wp:battle;
3. Neither Puttyschool nor Einsteindonut are here to write an encyclopedia. They are here to provoke and attack each other and come to AN/I for wikilawyering. For that, they have been warned more than enough. The situation in the I/P area had still been under control before the appearance of these 2 editors creating havoc and prompting endless battles between established users (be them users with a strong POV or not);
4. WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks and wp:outing (i.e. user:CJCurrie) since Einsteindonut is either a member of the JIDF or someone related to the person who runs that website.

I say a member because:

• He is the only one who used to misspell my user(name). (referring to on-wiki, e-mails and at the JIDF website)
• Everytime Einsteindonut gets implicated in an on-wiki battle something gets posted on the JIDF.
• Insisted hard enough to get the identity of the original account of the user who posted the anti-semitic edits on-wiki (the one I CheckUsered and found out that he's been editing Wikipedia for so long under a couple of accounts). I have always refused to divulge the main account identity to Einsteindonut because of the history of JIDF outing and to protect the real-life identity of a Wikipedia user per the Wikimedia Privacy policy. I have made clear to him that unless it is a law enforcement body approaching the Foundation or an approval from the ArbCom such info cannot be divulged.

I say someone related to the person who runs the website because:

• I have been in contact with Einsteindonut in private and I was given the e-mail address of the guy who I am sure (because of his name) is the one running the website. The e-mail was given to me because I had asked Einsteindonut to stop harassment and outing of editors off-site a while ago before he explained to me that he can't stop "members" from expressing their "views" out there but can give me the e-mail of the person responsible to discuss a deal with (helping out at the wiki article in exchange of that). -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I fully do not appreciate these allegations and that I posted a full point-by-point refutation to this nonsense on my talk page.--Einsteindonut (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. The differences of opinion in article space are minor. The JIDF once did a marginally notable thing, and then disappeared from press reports, so there's not much new to write about them. But some parties involved want continued attention. Hence the drama. So please treat this as a minor disruptive-editor problem. Issue minor blocks and bans when someone gets overly annoying, but don't give it too much attention or do anything drastic. That just encourages them. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely and that's why I never shared the above details with anyone. They just needed to be shared one day in case the disruption wouldn't stop and Wikipedians, regardless of their background, get targeted --which is the case. Anyway, per the archived thread above, I'd say this will remain the last chance. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Putty has asked to vanish, see here. That may well help to reduce tension in this area. IronDuke 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also putting on the record that I support Fayssal's proposal above. Orderinchaos 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FayssalF and JavierMC. While we can not control other websites and what they do in regards to wiki, we do have a degree of control on their on wiki actions. There have been serious violations here, such as outing wiki users, fronting for other organizations, etc. Therefore, I support FayssalF's proposals. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that ED represents anything but himself, or has "outed" anyone. The only thing we have is an accusation he is related to the JIDF, and some unpleasant things said about editors here on some JIDF related website. Regarding the latter, the day I see serious action being taken about the statements of editors here on Wikipedia Review is the day I'll consider supporting this proposal. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Fayssal. It is actually irrelevant whether or not ED is linked with the JIDF - as Fayssal says above, neither he nor Puttyschool are here to build an encyclopedia - they contribute little, yet waste vast swathes of others time with their continuous spats, attacks, wikilawyering and general tendentiousness. We are better off without both of them. Black Kite 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with blocking editors for on-Wikipedia behavior, though that must be done in an even-handed way; we've tolerated far more disruptive editors than ED for quite lengthy periods. Regarding off-Wikipedia behavior, I'm all for blocking for that too, but, like I said, the day I see serious action being taken about the statements made by Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia Review is the day I'll consider taking seriously proposals for blocking editors who allegedly post on other off-Wikipedia sites. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Pigsonthewing calls it a "personal attack" when someone abbreviates his name to "Pigs", and admins defend him for it; whereas calling someone ED is apparently OK. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is where the discussion is going Baseball might I suggest archiving the thread? But nice find......Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We consider each case on its own merits and within its own context, otherwise it looks like a blocking version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Orderinchaos 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to put in the records, that I also agree with FayssalF proposal above, and all neutral POV that also agreed with the above proposal, neither Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) and may be neither me as well(as I only contribute when I found something far away from facts) are here to build an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is better off without both of us.« PuTTY^SchOOL 07:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of those on the JIDF list I really do not care whether ESD is banned/proscribed/punished/held to account/penalised or not. His edits are minor his knowledge base does not appear large. He is an irrelevancy and should be ignored. Time is better spent on editing and if that doesn't suit ESD and JIDF, I do not care. ESD and JIDF are boring and eminently forgettable...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No Personal attacks there, Mr. Excitement! The size of my knowledge base is my business, thank you. Now run along and pull some more material from Electronic Intifada to continue your quest to make WP as non-neutral as possible, (because that will make you memorable)! --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Back up your slur or remove it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, every day and every minute it is clear that Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) is not here to build an encyclopedia, but with a tendency to vandalize, can anyone revise the history of this article and tell me what is wrong with the yellow color, especially it is a Wikipedian article « PuTTY^SchOOL 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page for the article, Putty. This is not the place. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No Eddy, it is the right place to show your JIDF method of attacking Wikipedia« PuTTY^SchOOL 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this right here is a perfect example of a reason to lock them both. HalfShadow 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with that. During periods when both parties are blocked, the article sits there, with nobody making any edits. I'd suggest keeping them both blocked for a while, at least from that article, for disruptive editing and incivility. We all have better things to do than monitor those two. --John Nagle (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The drama needs to stop somewhere. Orderinchaos 07:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, decreasing the number of Wikipedian’s by two in order to enhance Wikipedia is by all means the right decision, especially there are thousands or may be millions of true editors other than both of us. How many new Wikipedian’s join every minute? « PuTTY^SchOOL 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how or why my recommendation that he bring up his "point" on the talk page of the Hezbollah article itself (because the AN/I board is not the place for it), is a "perfect reason to lock" us both. Furthermore, peopl are chiming in yet there has been yet another accusation of "vandalism" with no proof offered whatsoever.

One thing is clear though, I came back on here and started editing the Hezbollah article and stayed away from Puttyschool for good reason. Why he had to "wikistalk" me and revert my work is beyond me. It is my hope that people stop wishing for me to be blocked and banned when I am doing my part to stay away from Puttyschool. I do not feel he has made any valuable contribution to this project. I'm not here to edit war. If people stopped having a general problem with me and stopped various allegations, you'd see more editing, contributions, and an effort to bring much more accuracy and NPOV into this project. From my understanding, alleged vandalism is a serious thing here, so it is my hope that you people could address THAT (and the fact that there is absolutely not proof whatsoever) rather than trying to get me blocked and banned, it would be MUCH APPRECIATED. Thank you.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow what a NPOV you are talking about « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the place, and I made far more edits to that article. I don't see the purpose of trying to make that article look "pretty" w/ the yellow, so I took it out. If you have a problem with that edit, then bring it up in the "talk" area of that article, not here. I worked on that article before you did. Since we do not agree nor get along, I'm trying to not work on the same articles as you. If you could do the same, I'd appreciate it. I'm trying to not get blocked and banned and trying to stay away from you and your own biased editing. No one else seems to have a problem with me removing the yellow border. Again, if you have that much of an issue with it, please bring it up in the talk area. I'm pretty sure the admins are sick of us both, so I'm trying to keep my cool, but I find your provocations very annoying.--Einsteindonut (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying away from each other is a good idea. But more than that, when you've reached mainspace, actual articles, you have gravitated to contentious topics, and edited in what appears to be a fairly non-neutral way. In at least two cases you've touched off edit or move wars. You might want to consider 'improving an article' and 'countering bias' to be two distinct categories, and work at the former while avoiding the latter. Otherwise, if you persist in turning Wikipedia into a battlefield, you will not be likely to be here for very long. And yes, making an edit intended to make a page less attractive is problematic. Jd2718 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're bringing up cases that happened when I first got here. I have not seen color added to any other article except for the Hezbollah one, and I actually thought it was ugly, which is why I took it out. It looked like an attempt to make the page look pretty, but I did not see it that way. My interest and expertise is in issues of the middle east and actually combating bias in the media. I feel I have a right to work on the articles in which I so choose, but have made an effort to stay away from one editor in particular. If I get blocked or banned again, I will be back and next time I will know how to fly under the radar. I believe improving articles and countering bias are equally important, especially since WP tries to pride itself on "NPOV" - if that is the case, then my POV is much needed here. In fact, it is b/c of my POV in which so many people take issue with me. I have a right to my POV and I believe WP could be far more balanced with it. I'm sorry I'm just not an anti-American/anti-Israel leftist like the majority of editors seem to be. That being said, I'd think pro-American and pro-Israel editors who lean to the right should be more than welcome (if this project truly is interested in NPOV.) I do not work to turn WP into a battlefield. It very much already is and is very obvious. That is why there are terms like "edit warring" in the first place and why there have been so many issues in the past. Why has this thread been up for so long? It really doesn't need to be the very first topic on the AN/I board like this forever. If all this undue attention continues, I can almost smell my new internet connection now. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've watched the ridiculous position at JIDF and seen you misbehave for so long that I'd lost hope in the project dealing with this disruption. As a result, I responded to your ridiculous manifesto at your TalkPage. Seeing that project admin is not toothless after all, please feel free to remove my words "Thankyou for that. Perhaps the rest of us can now go away and work on articles, using only Reliable Sources, to policy.". But I see you've hastily (13 minutes) removed the whole discussion! What a pity to conceal the evidence! PR^talk 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one small comment: I see User:Einsteindonut carefully removing every single unsourced name + quite a few sourced ones in the article Cinema of Palestine. But that the article Cinema of Israel has lots and lots of unsourced names for some reason doesn´t seem to bother him at all! Now, that makes me go "Hmmm". Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Results

The uninvolved editors above seem to reflect a strong consensus that Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Puttyschool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been seriously disrupting Wikipedia with their soapboxing and battlefield behavior. I think four or five days of discussion is more than sufficient. Therefore, I am implementing the blocks that FayssalF has suggested. Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I will set these to one year instead of indefinite, and log them at WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman ^Talk 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut has requested unblock and posted a point by point rebuttal on his talk page. I warned ESD more than a month ago[8] and have been watching their behavior ever since. The situation has not changed for the better, in spite of many warnings and chances to improve. Jehochman ^Talk 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It should be both of them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it has to be. HalfShadow 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is both of them. They are each blocked for a year. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant: neither one should be unblocked. HalfShadow 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I blocked them in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ED has now had the material on his page removed.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettable. But the threats left on the protected version of ED's page does rather confirm his connection to the JIDF. The use of the first person plural is particularly revealing.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and following my post above, ED has sent me this offline "first person plural my ass. i don't even think you're jewish and if anything you were behind the anti-semitic attacks in the first place. it will be fun watching your edits from afar as well." I hope he likes opera and Greek myth.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ED has "retired" from Wikipedia, leaving behind an angry message. Amusingly, after all the complaints from ED about being "censored", his is the last edit, six days ago. We can probably close this incident. Some minor vigilance for future sockpuppet problems is indicated, but that's about it. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Namzso (and User talk:Tmoszman)

This is a single-purpose account whose only focus is to continually remove references to conspiracy rumors about Paul Wellstone's death, against consensus. There is no assertion that the rumors are true, only that they existed. [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that the rumors themselves are based solely on conspiracism. The point is that it is factual that there were rumors and suspicions. The SPA is basically trying to enforce censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

His other contributions have to do with purging anything from the Norm Coleman article that casts him in a bad light. So it's clear what his POV agenda is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He has also reverted 4 times in the last 11 hours or so. I am in process of notifying him of this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've turned him in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also speculate that Tmoszman is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, given the similar single-purpose nature of their activities along with the obvious similarity in their names. It's also interesting that Namzso's first edit was the day after Tmoszman's last edit. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bugs, granted that you have a strong suspicion on the two, I think you might want to make a RFCU from a CU-capable admin on that issue. Cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't doubt they're the same guy, but it looks like one simply replaced the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bugs, you could try a reverse psychology move on him. Lay a trap and see if he would respond to it because most socks are quite full of themselves, even priding on the fact that they aren't being noticed or caught yet. But, we all know better, right? You can fool somebody sometime but you can't fool everybody everytime. Sooner or later, he's going to make a mistake and we'll be ready, eh? ...Dave1185 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since the one seems to have stopped just before the other one started, I'm not sure it matters at this point. I'm waiting for someone to respond to the 3RR complaint, but that page doesn't seem to turn over quickly like WP:AIV does. However, there are other users ready to confront that guy, which is one reason I didn't also violate 3RR by reverting him again. We'll see what today brings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he's invented an SPA for this purpose. [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You can banish him by writing his name backwards. No wait, that's vampires. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or by tricking him into saying it backwards. Wait. That's Mr. Mxyzptlk. Imagine; being forced to vanish just for saying 'Kltpzyxm'... Oh fu...*POP* HalfShadow 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected for three days as a result of the 3RR complaint. I hope that editors who feel strongly, either for or against the inclusion of a conspiracy theory, will join the Talk page of the article and make an understandable case for their position. Anyone who suspects the abuse of multiple accounts is welcome to file an WP:RFCU. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually just one user, under several guises, who keeps reverting it. His narrow focus of edits reveal a pro-Republican POV agenda. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And he's been at it for months now, so 3 days isn't likely to make any difference. It will more likely devolve into several established editors taking turns reverting the guy, while he will likely use his various red-links to keep it going. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's far from clear that there is any Talk page consensus on whether to include the newspaper reports of conspiracy rumors. (The Talk discussion has now died out). An WP:RFC would be one way of handling it that avoids resuming the edit war. A recent complaint says that the conspiracy can only be cited to fringe sources, and I haven't seen any effort to rebut that claim. The James Fetzer book about the rumor seems to lack an ISBN and may be self-published. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The red-link socks claim that the book is self-published and that therefore it disqualifies it as a source. The problem is that no one is saying there was a conspiracy - they're saying there were rumors of a conspiracy, which the presence of that book demonstrates. After the plane crash of another Democratic Senator in 2000, Mel Carnahan of Missouri, conspiracy paranoia was understandable. The red-link socks are on a mission to expunge anything that makes the GOP look bad, specifically in Minnesota - which is why his entire focus is the Paul Wellstone and Norm Coleman articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that all this critique of other editors' motives (these 'red-link socks') will help others at Talk:Paul Wellstone reach a consensus. If the conspiracy rumors are notable, they should have registered somewhere in the land of reliable sources. The fact that they are noted only in self-published material or blogs is not persuasive. These rumors might have been noted in actual reliable sources, but somebody would have to do the research to find that out. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no indication that that user is interested in anything about consensus. He couldn't persuade, so his answer is to foment an edit war. The only reason I'm even watching the page is because someone tried to revert a picture I had uploaded - one that I took, yet. At some point here I'm expecting the more involved defenders of the page to take part in this discussion. If they don't, I'll stop watching the page and let the red-link slug it out with them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, the Strib apparently covered the rumors in their June 3, 2003, edition. That is apparently no longer online, but some ambitious sort who wants to go to the Hennepin County Library this weekend could probably look into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The red-link also seems to have disappeared since being warned of his 6RR violation and the consequent page protection, although he was not actually blocked, and the talk page is not protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

Resolved

 – PoliticianTexas banned by the community for copyright violations and egregious sockpuppetry. [14:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)]

(relisting this - still building consensus --Uncia (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Since our last report here [12], LamyQ (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images, the latest being File:ESPANOLA PLAZA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-01 and File:EspanolaValleyVolleyball.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-03. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a sockpuppetry case against him too, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). --Uncia (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting... x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this user is at the very least a PoliticianTexas meatpuppet. Uploading the exact same images as an indefblocked user? The chances of that happening are only slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Even without this to consider, this user clearly KNOWS about our upload policies--I counted at least three good uploads in his log. Blocked indefinitely. Blueboy96 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for PoliticianTexas?

Now that I think of it, is it safe to consider PoliticianTexas banned? This user has 21 confirmed socks and two more suspected socks. Sorry, but that's just too much disruption in a short period of time. Blueboy96 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background: DoriSmith has been tracking PoliticianTexas since about July 2008, see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. Dori and I have been collaborating since late August 2008 on tracking down his image copyright violations , see User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs.

The image search is a losing battle, because it takes him only minutes to find and upload a new image and it takes us hours or days to track down its source so it can be speedy-deleted. The process is eased somewhat because he keeps uploading a lot of same images (after we have caused them to be deleted) and we keep good records (see User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs).

The sock puppet case-building is also a losing battle. As soon as one of his socks is blocked, he creates another one and starts uploading again.

Most of his disruption is due to this copyright-violating activity. His edits are so-so and mostly concern minutiae such as adding tables of elected officials or updating the standings of his favorite high school athletic teams. If he stuck to editing text he probably would not attract anyone's attention.

Dori and I don't see any good solutions to the PoliticianTexas problem. We hope that he will get discouraged and go away but so far this hasn't happened. --Uncia (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(I think WP:CU are going to start hating me...)Is there an underlying ip or small range that can be hardblocked, or are they dynamic/wideranging? Perhaps a WP:Request for checkuser may find that he could be stopped from creating new accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a permanent community ban, although I'm not sure what that would do to change the current dynamic.

As part of an RFCU, I asked about an IP range block a few months ago, and I was told then that it wasn't possible. In the last month alone, he's used:

• 71.30.144.116 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.147.211 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 8 Oct
• 71.30.148.190 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.150.198 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.233.90 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.235.6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 6 Oct
• 75.88.239.68 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 76.26.108.145 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 164.64.135.194 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 207.155.116.232 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 5 Oct
• 216.135.172.188 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 216.243.118.166 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Sadly, it appears that it would take blocking all of k12espanola.org and windstream.net—and I'm okay with that, but I doubt many others would be.

And while I hate to correct Uncia, I just looked it up, and I've been keeping an eye on this user since May, off and on. Personally, I'd like to get back to (gasp!) editing an encyclopedia. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What a community ban would do is enable block-on-sight of all socks and revert/delete-on-sight of all contributions. It would also allow for unlimited checkuser requests. And based on his history, he's going to be back--this will just make it easier for us to deal with him. I've become more inclined toward "revert, block, ignore," but since we're talking about copyvios here ... Blueboy96 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. What's the process, outside a few people here saying, "yeah, that would be a good idea."? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[Note: I modified the above list of IPs to show that he's still actively editing/vandalizing, just with varying anon IPs.] Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[Ditto. --Uncia (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)]]

• Support ban. Definitely. I have some experience with this sockpuppeteer; no redeeming value. Tan | 39 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support a ban as per Wikipedia:Banning policy and, as needed, the use of {{Db-g5}} as per WP:CSD#G5: created/uploaded by banned user while banned. — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• A ban is sounding reasonable. This is not someone who is interested in working with other editors within the bounds that have been set up with regards to copyrights, verifiability, etc. Much effort of many editors is being wasted in dealing with this, and if a ban would make it easier, that would be good. Aleta ^Sing 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, IDK a-lot about this user but just a glance at the situation would tell you that a ban would be the best for everybody. SteelersFan94 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with SteelersFan. I don't know this user, but looking at the situation, I believe a ban would be a good idea at this point. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Created another new account

If you look at the contributions and history, it's clear that (as expected) he's created a new account: he's now editing as DeLaCueva (talk · contribs · logs · block log). As I asked a couple of days ago, what's the process to get him banned? And after that, what's the process from then on--go to RFCU, which takes a few days, and then clean up after him again every time? Or can Uncia and I just come here and report his new accounts and get him shut down asap? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually simple to enact a community ban--determine whether there's a strong enough consensus that this user has exhausted the community's patience. When that happens, any socks he makes can be blocked on sight, and any and all contribs he makes can be deleted and reverted on sight. Most of his socks (or in LamyQ's case, meatpuppets) are relatively easy to spot (though I'm not quite certain about DeLaCueva), so reporting them either here or at WP:AIV should be the fastest way to whack him. Blueboy96 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible DeLaCueva isn't one of his socks--but any time someone comes on WP and in their first three hours (1) creates an article about an Espanola school, (2) edits three pages to point to the new article, (3) reverts a fourth article (twice) to go back to a previous sock's edits, (4) removes SP tags from his user talk page, and (5) clearly doesn't know/care about either Edit summary or Preview, I'll tend to guess that it's another PolTx sock. Not to mention that those two reversions would have put him over 3RR if he'd done them using the IP he started with that evening. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this thread there are four supporters of a ban (DoriSmith, Uncia, Tanthalas39, Athaenara) and no opponents. Is it consensus yet?--Uncia (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban now also supported in this thread by Aleta and Steelerfan-94; total 6 in favor and 0 opposed. --Uncia (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Including me, make that seven, if you want to count an impartial observer of this ANI page, after reviewing the history. I think it's a shame that IP range blocks aren't possible. It's also a shame that there isn't an article or upload protection level between "semi-protect" and "full-protect" that prevents uploading and editing by users with less than some threshold of productive mainspace edit history. =Axlq 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

With the addition of GameShowKid, Axlq, and Blueboy96, I count it as 9-0. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm.... You're gonna seriously consider a community ban on the basis of the opinion of nine people? Come on, get real. Maybe this person deserves to be banned, I don't know from that, but it ssurely can't be done in such an off-hand fashion, as if nine people accurately represent the will of the community? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look up at the top of this section, Uncia says, "still building consensus"--that's the current status. He and I were just keeping a count of noses because people are adding opinions all over (and with the addition of Erik the Red 2, it's at 10-0). No one, to the best of my knowledge, is talking about closing this yet. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppetry case against DeLaCueva and 71.30.147.211, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (3rd). --Uncia (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a ban, but let's see the result of the sockpuppet case first. If it turns out that they are sockpuppets, then the user could just be blocked indef for socking without discussion here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go through the whole history (which I don't recommend, btw; it's fairly dull), you'll see that he's been blocked indefinitely 24 times. Twenty-four accounts, all of which have been blocked. Any time one is blocked, he just opens another the next day and starts all over again. That's why this has gone to talking about a ban. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning having a discussion about a ban, I'm sure the history warrants it, I was questioning the idea that the ban might be put into effect based on such a small sample. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolution of sockpuppetry case: DeLaCueva blocked indefinitely as sock puppet of PoliticianTexas. --Uncia (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. You don't know shit. seicer | talk | contribs 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ew. Well, to the extent that we don't seem to know where to go with a clear consensus that, in order to streamline cleaning up after all those still-proliferating socks, the banning policy should be applied, user DeLaCueva is just that much almost right ;-) What's next? — Athaenara ✉ 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Based upon the SSP result, the indef on the main account, the proliferating sockfarm, and the general disregard for copyright and site policies, I'll support the proposal for a ban. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin support for a siteban. Enough, I say. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a week, and no one's objected to banning this user. Moreover, DeLaCueva, per new evidence, is clearly a sock of PoliticianTexas. I'm going ahead and enacting the ban. Blueboy96 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

group of biased editors

The users Wikidemon (talk · contribs), GoodDamon (talk · contribs), and Grsz11 (talk · contribs) consistently band together, regardless of what time it is with seemingly no edit histories linking them together. The reason for my assumption of this is this edit which in my opinion is an example of them e-mailing each other and ganging up on Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs). They preform the following:

• Not allowing sourced, relevant pieces of information into the article through their team of fake consensus as seen here.
• They try and stop discussion from taking place as seen here.
• They both delete parts of talk pages alleging personal attacks as the reason (although they're aren't any) as seen here and here

Not to mention leaving template warnings on my talk page and the talk page of Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) that are blatantly misleading in their intentions. This is an on-going problem over the last few days/weeks with these editors. I would like an admin to take a look at this. Thank you. Digital^Ninja 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that these editors are Campaign staff is a very serious accusation to make, and constitutes a personal attack in the way you have made it without any evidence to support it.

I strongly suggest you drop this. --Barberio (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Accusing long-standing Wikipedia editors of a conspiracy is a bad idea. The discussion that was closed and ended was basically this discussion. I would stop this line right now, this is bound to go badly for you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that they may not be campaign staff, but they are biased never the less. I'm trying to AGF with them, but it's not the first time they've been talked to regarding closing down discussions prematurely. I'm going to stay away from the Obama article for at least 48 hours until I calm down out of good faith. It would be nice if they would as well. Digital^Ninja 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to AGF with them? If starting an administrative noticeboard complaint with a header that accuses them of being campaign staff is an attempt to exercise good faith, I'd hate to see you assuming bad faith. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to stay away from the article for a while, I think that's a good idea. However, suggesting someone else do the same is a bit ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion this evening concerned, among other things, a gross violation of WP:BLP on the Barack Obama page, which is under probation. I am the one who closed it down here. There was nothing premature about it. A BLP violation cannot be allowed to stand, especially such an obvious one. No amount of discussion makes a BLP violation OK for the article. And the warning DigitalNinja links to is from a POV-pushing editor who has been topic-banned. --GoodDamon 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll stay away until I have a clear head. It was just a suggestion that others do the same, either way I will. I strongly urge that the situation is examined by someone more familiar with Wikipedia than myself, and I stand by that. Digital^Ninja 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have to point out I was in no way asking that they BLP violation you're speaking of be included. I was speaking about my well sourced link to the Fanny Mae funds. And the top banned person you are speaking of is leaning the wrong direction (he's pro-obama). I was simply calling attention to having the discussing shut down prematurely, in my opinion. Either way, I'm going to take a break for a while. If anyone needs a response, please message me on my talk page and I'll reply this weekend. Regards. Digital^Ninja 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. If you're referring to User:Curious bystander, he's actually quite the opposite, and was topic-banned for attempting to insert poorly-sourced negative content and attacking editors who disagreed. --GoodDamon 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother responding to accusations made against me - if anyone takes this seriously I could. A self-imposed article break is a great idea for DigitalNinja, and I certainly appreciate the respectful tone in the above comment. The talk page and editing process have become quite a mess in the past couple days from a number of seemingly unrelated vandals, trolls, tendentious editors, SPAs, etc. It would be great if we could get an impartial adminsitrator to volunteer for hall monitor duty but I'm afraid they've all been chased off. So the duty falls on those established editors willing to be persistent and thick skinned. One of the tools in managing the talk page is to close down disruptive discussions. Another is to leave messages, templated or not, regarding article probation, editing practices, etc. That's what we're supposed to do -- certainly before edit warring, rushing to file AN/I reports, or using the talk pages to get into arguments with disruptive editors. It would be most helpful if we could have an authority figure urge the editors on the page to take more seriously Wikipedia's policies more seriously regarding civility, edit warring, NPA, etc., as well as article probation, if and when they do return over at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, wikidemon warns Grss about over-reverting, then wikidemon takes over reverting and finally Grss emails wikidemon. So why are they taking turns reverting someone's edits and apparently coordinating their efforts? It seems like an organized attempt to control certain articles. Also, if possible, I don't know how this works, but feedback from people involved in "their" articles is not really appreciated. I'd also like to add that wikidemon has come off as threatening, as if he had some authority to ban, and has closed off conversations (here and here) instead of answering questions I'd put forth regarding policy. I'd like to note that some people have dropped in, in support of my edits, but haven't signed in because they are apparently afraid of retribution by the "clique." Additionally, the content was not a BLP violation, it was factual and relevant for an encyclopedia article - but apparently not a fluff piece.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia users email each other, there's nothing wrong with doing that and you're going to have to find more than that to prove something dodgy is going on here. I agree he shouldn't be arbitrarily trying to shut down discussions. I actually thought you guys were being hard done by and that this report should be taken more seriously. But then I started looking at the diffs provided when I noticed that you lot wanted to add into the middle of a sentence about Obama's religious beliefs, information that he has been declared the "Messiah" - "Obama is a Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life and has recently been declared the Messiah by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan". And I thought, who's POV-pushing? Sarah 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be a bad example, but I also said in the discussion that maybe I should've put it in the "political and cultural image" section. When a major religious leader, especially from the area in which you live, declares you to be the Messiah, then that is notable and should be included in some shape or form. They also shot down the discussion of him belonging to the Chicago CSA since it is a socialist organization, and that is apparently slanderous. Oh, and there is video of Farrakhan declaring Obama the Messiah, and it was recently shown on Fox News - this isn't something I made up and it was sourced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors shut down discussions all the time on the page, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's one of the ways to keep things peaceful on the article. It's not arbitrary and it's not over POV. Discussions that use the talk page as a forum, for racist vandalism, to provoke trouble with other editors, or that degenerate into incivility and attacks with no reasonable likelihood of improving the article, all get closed. Personal attacks are deleted or redacted often. If you look at the page at any given moment about half the articles are closed, and that's with a 5 day archive. You don't even see the stinkers that got deleted - lots of N-words and talk about gay people. Most troublemakers get the hint, and if they don't they get blocked - usually they are simple vandals or sockpuppets. This backfires sometimes where we run into a tendentious or misguided fighter, or someone bites the newbie. But it's all routine article maintenance. Again, it would be wonderful if we could have an administrator in the house to shut down and delete disruptive talk page contributions, but without that the community hast to do it. I can't speak to each of the examples below, but I'm pretty sure none of the below editor's discussions were not shut down until he started getting abusive in his comments to other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being racist now? Or is it just subtle enough for you to deny the accusation? Also, you are flat out lying when you say that you shut down the discussion because I was being "abusive." Here is where you shut down the argument, and it was right after I proved YOU were wrong about simple logical deductions.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. But I will accuse you of very low comprehension of what you are reading. I don't accuse you of racism or sockpuppetry, and I don't lie, so please stop making things up. That is indeed among the conversations I and other community members closed for growing uncivil after they had degenerated past the point of any possible improvement to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah so your answer is that your accusation of racism was just subtle enough for you to say "that's not what you meant." I suppose this accusation of sockpuppetry when you refer to "those" editors doesn't include me now does? I can't wait to hear your twist on that one since you are obviously refering to me and DigitalNinja. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some better examples of edits they've shut down:

1) I sourced an article that Obama had been bumming cigarettes while on the campaign trail, but this wasn't notable enough to be included. HOWEVER, the fact that he promised to quit WAS notable enough to be included, and if you look at the article now, you'll see that it states that Obama quit - when that is at odds with the facts.

2) There is a small blurb on the Annenberg Challenge, Barack was chairman of it, I sourced that the 110 million dollars spent on improving education, under his leadership, didn't improve education in any measurable way. This is his only executive experience, and the results of it aren't "notable" enough to devote half a sentence?

3) The weakest of the three, I sourced that Barack signed a contract with and was endorsed by the Chicago DSA, which I use a simple syllogism with in order to summarize his association - syllogisms are allowed and not OR. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing disruption

One of the problematic editors here, Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is WP:Canvassing some rather aggressive editors he knows have harangued me here in the past.[13][14] Can we please wrap this up before it gets mean and nasty? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have their email addresses like you do with Grzz, et all, and so I can't privately get a posse to come to my rescue. I've noticed that you've spent MONTHS on this board - why is that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to counsel this editor about what's wrong with that kind of attitude but I am obviously not getting through. Perhaps someone else could help. To give a few pointers about Wikipedia, everyone here has everyone's email address. I'm not sure where to find it but there is a system for sending private emails to anyone who has indicated an email address in their "preferences" tab. Next question. I am on this board for three or four reasons. As a long-term Wikipedian who has written close to 100 articles and cares about free content more generally on the Internet I try to keep an eye on the goings on here. It's like a citizen attending a city council meeting. Where I feel I can help with a comment or question I'll jump right in, mindful that there's business to be done here on AN/I and it's not just a gab-and-complain session. Third, I am one of those "troll patrol" people you sometimes hear about. When I see something getting out of hand I do what I can, and call it to the attention of the administrators if I think it's ripe for a look. With only 1,400 administrators here we non-admins are often the eyes and ears of the admin volunteers, and we have an important role to play because we are often out in the trenches, article-wise, and spot small problems before they become big ones. Finally, people often drag me here to complain about me. I think I've become some kind of mascot among disruptive editors who wish I weren't standing between them and whatever nonsense they're trying to pull here. You should know that from your egging on the recently blocked editor who is vowing to devote his Wikipedia career to revealing my badness and doing me in.[15] Hope this helps. And please, until someone who will listen to can get to you with this advice, please do not assume that other editors here who disagree with an edit you wish to make are all engaged in some nefarious conspiracy. You might pause to consider the possibility that they are not only sincere, but might have a good point as well. Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading - it was sensationalized.Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - although knowing that the original heading read "Barack Obama Article and Campaign staff and/or biased support white-washing everything" does help readers get a sense of context for what the filer of the report might have in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as I pointed out to you before - which you scrubbed from your talk page. If you were so interested in an open discussion, then you wouldn't have closed the discussion on the Annenberg et all, information. You flat out declared the conversation was over and then closed it after I pointed out that simple logical deductions are allowed according to wikipedia policy. You then berated me for not assuming good faith after you shut it down when I proved you were wrong. As for "canvassing," you are doing that secretly not only through emails, but you were also trying to get an admin involved on your side here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone, please counsel the above editor on good faith, and making paranoid unsubstantiated accusations about other editors. I'll give a set of diffs in a minute, but this editor is severely misguided, which is leading to a lot of disruption.Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't mean you maintain it in the face of evidence to the contrary. I proved you were wrong on the Barack talk page and then you closed the entire discussion. What am I supposed to assume?TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means that you do not use conjecture, supposition, and syllogism to "prove" that editors far more experienced than yourself are in some kind of a plot to do evil on Wikipedia. Whatever kind of evidence you think you have that everyone else on the talk page is evil, obviously that is the kind of evidence you should not be making that sort of decision on.Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are using multiple straw men. It is really quite simple - I proved your argument didn't fit with wikipedia policy, that I was correct and you were not - and then you closed the conversation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you. You need to change your attitude towards other editors and editing the encyclopedia if you wish to continue editing here. Particularly on the Obama pages because they are under article probation. The sooner you do that, the sooner we can all get back to editing. If you continue, you are going to get blocked. That would not do anyone any good. So take a breather. You obviously won't listen to me, so listen to some other experienced hands if and when they take the time to look over this. Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Grsz11

Frankly I don't know how my name came up in this, other than the fact that I sent Wikidemon an e-mail. Today was the most active I've been at the Obama page in months (5 months to be exact), so to make an accusation of a continued campaign to shut out other opinions is outlandish. Also, none of the "evidence" presented refers to me, and I would like my name redacted. Grsz^X 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to be here either. We have inexperienced or just confused editors lashing out at things. You know that expression about catching a tiger by the tail? I think we have some confused angry editors by the tail. We're just at the wrong place and wrong time here. Sorry I haven't had a chance to read your email yet. You do have every right to send what you want to others, but in general I do prefer to be transparent about everything except certain sockpuppet-related issues, and of course any social networking matters that don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with.Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I left an e-mail instead of a message, imagine that. Grsz^X 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, what seemed like you two coordinating your revert war, by taking turns so you don't get 3RR, was simply a misunderstanding. Again - my bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean really, if we were tag-teaming, I wouldn't have gotten blocked. Grsz^X 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Locust, you making personal attacks as you did above isn't going to convince anyone. It just makes you look paranoid. Just because more than one person disagrees with you doesn't make this a conspiracy. Any editor can email any other (who has email enabled), and many editors post on the relevant talk page to inform them to check their email. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dayewalker, but if you look up a bit, I showed the sequence of events - Grsz11 was reverting posts until he got to his limit, Wikidemon warned him to stop, and then started doing the same reverts on his behalf. This is just a matter of record and I outlined it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked it up. I'm right. Again, more than one editor disagrees with you, so more than one editor has been reverting your edits. There's no grand conspiracy here, just a content dispute. Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't force you to read the evidence I've presented, which is obvious since you seem to think I was talking about reverts to me, when I was talking about reverts they've both conspired on against someone else. Again, I presented the evidence way up there, but if you can't be bothered to read it, then why can you be bothered to form an opinion?TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Well-informed opinion formed, thanks. You're making personal attacks based on the faulty assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be conspiring against you, based on the fact that one editor warned another about breaking WP:3RR. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's not the whole story now is it? Not only did he warn him about 3rr, but he then went and continued the edit war on his friend's behalf. As if that wasn't bad enough, they are emailing each other for who knows what purpose. This group of people have organized to edit war with the appearance of propriety and it is unacceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole story is as I have said above, more than one person disagrees with you. If that happens, more than one person will change your edits, especially if it involves WP:BLP. Why does it require a conspiracy for two editors who disagree with you, both active, to both revert your edits? As for a group of people organizing to edit war, your attempt at canvassing this evening certainly seems that. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are being completely unreasonable. As I have said before, the evidence I presented was of them working together in a revert war against another editor - not me. Why can't you understand this? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence? One of them starts an edit war, the other one messages him, and then continues the edit war on their behalf while secretly emailing each other. Why do you keep on attacking me by saying it is a disagreement with me? The evidence I presented had nothing to do with me. You need some perspective or to step back and let more reasonable minds prevail. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's your next round of personal attacks. My mind is quite reasonable, thanks. Based on what I see on this page, this conversation won't help, so I'll just let my part of this thread end. Dayewalker (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How are they "secretly" e-mailing if he mentions it on the talk page with a giant header? --Smashville^talk 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You think that is their usual MO? They screwed up - usually they aren't putting that kind of evidence on wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're a secretive cabal of Obama campaign staffers again? Uh-huh... So, how much longer does this "incident report" have to stay open? If necessary, I'm happy to have a checkuser run on me, just to clear up this nonsense. --GoodDamon 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser won't prove anything and you know it. If possible, i'd like to see the emails your little group has going back and forth between each other, but I don't see that happening. TheGoodLocust (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

GoodDamon, I think the admins are more amused than anything else, and playing with him at this point.<cabal-secret>Calling all agents. Uh-oh, he's on to us! Did he catch us implanting the electrodes? I hope he didn't read our white paper on the famous aluminum defense. Lay low for a while, I think we can hoodwink all of the admin agents here.</cabal-secret> Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait...What's this about you having two asses? HalfShadow 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wise trusted authority figure needed

A look at the past day or so of editing from Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows some serious problems. The question is why, and what to do about it. I don't think he's trying to misbehave. He simply doesn't seem to have a good grasp of what we're doing here in terms of content and behavior policies. Here are some diffs that may help. Please, folks, if you are neutral and wise and will take the time to guide him he can make a productive editor. If you let him continue he's headed to the block log for sure.

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH)[16][17][18][19][20]
• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[21][22]
• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[23][24][25]
• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[26][27][28]

WP:AGF problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[38][39][40][41][42][43]
• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[44]

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[45][46][47][48][49]
• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[50][51][52]
• "bullshit"[53], "whitewashed"[54] etc.[55]
• random disruption on talk page[56][57][58]

Again, I'm not advocating for the editor to be blocked or banned, but could someone please put a foot down here? Thanks, 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated an unthreaded version of my comment so that people can get a grasp of this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah? Does Farrakhan qualify as a "reliable source" in wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

commented version

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH)[59][60][61][62][63]

That is a mischaracterization of what I said. He signed a pledge with a socialist political organization and that is relevant. Also, at least one other editor agreed with me on this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And many more did not, pointing out that this deduction was not covered by WP:NOTOR. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And by "many more" you meant yourself and one other editor. Also, your argument that it wasn't "obvious" betrays your lack of understanding of simple logic. I used the EXACT type of logic that was explicity allowed under NOTOR. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[64][65]

The article says he quit smoking, and when I bring up the fact that he "bums smokes", which was the sources wording, not mine, it suddenly isn't notable. Also, at least one other editor agreed with me on this.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, many others did not. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, by "many others" you mean "Wikidemon."TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[66][67][68]

Not only was that on a talk page, but your assertion that he isn't is ridiculous. Me and another poster were flabergasted at how unreasonable you were being. Bill Ayers founded a terrorist organization, it was defined as such by the FBI and he bombed buildings - he is a terrorist.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And this was a rehash of a rehash of a rehash, ad nauseum. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a rehash since you and wikidemon refuse to see reason. A person founding and FBI-declared terrorist organization who participated in terrorist activities is a terrorist. You are plainly being unreasonable by your refusal to admit that. What term did you want us to use? "Freedom fighter?"TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[69][70][71]

The 3rr was redacted by the admin when I pointed out that I wasn't reverting. Farrakhan did say that, there is video, and he is an important religious figure - especially in Chicago. Oh, and at least one other editor agreed with my change, maybe more if you hadn't started throwing random threats around. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And this was the gross WP:BLP violation I referred to earlier. If Farrakhan says something absurd about somebody, that absurdity doesn't belong in the subject's BLP, any more than if I say it. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you have never explained how it is a BLP violation. Farrakhan is not only a major religious figure, but he is an important citizen in Chicago, especially Obama's district as they live in the same neighborhood. Obama has marched with Farrakhan, Farrakhan was named man of the year by Obama's church, Farrakhan and OBama's pastor went to Libya together, Michelle Obama and Farrakhan's wife have spoken together on boards. Again, Farrakhan is a major religious figure, and a major player in Chicago social circles, but the best you can come up with is that it is "somehow" a BLP violation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]

Just like your friend called my posts "random garbage" "trolling" and a few other choice words. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[81][82][83][84][85][86]

Well if you didn't take turns in revert wars and secretly email each other then it wouldn't look that way now would it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[87]

You closed a conversation after I proved you wrong - I can't AGF with you after that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[88][89][90][91][92]

You've accused me of racism, sockpuppetry, subtlely threatened me and closed my conversations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[93][94][95]

Because you were trying to whitewash the conversation, which only moved there after you closed it down on the Barack talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "bullshit"[96], "whitewashed"[97] etc.[98]

And you friend Grss said "fucking" - what is your point? Oh and last time I checked, about 5-6 other editors agreed with me that it was "bullshit." TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• random disruption on talk page[99][100][101]

By "random disruption" you mean I restored the evidence you whitewashed that the other editor found of you and Grss conspiring together? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not advocating for the editor to be blocked or banned, but could someone please put a foot down here? Thanks, 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(STOMP) Did that help? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually find this whole thing pretty funny. The entire complaint seems to be predicated on the fact that a user has his e-mail enabled...but the user who is doing the most complaining on this ANI has his e-mail enabled...You're going to have to find a lot better evidence than that to prove anything... --Smashville^talk 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not predicated on the email that is incidental. Grss was close to 3 rr for his reverts, wikidemon cautioned him to watch out, and then wikidemon started doing the exact same reverts on Grss's behalf. These is how these people work - they tag team edits they don't want into submission while giving subtle threats to those they are trying to suppress.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not tag team editing when a large group of unconnected people, who have stated and concurred in their reasoning for their editorial opinion, and who have given legitimate chance for someone to make their case, all take turns reverting the insertion of unacceptable material into an article from a single editor set on adding it. That is called consensus editing. --Barberio (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all they aren't "unconnected" - that's the point, they are communicating to coordinate their efforts. Second, you are hardly a neutral source since you are heavily involved in the article I mentioned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. Drop this matter. You are wrong. Your theory that there is a conspiracy based on the fact that one person e-mailed another is so mind-numbingly inane that it hurts my brain trying to figure out how someone could actually think what you are thinking. You are doing nothing more than disrupting the project. Stop it now. --Smashville^talk 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a strawman - you keep on bringing up the email like that is my only evidence. That is merely circumstantial. All it takes is a cursory glance at wikidemon and gooddamon's activities on the Barack Obama talk page to see how they shut down all edits they have an idealogical conflict with - regardless of revelancy or facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is probably going to be your last warning on this issue.

Please read the terms of the community approved article probation on articles and edits related to Barack Obama, and either understand that this applies to you and moderate yourself by stopping being a combative and aggressive editor, or refrain from editing these articles at all. You are currently risking a block for up to a year for your behaviour if you continue. --Barberio (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

I've taken myself off the case in terms of policing these articles, because I find it unpleasant, unsupported, and unrewarding.Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose agenda account, and the diffs cited above provide ample evidence of issues with assuming bad faith, personal attacks and personalizing the dispute, canvassing, and a WP:BATTLEfield mentality. The article probation specifies a low tolerance for this sort of thing. On the other hand, he's not been edit-warring that I can see, rather just going on at the talk page. I'd like to reserve this section for commentary from uninvolved editors and admins as to a) whether anything should be done under terms of the article probation, and b) if yes, what? MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest one final chance to back off and be civil, with a formal warning that if he doesn't, he will be blocked till after the election. --Barberio (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't uninvolved Barberio - isn't this thread supposed to be for those without an agenda?TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is classic disruption, anyone who disagrees with Locust is either involved or agenda-pushing. For the record I was completely uninvolved, and you didn't even try to listen to me either. Dayewalker (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And anyone, or when several anyones in many of the recent cases, disagree with the article owners, they are involved in disruption. Classic. CENSEI (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself have never edited this, or any other, related article. From my point of view, the central problem with this situation is in major violations of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE with regard to the Obama article:

1. The use of unreliable sources in the interest of providing "balance" to the article
2. The misrepresentation of information from "fringe" or "unreliable" sources as reprsenting a prevailing or mainstream viewpoint
3. The demand for inclusion of trivial or irrelevant information, out of balance with that informations importance to the article
4. A misrepresentation of NPOV to mean "not to MY point of view".

I have no idea who is in violation of these NPOV problems, near as I can tell all sides are. I would support an explicit statement that allows uninvolved admins to block any user who deliberately continues to violate NPOV in this way after being warned to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than the ANI here, I have not been involved in the related articles...The entire article probation seems written to prevent the exact behavior TheGoodLocust is exhibiting. And he seems to have no sign of backing down from his personal attacks...(and consistently making bad faith accusations despite common sense is very much a personal attack, in my opinion). --Smashville^talk 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If content you add is repeatedly removed by multiple editors, the logical explanation is that there is something wrong with that content. Going straight to conspiracy theories and implying that other users have banded together against you is both irrational and disruptive- and maintaining that behavior after being warned by a rather large number of uninvolved editors is doubly so. I support Jayron's solution. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't logical at all. They've been camped on on the Barack Obama board for months chasing dissenting opinion away. That's just a matter of record - just because a few of them have gotten together to do it doesn't make it "logical" or moral. You've heard of group think right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Fuckin-Men! CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it seems that we actually do have users contacting other users editing these pages to try to influence discussions... --Smashville^talk 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I told two users about this ANI because they've had similar problems with this group of editors. This was already mentioned. And, not that it matters, but I support Jayron's proposal too. I am reluctant to believe, due to the wikilawyering of the offending group,that the rules will be applied equally to all, or if it will just another hammer that they'll use to suppress dissent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why a group of editors communicating about keeping POV-pushing edits out of an article is somehow more objectionable than a group of editors communicating to push their POV into the article. —KCinDC (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't communicated with anyone to game the system and push edits. I just contacted this about this ANI because they know what kind of a problem this group has been. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that? We have evidence you've communicated with each other. You've already violated WP:CANVASS...how are we to know you're not e-mailing each other off wiki conspiring to violate other policies? --Smashville^talk 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but telling two other people who probably know more about these users problem behavior than I do isn't a problem. Plus, if I was doing "canvassing" then you'd expect a lot more people coming out of the woodwork in my favor - that is obviously not happening. These editors have a record of not just communciation, but COOPERATION - actions speak louder than words buddy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind at least reading WP:CANVASS? Explain to me you doing it with clear hardcut evidence isn't a problem, but it is a problem the other way despite any evidence. Wikipedia is BASED on cooperation and consensus. So if you have a problem with people cooperating or agreeing on Wikipedia, then you have no intention of being a constructive contributor. --Smashville^talk 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also guess it was implied but not specifically stated, I too support Jayron's proposal. --Smashville^talk 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be so glad when these elections are over. Meanwhile, Thegoodlocust, you are finding merely that others disagree with you, and some people hae emails enabled. You are quite new to Wikipedia; you have only edited Barak Obama, and to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. I strongly suggest you leave the articles of political candidates alone this election, and learn the ropes on less contentious topics. You can easily find articles which need attention at Category:Cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it first come first serve? This group of editors have been resisting any change they disagree with no matter the relevancy or the source. Just come over and look at what they have reverted. I've given plenty of examples here about things that don't "make the cut." They have decided him quitting smoking is relevant, but when I point out he hasn't quit smoking, with a good source, they just excise that and leave the "fact" that he quit in the article. That is just one ridiculous example. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're not trying to work with them. You're warring with them. Go read WP:TIGERS, take a deep breath, and think about it. Its not "first come, first serve" its "Wikipedia is not a battleground" and frankly, basic concern that you are unfamilair with our policies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert a BLP violation continues: [102] --guyzero | talk 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice how I added, "a sister organization of ACORN" with a good source, and it was immedietaly reverted? This is the kind of crap I'm talking about - NOTHING can be added to the article unless it is some pro-Obama fluff. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link shows you adding false content, with a 2007 source with content which a) does not support most of your edit and b) the part it does support has since been corrected. You're posting McCain ads, and looking for sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you edit Barak Obama, you must approach it from the attitude that you want to write the most balanced, accurate, and well-written article possible. You research, and what the sources say is what goes in, using NPOV, CON, and so on to determine content and phrasing. This is not a propaganda war zone. Now, slow down and calm down, seriously, or you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

96 hours for Mr Locust. Tolerance for WP:TE has its limits. Moreschi (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, now you are part of the conspiracy --Smashville^talk 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, this guy really is excellent :) Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. TheGoodLocust seems to have been confusing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules with Wikipedia:Break all rules. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree...I don't think any (logical) person would believe that the English have a pro-Obama agenda. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire poll-able world outside the US is pro-Obama, including Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom, not to mention Australia and Taiwan. Of course, Obama's popularity overseas is actually a negative - it just makes him even more suspect to Joe Sixpack. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, SS, your post did terrible things to me involving a glass of Diet Coke and my nose. :D On a more serious note, good block. Orderinchaos 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So, uh... Just for the record, can we close this now? As one of the secret cabal members editors named in it, I've rather get back to editing articles. --GoodDamon 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. I've just declined an unblock request from Thegoodlocust; if any admin disagrees with my reasoning, let me know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, can I formally protest TheGoodLocust's block...or if so will I be accused of being disruptive myself? If it's the latter, just disregard this and no response is necessary. Regards. Digital^Ninja 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you can protest all you like. However, three admins (including myself) have now reviewed Thegoodlocust's block and determined that it was appropriate. I think it unlikely that a protest will do any good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is kinda not cool. Grsz^X 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And this. Grsz^X 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore him. He's blocked, so he can't post anywhere but his talk page, it's not like he can properly harass you. Disengage. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I also protected his talk page. --Smashville^talk 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. joseph school of san jose city

St. joseph school of san jose city was moved to a capitalized version, and the redirect deleted, but that shouldn't mean that the AfD discussion is closed just because the entry was moved. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was closed by a non-admin. This should be reversed. Obviously there was a mistake made somewhere along the line. -- how do you turn this on 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But how are users going to look at the article in the corresponding AfD if it is redlinked? My rationale was that the redirect should not have been speedied while the AfD was up, or at least until after the AfD was completed. But since it was speedied, there was no purpose to keep it open as there is no clear way for users looking at AfD's to see the article. MuZemike (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You should have moved the AFD to the correct corresponding name. Please reopen, and move it. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I was just about to ask that when you answered it. MuZemike (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-created the redirect as it seems like a legitimate redirect from different capitalization. I frequently type with no caps in the search box. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So do I, but the search function takes care of that. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:RafaelRGarcia and User:Wallamoose

WOW!!! NOW HE'S CHANGING THIS INCIDENT REPORT!!! See Revision as of 04:35, 11 October 2008 (edit) and 05:33, 11 October 2008 ON THIS PAGE. He's changed the title and the order to make it seem like it's about me. Is that allowed? (Wallamoose (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Here's the Diff I think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=244511722&oldid=244511540

(Wallamoose (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

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

User Wallamoose received a Level 4 Warning from Bwilkins due to his verbal abusiveness towards an administrator and towards me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244470322&oldid=244456434 . However, he continues his campaign of abusiveness and sarcasm, in contravention of the Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244508955&oldid=244508416 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244506106&oldid=244504717 . I insist that he stop. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244510320&oldid=244507456 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244510865&oldid=244510058 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244509491&oldid=244509140 , among other links. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose's response: This user keeps harassing me. He's commenting to other administrators about what I put on my talk page and following me onto boards where he's never posted. If you could offer some suggestions on how to make him stop that would be fabulous. I'm sure he will be on here soon making all kinds of accusations. But keep in mind I've tried to just go about my business and do my own thing. Yet, he keeps following me to new boards like the ACORN board and the Keith Olbermann board. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Today, Wallamoose was given a Level 4 warning by Bwilkins for his behavior. However, Wallamoose used section headings to mock the WikiElf who gave him the Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=prev&oldid=244495761 . Administrator Bearian also gave Wallamoose a warning last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=238586467&oldid=238584660 . Proof that Wallamoose has been stalking me since last month is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=239058140&oldid=238811258 . Here, Wallamoose had blocked my Good Article nomination of William Rehnquist to complain about the Clarence Thomas article more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1&diff=241734629&oldid=238501623 . Even user Censei, who's been blocked for disruptive editing, recognizes the severity of Wallamoose's actions, and gave him a warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244185878&oldid=244023418 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose used purposely inflammatory section headings on his own talk page, and even tried to vandalize my talk page with them in the past. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARafaelRGarcia&diff=243565025&oldid=243564902 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=243962889&oldid=243962645 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244012446&oldid=244012276 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a retaliation. I've tried asking for help to get him to stop stalking me, it seems he's allowed to go through my history and harass me. Many of these citations are old and have already been dealt with. Now he's deleting my comments from a talk page where he followed me to harass me. Some nerve! I can already predict I will be punished for reacting to his harassing me. But if I knew how to make him stop I would do it.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Incorrect. None of the links in the first paragraph contributed to your Level 4 Warning. Neitherdid the first link in the second paragraph.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you stop it and leave each other alone. Its a wide wiki - surely you can find a place to work away from each other. Shell ^babelfish 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has received many warnings and ignored them. Can't you do something? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're both overdoing it here. Stop bickering. User:RafaelRGarcia, please stay away from Wallamoose for now. User:Wallamoose, you could be more civil about this. Please don't make any more comments about RafaelRGarcia. If you don't like an edit, cite a source, don't call it a lie. If the two of you must work on the same articles, stick to talking about sources on article talk pages, stay civil and don't make comments about each other at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you equating our behavior? Wallamoose received a Level 4 warning; I only received a Level 1. Wallamoose clearly has no intention of stopping his behavior. Check out this edit he made to his talk page about continuing to fight with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244504566&oldid=244504510 . And he's called me "brain damaged" in the past, as well as insulted an administrator repeatedly. He makes the prospect of working on Wikipedia very distasteful, and I can't believe nothing is going to be done. Check out this talk page heading he changed to mock Bwilkins, who gave him the Level 4 warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Don.27t_Worry..._both_sides_will_be_checked..._just_close_your_eyes_and_hope_for_the_best. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't equate your behaviour. I asked you to stay away from Wallamoose and I've asked Wallamoose to be civil. If you think peacefully building an encyclopedia has to do with score-keeping of sundry civility warnings, you're mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has vandalized my talk page four times just since yesterday, when he received his Level 4 warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&action=history . And just a few hours ago, he added, then re-added a sarcastic comment to an article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=prev&oldid=244513918 . RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Those edits aren't vandalism. Mistakenly calling them vandalism is the kind of thing that has stirred this up even further. Revert the posts on your talk page without comment (if you like), stay away from Wallamoose and this will very likely settle down quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, or perhaps trolling, because it's untrue and Wallamoose was continually trying to rile me up. I haven't spoken to him since Bwilkins gave him a warning, yet he continues to talk about me on other people's talk pages, and he attempted to use the talk pages of other articles to further cause conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKeith_Olbermann&diff=244488290&oldid=244484889 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=244488530&oldid=244469912 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAssociation_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=244487947&oldid=244461706 . He has no respect for Wikipedia mediators or administrators. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your notion of what's taken as vandalism on Wikipedia is mistaken. Have you read the project page on vandalism? If you do what I ask, this will all very likely wind down. If you don't, it won't and I'll begin to think you're being disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I will try to avoid Wallamoose, and if he continues to revert my sourced edits and generally antagonize me I trust I can come directly to you to stop him. RafaelRGarcia (talk)

Thanks. Yes, understanding how the Wikipedia community pulls off what it does can seem unbelievable at first and yes, you can come to me straight off if any more worries crop up. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I hope you've warned RafaelRGarcia not to refactor other people's comments as he did here - regardless of what the case or its outcome might be, that is unacceptable on so many levels, especially in the fashion that's it's been done here. Other than that, I agree with you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I saw others he'd done but not those. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That refactoring was done due to an edit conflict. Wallamoose submitted his entry here at about the same time I did, and because his was shorter I changed it to a response. If you want to talk about refactoring, try all the refactoring of talk page headings that Wallamoose did on his talk page, including changing Bwilkins's talk page heading to a mocking reference to rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244495761&oldid=244495480 . In any case, I really have to study now, and I trust that if Wallamoose continues to trouble anyone, I can go directly to either of you to enforce the many warnings he's received. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable, period. If you were involved in an edit conflict, you then submit what you wrote as a response rather than what someone else wrote before you. This is no longer resolved - you need to remove the personal attacks on your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the many personal attacks against me on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose ? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't make personal attacks in answer to what you may take to be personal attacks. Moreover, I found this post by you on my talk page rather worrisome. If this is how you go about interacting with editors, it's no wonder you've been having problems. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I have to remove the notice on my talk page, but Wallamoose doesn't have to remove "He's got issues" and "You are obviously a sick and delusional individual" from his talk page? What's the rationale for that? Also, I haven't had problems with any editor besides Wallamoose, but Wallamoose has received warnings from Bwilkins, Bearian, and Censei, and been reverted or refuted on many articles. I'm really not the criminal here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, nobody's the criminal here. Please remove the personal attack from the top of your talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through Personal_attacks and do not see how my notice at all qualifies as a personal attack, but I have removed it to be cooperative. I object to your neglecting to instruct Wallamoose to remove the personal attacks against me from his own talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for WP:BLP violations at Talk:Clarence Thomas. I found edits like this whilst looking into his claim that Wallamoose had been making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the paragraph near the top of this discussion beginning with the words: "Wallamoose's response" has been refactored. This was the original paragraph at the top of my report, but was modified by RRG. The words "Wallamoose's response:" were added when it was moved. I'm not trying to make a fuss, but anyone reading about this disupte will get a false impression about the order of comments, which seems to have been the intent of the change. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is still stalking me, checking to see what comments I leave on others' talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=244591331&oldid=244586271 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not stalking. RafaelRGarcia this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stay away from Wallamoose. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add that your notion of doubling the length of a BLP so as to slip in more dirt is highly mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of slipping in more dirt. But some editors had made the argument that because the confirmation portion of the Clarence Thomas article was about a quarter of the article, that that portion was too long. If it's a question of proportionality, that's something that changes over time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about word count. Please also have a look at WP:Wikilawyering. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:M4f1050

Resolved

 – RBI — Coren ^(talk)

M4f1050 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 3 contribs. All defamitory to a BLP subject.[103][104][105] Received a L2 & L3 warning on the first 2. Do we really need to give him a L4 warning and wait for him to do it again before a block?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No. — Coren ^(talk) 15:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

One AfD listed for two unrelated articles - Scene (youth subculture) and The Scene

This AfD was originally for Scene (youth subculture), a subculture related to emo (a subgenre of hardcore punk music), which emerged within the last ten years. After filing the original AfD, an editor added The Scene to the AfD. The Scene is a social scene surrounding computer software which originated in the 1970s. The two topics are completely unrelated.

Two different deletion discussions are going on within the same AfD. This is is very confusing. I believe that if it is left as-is, neither article will get a fair discussion. I would like to request that an administrator split this into two separate AFDs, and move all comments related to The Scene to a separate AfD. There is quite a bit of confusion on the existing page, and I would appreciate it if someone would look into it. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Comments about The Scene have been redacted to the AfD talk page, and editors are invited to open a separate AfD for that article if desired. HiDrNick! 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, DrNick! I truly appreciate it. Whatever404 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot like linkspam from multiple A-Class IP's

I noticed several IP's adding <small>'''''w w w . A n o n T a l k . c o m'''''</small> to a huge amount of random pages ranging from talk pages to normal articles. The IP's are located in different A-Class networks, so it looks like a fast switching proxy bot. While the IP's in question have now been blocked, i fear that whatever is causing this will simply switch IP soon to resume this. Since its not a link i don't think that it can be blacklisted, but in case this bot returns there is at least some record of it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This spammer has been active for months, though they've recently been on wikibreak. They are all the same person, all open proxies, and target very recently changed articles. See[106]. RBI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh*, guess my own short break from vandalism patrol made me miss this guys. Annoying really, especially since he is back yet again. Wasn't there some procedure that allows permanent block of open web proxies? If i remember well proxify.com is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of these 'bot spams' last night, unfortunately, I don't remember where. It had already been reverted so it was in passing. HalfShadow 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Open proxies get blocked by admins, usually not permanently but for however long they are likely to remain static. The ones used here are usually short-term HTTP proxies, and a block of up to a year is usually sufficient. They do get recycled if given a chance. An extension to sort-of-soft-block all of Tor was introduced a few months back, then disabled, then possibly re-enabled. I've seen quite a few Tor nodes editing abusively recently - does anyone know the status of this extension? There has not been, as far as I'm aware anything enabled to automatically block open proxies, though the software does exist. The text used by this spammer has changed several times over time, but it should be possible for a dev or bot to block it. This spammer has an account by the way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw three of them on Betty Shabazz last night. I reported the non-blocked ones on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, but I'm not sure how well-monitored that is. —KCinDC (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we throw the above named URL on the spamlist? SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the URL is spaced out in the vandalism. Presumably the pattern, with spaces, can be added, but the spammers will probably switch to a different obfuscation method. —KCinDC (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dancer81396

Dancer81396 (talk · contribs) does nothing but create and re-create 3tg and 3TG pages (about a nonnotable band), which are speedily deleted, over a period of weeks. —KCinDC (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. She'll have to find something else to do. --Rodhullandemu 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

...and a Level 4 warning added to the talkpage. Black Kite 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove

Resolved

 – Good block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please undo the move of the article Dr. Strangelove done just a bit ago? Not only was it done without discussion, and therefore without consensus, but the move was made to the wrong title (no colon after the "or" and "learnt" instead of "learned").

This issue has been discussed before, and it was decided that keeping the article at the shorter and more common and well-known title, with a redirect from the longer title, was the best choice, instead of vice versa. The full title is addressed in the very beginning of the article, so it;s not being ignored.

Thanks for any help - maybe a note from an admin to the editor who moved it might be in order as well? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll drop a note on the user's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. After I put this note on the editor's talk page, I got this response, announcing his or her status as a "guerilla editor" who "fight[s] for what is correct". I assume that means that the person plans on moving it again, and since this is the user who put "Ten Little Niggers" on the Agatha Christies And Then There Were None article, I'm wondering if he or she really has the best interests of the project at heart.

Maybe move protection on the Strangelove article might be in order? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the editor is Jabunga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on Jabunga's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jabunga answered with a bit of page-move vandalism so I've blocked indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. His answer by moving your talkpage was hardly the correct way to address the issue. :) --JavierMC 11:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda shrill :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have brought this on you, but thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 11:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Thus endeth the guerilla megillah. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooof - mighty nice! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Disruptive editing shouldn't be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantaman

Nominated for speedy deletion a few months ago, warnings have been reconfigured and used for continuing self-promotion, linking to user's blogs, etc. Please check to see if this merits further action. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about that Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it the same way as the user page. Thanks for the catch. EyeSerene^talk 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for tending to this, EyeSerene. There are certain dubious contributions that are so painstakingly organized that I prefer to refer them to administrators, rather than revert them myself. JNW (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:83.244.212.141

83.244.212.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be wreaking havoc, nominating valid pages for CSD etc., whist claiming to be User:Pigsonthewing and logged out. I seriously doubt it's him--it's just not his style. --RFBailey (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Olana North would be my suspect - see recent ANI. Occuli (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is the related User talk:Alkwingle who claims to be a meatpuppet of User:Pigsonthewing (highly unlikely). Occuli (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• If so, it would be a pork barbecue. :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've hardblocked the IP for 48 hours. There have been at least three other accounts involved with the disruption from this IP in the last two days. See also [107] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing - there is an editor commenting on two vandal edits to today's FA claimed to be Pigsonthewing. We are being trolled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

IP is an open proxy. Thatcher 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mokele

I just removed this from an Afd discussion on a BLP article. By the way, the ip editing after Mokele's post is signed Guy - just to let you know. cygnis insignis 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC) It's a death threat!? I've been away a while, but surely policy hasn't changed that much.

Why? Removal of such comments from an AfD is inappropriate. BLP applies to the article, not comments on a deletion request. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, BLP applies everywhere. Please read the policy. -- how do you turn this on 21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have. It is to prevent sensitive and libelous information from being added to articles. An AfD debate is not an article, nor did the comment consist of sensitive and libelous information about the person. If someone tried to delete George W Bush, would you delete a comment that said, "The only notability comes from his screwing over America"? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A few eyes on the afd could help here. Cygnis insignis, who is complaining of BLP violations on the afd was, in fact, making them himself. A case of WP:SAUCE here. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the clarification of actual admins: my comment concerned an anonymous ip who vandalised referenced statements and claimed "Corrections by subject of site". I honestly don't know who or why they did it, but it was vandalism. I take great exception to the persistent implication by Scott MacDonald that I am contravening policy, especially BLP in main space - that has never happened! cygnis insignis 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't make it worse with lies. You referred to IP by bringing to attention his edit summary of "Corrections by subject of site" - and invited people to solve the "puzzle" of his "vandalism".--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When there's a likelihood the subject of a BLP has tried to cope with the article themselves, however clumsily, it shouldn't be called vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Gwen. That approach is very reasonable, but the first four edits here did not add info. They made substantial changes to referenced statements, reversing their meaning. It is very unlikely that it was the subject of the article, in my opinion. Regards, cygnis insignis 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So what was the "puzzle"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

... why someone would do it. My best guess is a disruptive user. BTW, the user who made the death threat (Mokele) just burned off my notice with a curse and reinserted a poorly referenced section in the article - one that four or five others have removed as per BLP. 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So. You asked people to "solve the puzzle" as why someone might re-arrange the article to be more flattering, with the comment "Corrections by subject of site"? You characterised the edits as vandalism, and raised the question during a discussion of the notability of Raymond_Hoser but you were not implying it could have been him, you were just asking an unrelated question about some random IP???? I say again, you are a poor liar.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I misread the comment that was deleted. It probably was best to delete the comment. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The user was not notified at all that the comment was deleted. With just the explanation of "I deleted it", the removal of the comment was indeed out of process. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) AfDs on living subjects are very difficult. We are not just speaking of the notability of a subject but of a person. We may publicly assessing how important someone is. That can potentially be very hurtful, and distressing to the subject (should they be aware of it). Further, in this afd, in addition to delete votes, at least some of those wishing to keep the article may dislike its subject. Decorum is essential here - as we are well within the spirit of BLP. Futher, in this particular case, I belive the subject has already complained about the article via OTRS. So any personal comments about the subject that are not strictly "on topic" cannot be tolerated. Wikipedia isn't a game for insiders here, we are dealing with real people and doing so very publicly.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Following on this, discuss only the sources on the topic (and whether they are meaningful enough to meet the notability standards), there is never a need to give personal opinions about the subject and moreover, whether they may be positive or negative has aught to do with WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy - proposed updating

By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bulbous

User:Bulbous has been using the Talk:Haile Selassie page for some time as a soapbox to make off topic attacks against the Rastafarian faith, as well as ad hominem attacks against me, in a manner that is really quite offensive to me, and have nothing to do with making edit changes to the accompanying article. I had merely pointed out to another editor that it was appropriate to also include Haile Selassie's own stated and reliably referenced views in a biography article, rather than rely solely on others' second-hand views about his political policies. Bulbous then rushes in, to derail the conversation into a discussion of how Rastafari has supposedly been repudiated. He has been continuing this pattern for a while as User:Squeakbox has also experienced his ad hominems. I am tired of being continually baited like this and am asking for it to stop. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel has been using the Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia article as a personal venue to pontificate on his views of the subject as being divine. Any editor who edits this article in such as manner as Til objects to has his edits reverted, usually without adequate explanation. The fact that User:Bulbous has provided challenges to these edits/reversions, in fact and in principle, is always mischaracterized as an attack on Til's value sets as opposed to defense of the truth and Wikipedia policy. This complaint is further evidence of bad faith. Bulbous (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The following [108] illustrates Til's continued reversion of a false statement which Til called "factually correct" in an edit summary. This figure is completely incorrect and was sourced by Bulbous, along with continued discourse on the article's Talk page, in which Til did NOT participate, despite being the principal involved in continued reverts. Bulbous (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redacted. In viewing the remainder of this page, it is clear that this is not the place to address content disputes. Bulbous (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "content dispute" of the article here whatsoever; that's the whole point. This IS the place to address your constant, gratuitous talkpage violations against the spirit of WP:NPA on myself and Squeakbox (please, read WP:NPA carefully, especially the parts relevant to harassing or persecuting other editors for their private religious convictions). These are merely your antagonistic cheap shots, with no relevance to the wording of the article. Talk:Haile Selassie tells the whole story. I had been having a discussion with a new editor, stating my view that Haile Selassie should not be mis-quoted on political subjects like Eritrea and the Mussolini war. That's a discussion of content. Then, you immediately jump in, trigger-happy, with totally off-topic ranting about the Rastafari Movement, and how all this somehow supposedly furnishes further proof in your eyes, that the movement has now been discredited and "repudiated". You're entitled to your opinion, but that is not at all the topic we had been attempting to discuss.

That talk page is in fact becoming unusable, because of your persistent and predictable, off-topic trolling against a religious faith that some of your fellow editors may practice privately, but which you apparently see as illegitimate. I certainly have never proselytised, nor told anyone else here what religion to believe or not believe privately; but you certainly aren't going to tell me what religion to believe or not believe privately, either. That is like a foolish dog who barks at a flying bird. I have exactly the same freedom to decide for myself what my beliefs will be, that you have to decide what yours will be. So quit it already. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you are using this page as a soapbox. Frankly, this whole tirade is a little emabarrassing. Bulbous (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to excercise restraint in this matter and not sink to Til's level, but I cannot continue to do so any longer. I've been watching the Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, Rastafari movement and related pages for the past two years and I have observed a clear pattern. Til Eulenspiegel and others have been zealously editing this page with a deliberate bias in order to promote a point-of-view and a religion. Any editor that changes the articles frequently has their contributions removed without explanation. Any editor that attempts to justify his edits on the talk page with reason, logic or Wikipedia policy is confronted as a bigot. Counter-arguments usually consist solely of ridiculous accusations of persecution. I'm quite sick of this. The last straw was Til's attack on three reliable sources (BBC, Time magazine and the Washington Post) which I have used to defend some of my edits. He went so far as to suggest that the entire Rastafari movement thinks those sources, in particular, are the three worst. Clearly, this editor is not grounded in reason, and as another editor of the Haile Selassie I article suggested on that articles talk page, his future edits will need to be carefully vetted for neutrality. Bulbous (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am asking urgently for some sort of administrative action on this User:Bulbous immediately. His persecutorial mentality is obvious from the latest exchange at Talk:Haile Selassie, where he consistently tries to steer each and every discussion about content, into an off-topic debate on the Rastafari Movement. I am now feeling backed into a corner by this persona, and am urgently requesting help. His relentless and vindictive crusade against me is making it quite unpleasant for me to continue editing, and ruining my entire experience with wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous is unfortunately a POV driven editor from statements such as "marijuana makes you stupid" to persistent running down of the belief that Haile Selassie is a divine being, it would be good if he could put his beliefs to one side or just edit articles about which he does not hacve passionate beliefs. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User Bulbous (with whom I have had no connection) has a history of reasoned contributions to Wikipedia and of generally restrained reactions to provocation. There is no evidence apparent of prejudice against beliefs or individuals.210.246.8.49 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting, actually, that the user calling for "administrative action" against myself has recently called me a troll, a bigot, a fool, "persecutorial", "vindictive", "antagonistic", "ignorant", and "uninformed". How long do I have to endure this? Bulbous (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have never called you a 'fool'. But whenever you can perhaps address what your specific concerns may be with the current article as it reads now, I will be glad to take part in discussing them, without any additional rancour on my part. The general off-topic grumbling that always seems to go on there instead, just got to be too much, and began to get under my skin. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(Comment from impartial editor, not an admin) - Til Eulenspiegel, it might be helpful if you could provide diffs; I've just read through the talk page and I couldn't see anything that obviously looked like "...off topic attacks against the Rastafarian faith, as well as ad hominem attacks against [you]". Beyond that, this does look like a content dispute: Bulbous apparently feels (and apologies if I'm misrepresenting here) that the introduction gives undue prominence to the subject's perceived divinity. The current state of the introduction seems (to me, at least) to be a reasonable compromise - the introduction *does* mention this, but is cited with a 600,000 figure for number of adherents. I think (and again, apologies for misrepresenting either of your views) that Til Eulenspiegel would prefer a figure of 1,000,000, and Bulbous would prefer that the section be removed altogether? If that's the case, and pending any clear evidence of soap-boxing or ad hominem attacks, it's difficult to suggest anything other than you both step back, accept the current compromise, and have a nice cup of tea (or your preferred relaxant). The 600,000 figure is cited, and remains in the article's introduction.

Incidentally, and speaking as someone who had absolutely no view on this until a few minutes ago, I personally feel that Haile Selassie's perceived divinity is notable (arguable more so than other religious figures, since he was himself an adherent to a different faith) but that the section could be expanded to explain why this is notable - i.e. add a sentence explaining his views on his perceived divinity - that he was a devout Coptic Christian and not a member of the Rastafari movement.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I do indeed prefer that the number of adherents be omitted, as it is not present in any other similar article. My feeling on the original statement was that it presented material that was specific to the Rastafari movement (number of adherents, when it was founded, how it was popularized) and not terribly relevant to Haile Selassie I - certainly not enough to merit mention in the lead section. I would think the issue of belief in his divinity is quite relevant. The current wording is a compromise made by myself when Til was simply reverting my edits without talk page commentary. I'm not even that concerned about the content at this point. I am only trying to point out an instance (contrary to Til's accusations) where I was editing in good faith and discussing on the talk page - and Til who is the complainant here, was not. Bulbous (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That dispute was a month ago, and the 600,000 figure has remained unchallenged by me or anyone else since then, but incredibly, that seems to be the 'content dispute' he wants to discuss. I admit 600,000 seems suspiciously low to me, but haven't found a good enough ref for a higher estimate. If I ever do I may get back to that question, but until then, I am content with it. Surely that is not what all this was about! Oh well I am ready for some tea now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the current state of play seems to be that Bulbous will assume good faith and engage in civil discussion on the talk page, and that Til Eulenspiegel will drink tea and then assume good faith and engage in civil discussion on the talk page? That seems reasonable - can you two (metaphorically) shake hands now? (Note that this is in no way any comment on whether either of you have previously not acted in good path or engaged in civil discussion - it's purely an assumption that you both will in future).

Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure that I have this all straight: Til posted here and "urgently" requested "administrative action" to be taken against myself, citing various unspecific accusations without any diffs. Then, he used this page and an article talk page to call me a variety of names and belittle me in several ways. Now, having been able to thusly vent, he is off to have "some tea". Is that accurate? Can someone tell me how I should feel about this, because I'm a little confused. Bulbous (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems accurate. I can't tell you how to feel, but it's worth noting that (a) no admin looked at Til Eulenspiegel's complaint and thought it worthy of sanctions against you; (b) Til Eulenspiegel has not provided diffs supporting her/his complaints; (c) Surely the over-arching goal here is to minimise disruption to the project, and move on?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! With Til off drinking Tea, are we considering the matter closed? Should he not withdraw the complaint that he so "urgently" requested so that we might move forward? Bulbous (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the humble opinion of this non-admin, I'd recommend considering the matter closed; if you want to demand that the complaint be formally withdrawn that would of course be your right, but I'd suggest that it might simply drag this matter out further. Of course, Til Eulenspiegel may voluntarily withdraw the complaint without any request to do so.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  04:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it might be worth archiving the talk page discussions in order to make it easier to focus on article-related discussion?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hda3ku

Resolved

 – Much ado about nothing. --barneca (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has some interesting subpages, such as:

• User:Hda3ku/ / / / / / / / / / / sdf - Jimbo's userpage
• User:Hda3ku/alt1 - Messed up copy of User:PrinceOfCanada's userpage
• User:Hda3ku/alt2 - Exact copy of User:Possum's userpage
• User:Hda3ku/main - Our main page

Should anything be done here? iMatthew (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• User:Hda3ku/pi should be added (do not click it, it is 1,000,000 kb!) D.M.N. (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah. iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/User:Hda3ku for more. iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would assume most of those are simply there as sandboxes - he's liked the layout of peoples' userpages and wants to play around with them to see how they work. In the absence of evidence of anything more nefarious, I wouldn't worry. Have you asked the user about them? ~ mazca ^t|c 15:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to drop by and let us know. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, some other user grabbed my userpage once, it's not a big deal. More than likely this fellow is just keeping them as sandboxes to learn about Wiki formatting. Also, that pi subpage is "only" 1MB not 1GB. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince asked me to reply here you can feel free to delete all of the pages in question the copy that i had of other users userpages were there so i could get more fimilar with the wikipedia html code im sory if i violated any rules but it was my interpretation that a could create any suppage under my username. Now that i think about it should that have all just been in a sand box? hda3ku (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Hda3ku, you haven't done anything wrong. --barneca (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why was I called here? hda3ku (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's considered courtesy to let people know when they are being discussed here, so that they don't get paranoid. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you hda3ku (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

article referencing as per GFDL

Hi all. I'm an admin on one of the foreign language wikis.

Just wanted to double check:

If an article is translated (and a bit modified) from en:wp into our foreign language wikipedia, do we have to cite the en:wp article as a source of reference as far as GFDL licensing is concerned? Isn't it redundant to do so, or are other language wikis not considered in-house, so to speak? Thanks. --Zereshk (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Copyright on Wikipedia articles is held by the writers, and you need to link to the source article in order to make sure that the writers are properly credited. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the chain of history must be preserved. Probably, the easiest way to do that is in the edit history (preferably early) with a link there. Obviously, in-article attribution is also good but less robust against inadvertent or malicious removal. I'd suggest that the translator add the link to the original article to the edit summary of the original post as the very best method. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRANSLATION should help. Have a look at how the people using that process attribute their translations into English from other languages. See Carl Koldewey for a recent example. Template:Translation/Ref can be placed in articles to record it there, but as others have said, and attribution in the initial edit summary is good, such as here, though ideally adding a permalink in the edit summary to the version used to translate would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tamiera

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

User:Tamiera ignores notices and warnings posted at User talk:Tamiera The reason for posting here is the repeated use of non-free images on the user page and the use of lock icons on pages that are not protected. The user has also received numberous vandalism warnings. It should be noted that the user has requested page protection [109] link provided for reference only.

The user has has placed protection lock icons on pages that are not protected [110] [111] [112]

The user has also posted vandalism warnings on other user's pages regarding edits that are over two years old.[113]

I would hope that adminstrator intervention might resolve the situation of disruptive edits without requiring the more extreme measures of blocking or banning. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The user also has moved pages that required administrative assistance to move back [114] Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a brief look at this account's edits, and I can't decide whether it's just someone with good intentions (and possibly English as a second language) trying to help out, or someone pretending to be someone with good intentions (and possibly English as a second language) trying to help out, with the intent of causing subtle disruption. Either way it plainly has to stop. I've put a message on the user's talk page, although I'm not all that confident that anything being placed there is actually being read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Question...

I didn't have to deal with this one; Lankveil and Apokryltaros cleaned up after User:HowDumbAreYou, who moved Big Bang to Big Bang Myth. However, my question is... why does the log say that HowDumbAreYou protected Big Bang Myth? The user, who first registered in August, has only a handful of edits and does not have admin status. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If a protected page is moved, the target is automatically protected, and the log lists the protector as the moving user. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is relatively new, so it's still freaking people out when they see it for the first time; I've seen, I believe, 2 other similar threads in the last week. --barneca (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. I wonder if it is worth a tweak to the software to avoid such log entries? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, that would have skurred the bejabbers out of my new-admin self, had it been something I'd done. You'd have one of those panic-stricken threads, along the lines of "OMG! OMG! I FUBARred EVERYTHING! Main page baleeeetion! Jimbo banninated! OMG!!!" (no sig, as I'd have dropped in my traces, twitching slightly) So...um, how do we fix that? Or do we? (Would that be a "bug", or a "feature"?)Gladys J Cortez 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have to admit I saw my name here while looking for something else, and had a panicky "oh shit, what did I do!?!?!?" moment before I realised what was going on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

User:Heyheygimmemore

Resolved

Heyheygimmemore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already as a {{uw-unsourced4}} warning level on his talk page from adding this gossip to Joe Jonas. His previous warnings 1 through 3 have all been related to adding rumors to album and single articles. Well after the level 4, we get a lovely series of edits to All I Want Is Everything (album), which you can see adds nearly every possible rumored song title to the album. Time for a tap with a blockstick.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

*thwap!* — Coren ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a good Mad response. :) Given the editor's petulance, along with his ID, and the temporariness of the block - if he doesn't improve his behavior, he should change his user ID slightly, but with more direct meaning, to "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table misuse by 2 editors: Nomoskedasticity, Academic38 and 2 administrators: Toddst1, Jayron32

Resolved

 – bogus report by an abusive sock per RFCU Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked over this article recently and noticed that there is a lot of "opinionated" information in this article. Almost 80% of the sources in this article refer to blog sites, which are posts that primarily written by 1-2 people. After wondering why no one has bothered to change this, I referred to the "history" page where I noticed a user PigeonPiece had tried to put up some information from factual 3rd party sources that was not opinionated, and was immediately taken down by 2 users Academic38 and Nomoskedasticity. I googled the history of these "blogs" and it stemmed from 2 users (coincidentally) talking about creating a defamatory page on the Oxford Round Table.

My main concern here is not the article, but the misuse of Wikipedia power privileges to create pages full of opinionated information by citing those. The other part of this problem is an administrator Toddst1 seems to put a block or indefinite ban on the users adding the accurate 3rd party sources while "warning" the other two editors mentioned above to seem like his actions are neutral. Recently, another administrator Jayron32 has been involved in blocking users suspecting them of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. After looking at the discussion, it seems like other person who came up Astutescholar had looked through the history for the sources PigeonPiece put up and believed that information was accurate enough to put back up there and in the process, both of these users were banned indefinitely by Jayron32.

My problem is that wikipedia is supposed to be a place of discussion and ability to add information to accurately display the subject/topic, and this article is internally controlled by 2 editors and 2 administrators and any other attempts by outsiders to get involved will automatically be blocked or banned by administrators Jayron32 and Toddst1. This poses a problem to the authenticity of the article, and also scares editors off from getting involved. I would like to add neutral and unbiased information, and I am able to, although I am sure that Nomoskedasticity and Academic38 will complain to "their" administrators and block me, and I have no intentions of adding any information if it will result in losing privileges for myself. In all fairness, I would like a neutral party of adminstrators to review this information when they get a chance. I honestly think Oxford Round Table should be nominated for deletion if this is how the page will stay, but I know if I did that myself I would be banned for one reason or another. Thank you for taking the time to review this. Treasuryrain (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let the other editors you've mentioned know that you have raised this matter for discussion here, so that they will have an opportunity to respond. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, it's pretty rare for an editor with less than a dozen edits in mainspace to make such an involved ANI report. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, not one of those references are to blog sites, and all abide by the relevant policy. Also, not to be rude, but per Toddst1 - it's best if users with under 100 edits avoid ANI so as not to draw suspicion towards them. Valtoras (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"This poses a problem to the authenticity of the article, and also scares editors off from getting involved." was mentioned above. I take no sides here. However, I have heard complaints that a small number of editors/administrator can control an article and drive away editors. I contribute to a technical message board and this was a complaint. Again, I am neutral in this particular dispute/article. I am not saying that this is or is not happening here. Chergles (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read this notice, my first thought was "Why would anyone want to launch a defamatory page against Dorothy Parker and James Thurber?Gladys J Cortez 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For a brand-new user, they sure know a lot about admins, sockpuppets, wiki-format, ANI, and deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasuryrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), it would be beneficial at this point to reveal who you are a sock of. Quite frankly, I don't see "abuse" here. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also worked on the article from time to time, but never acted as an admin. The actual nature of the organization is in my opinion open to some question, as are its methods of publicity; there has been a long-standing push by some eds. to keep material that I & Nomoskedasticity & the other admins mentioned all thought inappropriate content--the "accurate third party sources" are a list of papers given at the conference, a list of members, present and past, of its board of directors, and the like. I commend their efforts after i lost patience with maintaining this article. DGG (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock of any other user. For those accusing, please refer to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to help your understanding of what a sock puppet is. In fact, this helps me demonstrate what I was talking about. Minutes after I posted my concern, one of the involved parties Toddst1 came in and gave me the accusation of being a sock (see above) without addressing any of the issues to try to adequately address my concerns. I was just bringing up an issue that takes place on certain wikipedia articles with a group of editors and their alliances with administrators. This is the same concern that Chergles noticed. All I really wanted was an administrator who is uninvolved in the Oxford Round Table to see what has happened to the page. Editors with accurate sources and citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) should be able to put up information as they wish. I am coming from a neutral point of view and do not appreciate wikipedia pages that are bias. The Oxford Round Table, for example, contains a source that is a blog website full of opinions, false facts, and inaccurate and irrelevant information, which is the The Chronicle of Higher Education. I do not care what opinions they post on their blog website, but it should not carry over to wikipedia if it is indeed known as an encyclopedia. Also, a lot of the sources access dates are outdated, and information has changed since that time, and it is not updated because of the control the involved parties are administrating. DGG mentioned sources taken off being "list of papers given at the conference, a list of members, present and past, of its board of directors", so wouldn't it make sense for those to be mentioned in the article? It didn't seem right that two users can write a whole page and others are prevented from getting involved. If you look into this, you may understand where I am coming from. I am just trying to promote the reason wikipedia was created in the first place. Thanks. Treasuryrain (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, a better set of questions is where you heard about all this from and whether you have a conflict of interest? From what I remember last time this came up, there was a mailing list or internet discussion forum, and several people from there created new accounts here to edit the article and bring the dispute on to Wikipedia. Some of them have since gone on to become productive editors, while others haven't. Apologies for putting this so bluntly, but which will you be? Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasuryrain, this is the second time in two posts that you've made the false claim that the The Chronicle of Higher Education is a source for the article on the Oxford Round Table. Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us what information in the article is defamatory. As for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, you sure know a lot of policy for a newbie, and you have PigeonPiece's loopy logic and her constant refrain of "accurate third party sources" down pat. For the record, I added the information from Astutescholar that was correct on October 3, i.e., the info on the U.K. incorporation, which would be 8 days before you first posted here. I did not add the Listcruft she kept insisting on. As you say, this is an encyclopedia.Academic38 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Old discussion (one of them at least) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#Is it just me.... Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd request that nobody blocks anybody for sock puppetry without first compiling a formal report. The last time somebody shot from the hip on sock accusations surrounding this article, they stirred up an unnecessary drama. I recommend gathering all the new users involved in the recent edit war and checkuser the lot of them. If they are socks, that will be good to know. If they were canvassed here, we can advise them about our policies and encourage them to become productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • From the article history, I picked out User:PigeonPiece and User:Astutescholar and User:Educationatlarge. They've been blocked already as socks or sock masters. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar (September 2007). Actually, the block log for Astutescholar might be more helpful. See here: to quote the blocking admin: "Abusing multiple accounts: [115] and [116] show this". The block is recent (10 October). See also User talk:Astutescholar. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh dear. Jayron32 seems to have quoted the same diff twice in the block log. I'll ask what diffs he meant to quote. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now notified Nomoskedasticity, Academic38 and Jayron32. Toddst1 has already posted here. Treasuryrain didn't do the notifications, but in fairness, being a new user and defending themselves against sock-puppet accusations is excuse enough. So can we try and work out what is going on here. I have absolutely no intention of writing as much as I did last time... Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Compelling evidence

I blocked the this person's multiple accounts indefinately based on the use of sockpuppets to repeatedly edit war. I have never edited the article in question, and being accused of "misusing" an article I have never edited is funny. The compelling evidence in the block is this dif by PigeonPiece which was an established account at Wikipedia and this dif by Astutescholar which was created on September 18, while in the middle of the edit war, and only did edits to the article in question. I am at a loss to how two accounts could commit largly similar edits (these are almost identical) and be somehow unrelated. It should be noted that neither Astutescholar NOR Pigeonpiece (which are likely, based on all existing evidence the same person) has come forward to refute this evidence. Unless and until that evidence can be refuted, I stand by my blocks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Treasuryrain was an account created within a few days of Astutescholar, and while Pigeonpiece was blocked. his contributions history shows no prior contact with either editor or with the article in question. Take what you will out of that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar created. Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar shows this ANI report is a case of abusive sockpuppetry as suspected. Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

BareBones and Cabaret

Hello. The author of the above article is insistent about removing a speedy deletion tag from the page. I offered advice about the 'hangon' tag, but to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks all. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedied by Bjweeks. If the user tries to recreate it, SALTING might be beneficial. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and hoax insertion by 122.2.1xx.xx user.

This user has been inserting hoaxes into various articles in Wikipedia, especially in Survivor Philippines. His vandalism is becoming rampant. Here are the IP addresses that this vandal uses...

• 122.2.189.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.183.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.182.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.176.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.187.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.176.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.181.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.189.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.182.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Will there be anything done against this user? We need action against him ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 122.2.176.0/20 (anon-only, account creation enabled) for 10 days. Let us know how it works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only ranges used by this vandal are 122.2.176.xx and 122.2.18x.xx; there are no vandal edits from 122.2.177.xx to 122.2.179.xx. But we're never sure if the guy also uses 122.2.177.xx to 122.2.179.xx, so that'll be fine. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

122.2.177.227 (talk · contribs), 122.2.178.134 (talk · contribs), 122.2.179.253 (talk · contribs), and 122.2.190.155 (talk · contribs) all appear to be the same, but let me know if you want the range adjusted. These edits remind me of someone, but I can't think who. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an editor from the Philippines who added/created hoax articles on radio stations, if I recall correctly. Don't remember the name. Thatcher 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting a vandal who constantly turns Hong Kong TV/celebrity articles into Filipino TV shows and celebrities. He's in the 122.54.X.X range. See my edit history for more details. HkCaGu (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that the range block currently applies to any IP from 122.2.176.0 to 122.2.191.255 (generate 122.2.176.0/20 on this page to see). It should be sufficient, now. ~ Troy (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729

The User:Hubschrauber729 has been deleting citations for Israeli footballers religious beliefs and personal life. He tries to use his own interpretation of Wikipedia rules to remove content. He refuses to debate his removal of content and acts as a sort of ruler over any article that I have edited. Even in instances like the Dudu Aouate article and the headlines he caused in Israel for saying he would play on Yom Kippur, the user took off the categories. Secondly, a player like Oshri Roash, whose reference clearly states how visible he has become as Under-21 national team captain and his persistence to be a religious Jew, have been taken off his page. He took down Alon Harazi being the grandson of Holocaust survivors and many other interesting facts that are all cited! He deleted conversation that I put on his talk page and hides behind his own interpretation of Wikipedia law. I am requesting that he not be allowed to touch anything related to the Wikipedia Israel portal since he lacks knowledge of Hebrew and can not even do a simple search for references or citations. He is simply a vandal. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, I would suggest; therefore you need to take it to dispute resolution. I might suggest that you also WP:AGF, as the position as outlined by Hubschrauber729 might have some merit in it - the religious beliefs of football/soccer players (certainly those outside of Israel) are not usually notable - for instance, the Roman Catholic country of Italy plays matches on the Sabbath seemingly without comment. Also, it isn't usual for a players parents or grandparents history to be notable (unless the relative was also a player) and I would further suggest that an Israeli citizen being descended from a concentration camp survivor is not (regrettably) so unusual to be notable of itself. I think you need to review WP's guidelines on subject notability and perhaps open a dialogue with Hubschrauber729. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alon Harazi is a Mizrahi Jewish name. It is notable that his grandfather was a holocaust survivor from Poland because it qualifies him for an EU passport and to be listed as an Israeli of Polish descent. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I did try to have a conversation with him but he removes all my comments from his talk page (and labeled it 'crap' in the edit summary) and refuses to have any dialogue! I have no problem debating notability etc. but when someone says that Dela Yampolsky being one of the few non-Jewish players on the Israel U21 side has no relevance, than it shows me that they are unwilling to even debate. -NYC2TLV (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given Hubschrauber notice of this discussion, and an informal warning regarding the edit summary when reverting you. Let's see what they have to say, if anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All I have been doing is removing the category "Jewish footballers" from articles that don't have information regarding them being Jewish. As far as Dudu Aouate, I must have missed that. Also I thought stating a players religous beliefs was a violation of WP:BLP. Even as Jews being an ethnic group, its sort of hard to differentiate when something says "John Doe is Jewish". And about the edit summary, when someone says they are "stooping to my level" and calling me a vandal, im going to remove it because I believe it is nonsense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go on a one by one basis, but all these people are ethnically Jewish. You asked for citations and now I am bringing all the citations and adding to their personal life sections details of them participating in active Jewish communal life. So why did you take the categories out on Kfir Edri, Johan Neeskens, Tomer Hemed, Oshri Roash, Dela Yampolsky etc. etc. etc. I am not trying to make these guys Jewish. I routinely take the category out of profiles like Steven Lenhart and post on David Loria's talk page a source that he is not Jewish. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that when there is specific published RS controversy about his religious beliefs in relation to his field of notability, that the material is relevant. Whether religion is relevant otherwise i think depends on the degree of notability; ditto for grandparents--for really notable public figures we do seem to include that sort of information, but not routinely for everyone with an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Being Jewish doesn't mean that it is your religion. It is an ethnicity too, and most articles on Wikipedia note the person's ethnicity. Everyone from Sacha Baron Cohen to Jordan Farmar are noted for being ethnically Jewish, even if they don't believe in it. So naturally, Category:Jewish footballers from Israel should be noted too. -NYC2TLV (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this conflict a symptom of a wider problem with our categories? Category:People by race or ethnicity and all its subcategories (such as, potentially, Category:Catalan world citizens) is an invitation to label as many BLPs in this manner as possible. At least it will be read as such by a large number of editors. As a result, statements about ethnicity (possibly sourced) will be added to many articles where they don't belong. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't just debating the use of the categories but also the user's preference to consider Jews only to be a religious group. The user targets specific articles but remains silent on pages he edits of footballers of Turkish descent ala Ramazan Ozcan etc. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jews for the context of a WP article or category are people who self-identify as jews in any meaning of the word they personally care to use. We should no more argue tis than about the actual racial identity of someone who self-identifies as Black, or the particular sexual preferences of someone who calls himself gay. . In the extremely rare case where it actually is relevant to an article there will be sources discussing it. In my experience, people here or elsewhere who get involved with wether a person fits or does not fit into an ethnic or similar category are either trying to make a POINT, or are indulging unproductively in gossip. . DGG (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even true. Jews in Wikipedia aren't just those who self-identify as Jews, but also Jews who are considered Jewish according to halakha, ala Bobby Fischer. I am only trying to apply the category to those who the category should be applied to. By applying Category:Jewish footballers to an Israeli footballer who is indeed Jewish, I don't think I am trying to make a point. The user we were talking about is claiming that it has no relevance whatsoever. Even if they are black, or Jewish or Asian, according to Hubschrauber729, it has no value or purpose and shouldn't be on their profile. -NYC2TLV (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a resolution? The user is still targeting every contribution that I make to Wikipedia. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking once again for resolution. Or else we will have to edit every black, Asian, Jewish, etc. person on Wikipedia since it has no relevance to what they do. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From the outside, I can't even begin to fathom why those distinctions would be considered relevant at all, let alone enough to make categories out of the farce! What's next? Category:Footballers from southern Mozambique (except the south half of the province of Maputo) and Category:Footballers who followed the tenets of Judaism between the ages of 7 and 14? Those categories are anathema no an encyclopedia, they signify nothing, and no relevance whatsoever, and populating them is an invitation to POV warring at best. In the extraordinarily rare cases where a person's ethnicity or religious leanings are relevant to their biography, then it can be mentioned, with the appropriate justifying context, in the effing prose! Otherwise, to the fire with all of those harmful and pointless categories! — Coren ^(talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We should be getting rid of Category:People by race or ethnicity and its children. It's an invitation to editors to label people who may not want to be labelled, it's often (usually?) done with no reliable source involved, and it's rarely relevant. Doug Weller (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Word. I've gone ahead and started the proper discussion. I'm also going to poke the AN with it to get a wider participation. — Coren ^(talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

checking my first admin action....

Resolved

 – A block is executed correctly. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is noncontroversial, but since it's the VERY VERY FIRSTEST adminn-y thing I've done. I want to quintuple-check to make sure it was done correctly: [117]? Si, or no? It's my first block EVAH, so I want to make sure I did it right. Comments?Gladys J Cortez 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It worked. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The proof. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you probably should have blocked for only 24 hours, as it was the IP's first block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those extra 7 hours were really an example of admin abuse... Are you open to recall? </sarcasm>31 hours has become the de facto standard first block for vandalism, so it was fine.--barneca (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am open to having all my major limbs hacked off with a dull machete, so there's that going for me. Gladys J Cortez 08:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've often wondered where the "31 hours" bit came from. Most of my vandalism blocks tend to be for 12 or 24 hours, 31 seems a bit of an awkward number to use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

31 hours covers the potential of an IP coming back the next day at the same time. A good example would be a shared IP at a school. Computer class is at 1:00 PM. Kids vandalize and get blocked. If a block is set to 12 or 24 hours, the kids could return the next day since vandalizing was "fun" during the "boring" class. With a block for 31 hours, this prevents the mischief from returning the next day as when the kids get back, the block is still in effect and continuing through the rest of the school day. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which...okee then, Saturday late-afternoon/early-to-mid-evening FAIL...hey, it's POSSIBLE they might-could be having a slow Sunday, right?? RIGHT?????!!??? (/quasi-frantic justification)Gladys J Cortez 08:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your block was fine. No worries about it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been using 31 hours as a default block duration for smalltime vandals in forever; it might just be a gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure it reduces repeat performances by a significant amount. Even outside of school context, the inability to simply "return tomorrow" appears to be strongly dissuasive. — Coren ^(talk) 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, please remember that in future all your admin actions now have blanket approval and require no double checks or appeal to the community for input in case you have concerns. Now you have "broken your duck" the cabal expect nothing less than unilateral action by yourself. ;) Pedro :  Chat  08:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:62.40.36.14

Resolved

 – Request denied

The user is asking for an unblock because it seems that he/she wasn't warned like what usually goes on. Whether it should be done, I don't know, but since I'm not an admin, I'd like someone to please take a careful look at it. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but it's not really necessary to alert admins to unblock requests here at ANI - there are alert methods in place. Just FYI, thanks for being concerned though. I will review. Tan | 39 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what's the best method for things like that? Just wondering; I'm still getting use to how everything is ordered (it's only been a few months now...). Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, you don't really have to worry about it - most admins can see that there are pending unblock requests, and in time it will be reviewed. If you see one pending for an unreasonably long time, you can bring it up here if you wish. Tan | 39 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Many admins frequently patrol CAT:UNB; and most requests are acted upon within minutes of showing up there. If it isn't acted upon, it is likely that dozens have admins have seen it, and no one wants to handle it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. ~ Troy (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above IP and User:HighKing - request for eyes

I blocked the above IP (which resolves to an Irish mobile phone company) on September 30 after edit-warring over the inclusion of the phrase "British Isles" on the article Glowworm. I tried to present a compromise, but eventually a revert war between User:TharkunColl and User:HighKing turned into a revert war between a UK BTBroadband dynamic IP and 62.40.36.14. I blocked both IPs and told both editors that they weren't fooling anyone. Both denied that the IPs were them.

Today, I noticed that 62.40.36.14 had continued exactly the same edit warring over numerous articles. After taking a look at the articles, I blocked the IP for a week - the previous block was 31 hours. Looking again at the articles, it is clear that the mobile phone IP is reverting only where User:HighKing is involved in disputes. Apart from Glowworm, we also have Saint David, Doyle, Gildas and Tide.

Now, whilst I am aware that there are almost certainly random socks and SPAs editing against HighKing's POV here, I can only see three reasons for the behaviour of 62.40.36.14.

• 1) It is HighKing
• 2) It is someone else proxying for HighKing (i.e. a meatpuppet)
• 3) It is someone trying to run a joe job on HighKing - unlikely, especially given where it geolocates to.

Clearly, option (1) is almost certainly the most likely - I would like input from uninvolved admins as to whether

• there would be any justification for extending the IP's block to User:HighKing per WP:DUCK.
• rangeblocking the mobile phone range - there are practically no constructive edits from there - would be useful
• any other course of action would be useful

Note that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#British_Isles_:_Users_User:HighKing_and_User:TharkunColl is also useful - I noted the IPs behaviour there before noting such a strong link to HighKing. Black Kite 20:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend blocking HighKing just yet. There's a certain banned user who has a view point on these articles who's known for using Mobile IP's to evade his ban. I would suggest a CheckUser against that banned user (let me know if you need to know who that banned user is) as well as HighKing. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's very little from this mobile phone range (62.40.36.0/27) - see[118] - apart from these recent reverts, so I don't think a CU would be much use. Black Kite 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't sockpuppet. And my opinions on anon IP editors are well known - block the lot of them - they're more trouble than benefit. --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I brought it here. You've got to admit though, the same IP repeatedly carrying on your revert wars over multiple pages doesn't look great, does it? My inclination at the moment is to (at least) rangeblock the mobile phone operator for an extended period, but I'm interested in other views. Black Kite 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the anon IP does - I recommend that you rangeblock the lot. I made a suggestion a few days ago on Tharky's Talk page - why don't you block any IP address with more than 10 edits. After 10 edits, they must get a login. And I'd be happy to provide you with an extended list of troublesome IP addresses. And I'd also be happy to extend that list to users that appear to exhibit the same behaviour. Although as we've seen with Grawp and GH, blocking IP address ranges isn't always enough of a deterrent... --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Clearly there's no point blocking certain IPs involved here for long periods - many are from British and Irish dynamic pools which change on a daily basis. However, I have anon rangeblocked the mobile phone network for six months. If an editor wants to edit productively from it, they can create or request an account. Black Kite 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking this adress was User:Gold heart returning under a different network if this isn't the previous one. A mobile network in I think dublin was previously blocked for being him, and it was doing practically the same thing as this, backing up HK or TK to exacerbate the row. A 'who is' search shows this IP is from a mobile network in Dublin. Sticky Parkin 21:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat and other problems

A single purpose account, Gingerhillinc, is making legal threats [119] [120] and personal attacks [121] on other users as well as vandalising an Afd [122] [123] . Edward321 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacation time. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety, not directed so much at you, as at everyone who does this same thing all the time. If you hadn't done it, I have no doubt someone else would have. Clearly not a terribly productive user at the moment, but I'll renew my periodic plea that we don't keep interpreting stressed out, new editors saying "this seems like defamation of character", or yes, even something obvious like "Please leave it alone or we shall follow with legal action" as something worthy of a [WP:NLT]] block. Gingerhillinc isn't going to sue anybody, and all of us here know it. Let's save WP:NLT for the actual cases with a realistic chance that there's a legal threat. Someone warned the user about this before the block, we could have waited to see what happens. If we want to block for disruption or something, let's be honest and block for disruption. Let's not hide behind WP:NLT and pretend our hands were tied and a block was required. This isn't a vandal, it's a new user (or users, but that's another issue) making an honest attempt to create an article about their acting teacher or something, and being offended at the terminology typically user at AFD, but not so typically used by normal humans in everyday life. I can't help but wonder if a simple refactor of the offending phrase would have made this go away. Of course, now we've got an even more pissed off indef blocked user on our hands, so it's probably too late now, but maybe for next time. --barneca (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. NLT is partially for the "real" legal threats but mostly to ensure that people don't say "ZOMG, my lawyer will sue you if you delete this". although most users wouldn't be cowed by that, it is easier to just enforce a policy that ensures debate can't be impacted by legal threats. I'm sure any admin will unblock this guy if he says "I didn't mean it, I'm sorry" or something to that effect. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT does not require a block. I was looking into this as well, when I refreshed the talk page and saw Tiptoe had blocked the user. It's not worth a wheel war, but I agree with barneca that this may have been a time where an explanation was warranted, not a block. -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not invested, unblock if you see fit. Tiptoety ^talk 05:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said you were, Tiptoety. This is not a complaint about you, per se, just a bit of a lament at the atmosphere surrounding NLT. See Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Block should not be automatic for a longer discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across if I thought otherwise, I was just wanting to make it clear I am fine with a unblock if it is seen fit. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a "general lament" from me too. It's way past my bedtime, I was just still up to see if the Red Sox could pull this off (sigh :( ), so I can't follow through tonight, but if someone doesn't try to salvage something with this user tonight, I'll leave a message on his talk page in the morning. --barneca (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The best practice is to block them ASAP and tell them why, and tell them that they can appeal the block, i.e. they can withdraw their "threat" and say "I'm sorry". You don't want to be sending mixed messages on the legal-threats situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, Bugs...you think so?? Faced with a new user saying anything less-blatant than "You can expect to hear from my lawyers", I'd seriously consider saying "Please understand that (whatever they said) could be interpreted as a legal threat under WP:NLT, and as such could lead to a block of your account. I strongly urge you to refactor your original comment; also, please choose your words more carefully in the future. Thank you." Now, if they decide to view that as a challenge rather than an invitation to refactor, well, THEN I'd block them. But the path you suggest....well, it just seems a wee bit BITEy to me. (Of course, I'm a squishy-hearted new admin, and haven't yet experienced the dark underbelly of Wikipedia, so YMMV.)Gladys J Cortez 08:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This slightly less-squishy hearted admin that as a matter of fact /has/ experienced the dark underbelly of Wikipedia tends to agree with Gladys, here... Most new people don't realize that legal threats can get them blocked- in some cases they don't even realize they've made a legal threat. Giving them a chance to learn and grow is the whole point of WP:AGF. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most legal threats are totally frivolous, that the person making them has no intention of following through with what they claim. But once we start saying "Well this threat probably isn't worth blocking for" or "He's new and probably won't actually sue us", we get into that vague area that I'm uncomfortable being in. Users can be unblocked, when they withdraw the threat. But until they withdraw the threat, I tend to agree the best policy we can follow is "block if a user makes a legal threat". MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good way of looking at things at all. All that type of mindset leads to is pissed off users, and users who simply become disillusioned with Wikipedia and leave for good. Neither of those situations are positive. What does it cost us to leave the user time to reflect on the warning? In this situation, I would think nothing. If he had done it again, it would simply have been reverted and he blocked, everything tied up neatly. (and I'm with L'Aquatique; I've seen this type of situation with that type of response before, and it usually doesn't end well) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Don't realize they've made a legal threat"? Maybe the educational system has deteriorated further than I had thought. "Become disillusioned and leave"? If a newbie starts right in with threats, how likely is he to become a useful editor? Sure, warning them first is fine. And if their next edit after that isn't a retraction, they're outa here. The two axioms: (1) How badly do they want to edit? and (2) How much time do you want to spend messing with them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It takes very little time to check the user's contributions, see that they've made another legal threat, revert, and block them. Avoiding biting takes very few resources and keeps the our image shinier (I can't be the only one who has read forum posts and blog comments about people being driven away from here by biting?). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no end of users who have been indef-blocked for any number of reasons and have started or joined websites criticizing wikipedia. I know plenty of folks who go to wikipedia looking for information, who are unaware or only dimly aware of all the behind-the-scenes drama. The reliability of wikipedia as a source is what the public cares about and is the surest way to keep it "shiny". The primary focus in wikipedia should be on reliable article content, not on kissing up to belligerent users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user, and my warning on their talk page is still there (though I have removed the block template). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, there's more gray area here than you might think. A while back I was involved in a situation with a user who loved to say that people were slandering him. He would respond to any criticism with a demand that the criticizer remove the slander against this user's good name. At one point, he was blocked because his comments strayed too close to a legal threat, but was unblocked soon after when he retracted the comment. However, he still continued to say that people were slandering him, to the point that an arbcom case was started. Arbcom ruled that even though there was no actual legal threat ("you'll hear from my lawyer!") using legal terminology like libel and slander violates the spirit of NLT. I don't believe this user was intending to make legal threats, and he seemed genuinely surprised when he was temporarily blocked. It is possible to make a legal threat without knowing it, especially under the precident set by that arbcom case, it's happened before and it'll happen again.

People who make legal threats aren't [usually] an immediate threat to the encyclopedia, there's no reason why the response has to be "zOMG a legal threat, block baby block!" What do you have to lose by slowing down and at least trying to talk it out? The block button will still be there if discussion breaks down, and you may have saved a potentially valuable contributor. Seems like a win-win to me. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made my point for me. You messed around with this guy repeatedly instead of dealing with it once. "Genuinely surprised"? Genuinely clueless is more like it - or play-acting. Keep in mind that every minute spent messing around with a belligerent user is a minute not spent on something more useful - like article content, or dealing with other belligerent users, of which there is apparently no shortage. Experience will tell you pretty quickly whether someone is sincere about editing articles and may be just unaware of the rules; or if they are just on wikipedia to fool around and cause trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A good warning: "Please note that your statement [...] constitutes a legal threat. Under wikipedia policy, legal threats are not allowed. Please retract it immediately, or you will be blocked from editing." That's how to handle it. Polite, but to the point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to people who use legal threats? No fucking way, even the lamest ones may cause a serious chilling effect sometimes. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Durin was unfortunate, but situations like that are rare. To be honest, I'm not exactly clear why he left in the first place, it wasn't exactly a class-A legal threat. All I'm saying here is, be flexible. Take the time to examine each case on an individual basis instead of skimming, deciding it's a legal threat, blocking, and never thinking about it again. Rigidity will be our demise. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia's demise will be sincere editors driven away by belligerent editors that were cut too much slack by admins who should have brought the hammer down immediately, after issuing a reasonable warning that was ignored by the belligerent user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are cases where a legal threat is clearly just an empty threat, but I think the "block on sight" rule is a good one to follow if there's even the slightest doubt. As said above, it can create a "chilling" effect on an article, disrupt cooperative editing, and from what I've seen legal threats usually constitute WP:CIVIL violations as well. Users can always be unblocked and worked with if they retract their threats. We're better off adopting a no-nonsense policy as far as legal threats go, I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

That's the whole point of the unblock request template. A 31-hour block does no great harm, and far from taking the "shine" off wikipedia, it would tell anyone who cares to look that wikipedia means business and is not run by a bunch of Neville Chamberlains. If anything, a quicker trigger in dealing with misbehavior should enhance wikipedia's reputation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Durin left? As far as I can tell, they are still active. Just not on this project. Shouldn't take long for anyone to work that out, but I didn't realise until SUL (single-user login arrived). Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the user should have been indefed for vandalism and personal attacks, as well as legal threats. Also, it's hard to imagine that a user who said "we will press legal action" did not know they were making a legal threat. If we keep being nice to vandals and malefactors than they will keep vandalizing and doing ill. They won't stop harming Wikipedia just because we're nice and tell them to go play in the sandbox. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good block The user is operating a role account [124], making direct legal threats,[125] and violating our conflict of interest guideline (see prior diff and notice the words "our client"). I also see that the username appears to match the name of a business. I am going to explain these things to the user and invite them to create a new account, to be used by one person, and not to be used for COI editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When an SPA with a COI violates NLT, it's hard to AGF. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A-OK Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How long will this person be allowed to edit before refactoring or retracting their legal threat? Do we just say, "Oh, well, naughty naughty" and let them continue on their way without ever retracting the threat? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For policy background, please consult Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats (new language added within the past couple of months, so some people may not be familiar with it) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Perceived legal threats (the arbitration case that led me to propose that addition to the NLT policy). Not opining on this specific case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

NexTune

NexTune Has been deleted twice now, once for being a copyright violation, but Mdukane (talk · contribs) has recreated it again, and CorenBot tagged it as a copyright violation. Mdukane has several warnings on their Talk page about copyright violations and notability, but they don't seem to be listening. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go issue a final warning and keep an eye on the user. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, no, has one of those already. Just watchin', then. lifebaka++ 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Jaimaster

user:Jaimaster is an aggressive POV pusher on global warming related articles. Since arriving here in August and fomenting multiple edit wars, he has been warned about this behavior, both by myself [126] and user:John (an uninvolved admin I asked to look into his behavior). [127] (Having reviewed your recent contribution history, and as an admin who has no previous history in this area, I independently agree with Raul that your behavior merits a block. ). This has not dissuaded him. During his latest round of POV pushing (using the false edit summary Gave the section a copy edit cleanup), in the global warming article, he changed several instances of "caused primarily by human" to "attributed to human activities" - a pretty clear attempt to white wash the article. I reverted, and (as par for the course with him) he began to revert war. I reminded him of the previous warnings about his disruptive editing, and he threatened to open an ANI thread on me. I'd like someone to look into his repeated disruption. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that a neutral admin will fully investigate this and find it to have contain no substance. I believe this ANI has only been posted in response to my statement of intent to post an ANI of my own regarding Raul654's behavior, per my response to his "warning" left on my talk page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244306725&oldid=244305293

I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August (that discussion available for review here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John/Archive_28#Disruptive_user_in_need_of_block) has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above. Jaimaster (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I think both of you are behaving very childishly. "Stop disrupting our articles..." and, "Over the next few days, we'll find out if the wiki is based on..."

Stop treating this like Battle of the Giants and start trying to do what's best for the project. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done what's best for the project - which is to revert his attempts to white-wash the global warming article (changing "caused by human activities" to "attributed to human activities"), using a false edit summary to do it. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening ban over content dispute

Administrator Raul654 has threatened to ban me for "disrupting" the global warming article with this grammatical clarification -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244262247&oldid=244195678

Per this talk dif -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244305293&oldid=240621874

I am at a loss as to how correcting a major grammar problem in the first line then going on to replace "caused by" with "attributed to" counts as "disruption". The latest official IPCC stance (IPCC being regarded as the most Global Warming reliable source) is 90% confidence in causation, lending itself to "attributed". In any case the reversion of the "attributed to" took out the correction of the major grammar problem on the first line, with no attempt made to fix it.

I believe this warning is a nothing more than a deliberate attempt to bully, and is in contravention of administrator guidelines per

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor),

It is my opinion that this warning should be withdrawn. Jaimaster (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this thread was started in response to my above thread, describing Jainmaster's disruptive behavior (for which he has previously been warned by multiple admins). Raul654 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the chronology. What you say here is not possible without a time machine Raul. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a dispute over the use of sources is a grammar problem. That seems to be a total mischaracterization of the situation, and totally disingenuous on yourpart Jaimaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "major grammar problem" is the missing "the" before "increase"? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, dispute over the use of sources? I dont follow. The dispute is over "attributed" vs "caused by". Neither was a direct quote from a source.

Roger, the first line was horribly written. Im quite happy with calling it a major grammar problem. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. And let's not snopak those crucial adverbs out of the discussion: there's a huge shift in meaning between "caused primarily" and "mostly atributed". This should have been discussed on the talk page first to obtain consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On review i pasted the wrong link (to a talk page comment of all things. I do not know why). This has been corrected. The link now points to the Global Warming edit that Raul654 says is "disruptive". This should clear up for Jayron32.

Roger, is not discussing a change of this type on a talk page, then reverting it back when the bathtub is thrown out with the water with a note of "inaccurate watering down" (which is most certainly was not) disruptive? Jaimaster (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple matter of principal to me. I believe I am being bullied because Raul thinks skeptics are equal to holocaust deniers (I can find a dif to support that last), and per our past interactions he knows I am such a person. If you, the impartial administrators of wikipedia, agree that my edit was disruptive and not a mere a content dispute, and as such warranted the warning given, please block me for a period you deem appropriate for wasting your time. Otherwise all I want is the warning withdrawn. (added - I wont be back till Monday au time to answer any other questions. TGIF, have a goodun) Jaimaster (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jaimaster's edit in the diff above was in no conceivable way merely "grammatical" or a "copy edit". It was a substantive edit which sought to dramatically change the paragraph to say something different than what it had said before. His edit summary was innacurate and misleading, and it's practically impossible, despite as much AGF as I can muster, for me to believe that it was not deliberately designed to be deceptive. Because Jaimaster's posts here indicate that he is intelligent and well understands the meaning of words, I find it difficult to believe that he truly thinks his edits were simply superficial alterations that did not radically change the meaning of the statements in the paragraph.

  Whether Jaimaster should be blocked or not is not my business, I'm not an administrator, but he certainly should be admonished to use accurate edit summaries, and not to change the fundamental substance of controversial articles without consensus on the article's talk page. While the center of the matter is indeed a content dispute, blocking may be appropriate for Jaimaster's behavior in editing without consensus and in attempting to hide the nature of the edit. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• That was no grammar edit, but a meaningful content change. Given the high profile and high controversey (never mind history) of the article, the proposed edit should have been brought up on the talk page first. At the very least, the edit summary, along with Jaimaster's post here about the edit fixing a "grammar problem," was wholly misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008
  • Calling a substantial content change a grammar change is, IMHO, tendentious editing, and depending upon the context would be good grounds for a block - at the time it was done, that is. And it should be taken into account if the editor's behaviour is subsequently be questioned. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a warning to Raul654's. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, it's a *huge* no-no to threaten to block someone when you are involved in a content dispute with them. This ArbCom ruling maintains that the editor is allowed to question your actions and this ArbCom ruling clearly says that admins are only allowed to use their tools during a content dispute in an emergency. This is not an emergency but rather a simple content dispute. Threatening to block during a content dispute that is not emergent is a violation of policy and ArbCom rulings. What say you? Bstone (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say, the warning was ok but Raul may not have been the one to make it, which is why I left one myself. Although I understand why Raul uses his admin tools on this article (and he may indeed see it as an emergency), it may be time to talk about whether there is community consensus for this, or whether it's allowed on some core articles, for some trusted admins. If the latter is true, I wouldn't mind seeing this written into policy. I see worries whichever way the consensus would go so I'm neutral but I do think it should be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Gwen, pursuant to this ArbCom ruling admins are instructed to not issue warnings etc while in a content dispute but instead use the appropriate noticeboards to ask for uninvolved admin attention. Raul did not do that and has violated the ArbCom instruction to admins. Bstone (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote verbatim where the decision says that administrators can't issue warnings. I am not seeing it. Administrators can't use tools when involved in a content dispute (and should not threaten to do so either), but any editor can issue warnings when called for. A warning means, "there is danger, be careful". Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul said "I'm going to block you" and not "You will/may be blocked." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the editor above asserted. My comment specifically recognized that threatening to personally execute a block while involved in a content dispute is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three topics in this thread. Thanks for clarifying your take. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, Raul very clearly said he will block the fellow. That is very different from issuing a TW warning or similar. It was a handwritten and threatening note coming from an involved admin regarding a content dispute. Raul should certainly know better. There is no way to whitewash this. Bstone (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone (I think). The edit in question was not a simple copyedit, the summary was misleading, continued reversion without discussion is disruptive, Raul is involved in a content dispute and he should not block Jaimaster. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But any of us uninvolved administrators can, if there is a need. Hopefully the parties will sip tea until they realize that this is just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the edits of Jaimaster and I find his edit summaries to be misleading. Jaimaster should avoid this type of edit summaries. AdjustShift (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The diffs weren't "grammatical corrections" at all but attempts to subtly bias the entire sections. Please don't hide behind the excuse of grammar corrections for policy violations. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per an earlier comment, I am in favour of a tier of trusted admins being permitted to use the sysop tools regarding articles in which they are currently involved in editing (outside of emergency actions). The definition of "trusted admin" is one of; any admin that would not use the sysop tools in respect of an article that they are currently editing or otherwise involved in - except in an emergency. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have no problem with Raul (or others) being a gatekeeper for the global warming articles, or even running checkusers to look after various areas of the encyclopedia, but he and they do need to recognise when a line gets crossed and they need to ask for opinions from others (and, to be fair, Raul does do that in most cases now), and think carefully about the threat carried by some of their comments. Not everyone stands up for themselves like Jaimaster has. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Carcharoth. New global warming editors are frequently bitten by Raul and others who quickly roll back good faith edits and cite mysterious consensuses from years ago to justify it. Except for obvious vandalism or sockpuppetry, I believe that we almost all agree that admins should not use or threaten to use their privileges (including rollback) to advance their own position in a dispute. Oren0 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that they may be justified in that. Linking to the older discussions would be a good step. Organising the older and perennial discussions into a FAQ would be even better, but I think that's already been done. See Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that the vast majority of new users who come to the global warming article are either aggressive POV pushers (like Jaimaster) or actual sockpuppets (like the recently uncovered scibaby sock Punctilius). Oren0 would have us re-discussing the same issues ad-infinitum, when in fact all the important things have already been discussed many, many times already - there's nothing mysterious about the fact that there's a consensus, or that they want to disrupt it without prior discussion. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So you do point people to the Global warming/FAQ then, do you? Let's put the question another way. If people raise issues not covered at the FAQ, what do you do? And I have yet to see a proper analysis of all the "new" users to justify such comments are "the vast majority of new users are...". Until there is such an analysis, that is your opinion (though you may well be proved right by such an analysis). Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
          • What do I do? I tell them what they are doing wrong and how they can improve their editing. Raul654 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there is unanimity here that Jaimster's edit was both disruptive and that his edit summary was transparently false. How do we proceed from here? Raul654 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it an ongoing problem that can't be dealt with by discussion at the talk page? I would note this thread somewhere, keep an eye out for similar behaviour in future, and request further action if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, didn't work, as this latest round of misbehavior has proven. So, again, how do we proceed? Raul654 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading User talk:Jaimaster/Archive1 and User_talk:John/Archive 28#Disruptive user in need of block. From what I can see (on the basis that there was no block), John was satisfied with what Jaimaster said there. Jaimaster has also said, above, that he or she thinks their behaviour has improved: "I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August [...] has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above." Given also that Jaimaster has said they won't be back until Monday (last edit on the 10th), then I suggest that you either shows what aspects of the behaviour haven't changed, or acknowledge that the behaviour has changed and stop referring back to the behaviour as a new user (if you can't demonstrate that they are not a new user, assume good faith and accept that they are). In either case, a response from Jaimaster when they return on Monday would be good, and I've left a note asking them to comment here before returning to those articles. I've also asked them to consider broadening their interests into other articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works outside of controversial articles.

If I may also comment, requesting attention with messages like "Disruptive user in need of block" (the message you left on John's talk page) doesn't really encourage independent review of behaviour (though John did, IMO, a good job of a fair review and warning). It sounds more like you are looking for someone to confirm your own opinion, which is perilously close to block-shopping. There is a reason why places like WP:AN3 are set up for the reports to be focused on evidence and not the way in which the report is presented. Something like "I'm concerned about the behaviour of user:X on article Y: could someone please review this" is more of a neutral request. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds more like you are looking for someone to confirm your own opinion - my opinion of his behavior has already been confirmed unanimously on this page. Not a single person disagrees that he was POV pushing in the article and that his edit summary was obviously false. This is one of those rare cases where the POV pushing is obvious from a single diff even to non-experts.

Jaimaster has also said, above, that he or she thinks their behaviour has improved... I suggest that you either shows what aspects of the behaviour haven't changed, or acknowledge that the behaviour has changed and stop referring back to the behaviour as a new user - Yes, we could take at face value his self-serving claim that his behavior has changed, or we could actually look at his behavior. In August, he was warned by myself and John because he was aggressively edit warring on a global-warming related article against consensus. (After which he promised he'd do better) He's on ANI now because he was aggressively edit warring on a global-warming related article against consensus. In both cases, he's the one who precipitated it. In both cases, he was warned, and in both cases, he tried to wiki-lawyer his way out of it. Other than edit warring over exactly the same diff again, I can't see how they could be more alike. Also, the fact the he's decided to spend 3 days away from Wikipedia is not reason he should be allowed to escape sanction for his misbehavior Raul654 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I said he should come back here before resuming editing on those articles. I too strongly disagree with people leaving for a short period of time to avoid answering difficult questions, but unlike some people who refuse to even post at ANI (including some admins), Jaimaster was responding in this thread, and did announce he would be away (it is the weekend, after all), and that shouldn't be held against him. As for your opinion being confirmed, opening sections titled "Disruption by Jaimaster" and "Disruptive user in need of block" are not the best way to set people off on a neutral and unbiased assessment of what is happening here. I can't stress enough that I'm not saying you are wrong, but that if you are looking for an unbiased review, that is not the way to do it. If you are not looking for an unbiased review, but merely want people to nod, then fine. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we put Jaimaster on a 0RR regime for all global warming related articles for a while. So, he can continue to edit, but if reverted he cannot revert. If he defies this restriction, he'll be banned automatically for some time. You then have a clear cut situation, the issue being whether or not he has violated his restriction. To avoid a ban Jaimaster will have to discuss what he wants to edit in the article, which is exactly the kind of behavior we want to promote. Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. Jaimaster does participate on talk pages, and that, in such articles, is the only way to achieve a lasting change. And that need to discuss on talk pages applies to any editor of those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support it too. If he makes a revert (except for vandalism, obviously), he should be blocked by an uninvolved admin for 1 month, than 2 months if it happens again, than a year, than indef. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has a clean block log, I'd start at 24 hours, then go 48 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and then go to RfC, and then ArbCom or a ban discussion. A topic ban could come earlier than that. I know people have different views on the steepness of such escalating block scales, and have varying levels of patience (those with little patience like to indefinite block and move on - but I don't think there has been an analysis of whether this encourages socking). Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as an reasonable approach to dealing with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now, Raul654, what about your own blatant edit warring in that article? --Abd (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting his biased changes back to the more accurate, consensus version that's been there for months/years. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the accepted way of dealing with POV pushers across Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many times I've seen that same reason given by edit warriors, who were blocked? The difference here is simply that by having more than one user taking this position sitting on an article, a minority POV can be excluded without the majority POV editors having to break 3RR. ("Majority" is not consensus.) That's the meaning of WP:Tag team. The edits made by Jaimaster were at worst, harmless, including the one you objected to so strongly. The arguments he made for them were civil and cogent. Perhaps it's time for an RfC on this. However, first things first, one step at a time. I'm inspired to take this to the article itself. See you there. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if you plan to defend an obviously disruptive POV pusher, you might want to stick a bit closer to reality. His edits were far from harmless, as pretty much every single other person on this thread has already commented. The claims he put forth - that he was only correcting the grammar - are transparent lies. Pretending that his edits were harmless, and claiming that his reasons were cogent simply proves that you have no credibility to speak on this topic. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not not defending him, I'm noting your behavior. His comments in response to the charges levelled against him have no bearing, in fact, on the original edits; users often become defensive. If what I'm seeing is correct, the article did move quite well in the direction he was "pushing," it was simply done better by another user. I.e., instead of the cause of global warming being "attributed" to human activity (from the original "caused by"), the actual source attributing it was given. What I'm noting is the hostile attitude toward GW skeptics; that's poisonous to consensus process. They should be welcomed (and educated). I'm not opposing the 0RR restriction for him; I'll be proposing, effectively, one for you. We'll see if that is necessary. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice way to try to spin your own behavior here. Unfortunately, you again seem to be having issues with reality. When you come here and say "The edits made by Jaimaster were at worst, harmless" - you are, in fact, defending his behavior. And you are utterly wrong, as everyone who has commented in this thread has already said. Furthermore, you clearly do not know what you are talking about with regard to the direction he was pushing the article. With this edit I let stand some of the changes Jaimaster made. I simply reverted the POV pushing parts but left some others intact. The diff from then to today shows that nobody has touched that section except for The use of the term "climate change" -> The term "climate change" Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read a nice compendium of wisdom, etc., on Wikipedia. It's not that simple. The "POV" being "pushed" was closer to NPOV than the prior text, but spinning in the opposite direction. I was indeed confused about what had happened, due to similarity in language in the lead and in the section that Jaimaster had edited, which I'd confused with the lead. To go into detail on this here would be a waste, I'll save it for the article. However, people who have strong POVs become very good bias detectors for opposing POVs, that's one reason we need them to stick around. We are often very poor bias detectors for our own POV. Absolutely, the changes in wording made by Jaimaster -- and then back by you -- changed the spin of the paragraph. It was spinning in one direction, he reversed that. He sees your spin, you see his. When you both agree it isn't spinning, we'll know it isn't spinning, until someone looks at it from an different vantage point.

Just to make one thing clear: I oppose restricting Jaimaster at this time, I don't see that the behavior reported here warrants it. I've said I don't oppose it, because I think it may help him to stay out of trouble, but that is far from agreeing that he should be restricted, unilaterally. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight clearly showed that the group of editors (the collective hinted at with "our articles" in Raul's warning to Jaimaster) maintaining the global warming articles were edit warring and uncivil, and the only reason there were no sanctions against them, out of that RfC, was explicit in the close: the RfC wasn't about them. If this report here results in 0RR for Jaimaster, it should likewise result in 0RR for Raul654. Not a bad idea, actually. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread can be closed, someone needs to notify Jaimaster of the 0rr restriction. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time, I thought I understood how we made decisions. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't the close create (or not create) the restriction, and the closing admin then is the one making the decision, being responsible for defining it precisely as needed, enforcing it (such as by listing it with editor restrictions), and being the go-to person for the restricted editor with any questions? Normally, the closing admin would then take responsibility for notifying the restricted editor. I.e., close thread, by uninvolved admin, who presumably independently confirms the evidence provided here is adequate to support the remedy, then notification of the editor if that's needed. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here based on the heading, of course. ANY use or threat to use admin tools based on content rather than behavior is absolutely and completely unacceptable. It is one of the most serious breaches of internal ethics on Wikipedia (threats or outing would be "external"). This and this were done in the same minute, making it clear that the warning was based on the content of the edit or at lest the current dispute.

Raul was in a current edit war with Jaimaster. He nevertheless took it upon himself to threaten to personally block Jaimaster. These are utterly unacceptable breaches of admin ethics, and good and sufficient reason for desysoping. Such abuses have happened before.

I would like to ask that there be no stalking of me for this post, which I feel is incumbent upon me to save. I hate to do so, because in the past people follow me around if they are mad at me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from Jaimaster

Quite alot to digest. I am sure the weekend will help me respond without being overly defensive. I will address the points in the order they were made.

• Charactising my edit summary as "misleading" - at no point did I expect my edit to be the least bit controversial, nor did I intend it to be "misleading" to "hide" a "POV whitewash". The difference between "attributed to" and "caused by" is (in my opinion) a grammatical cleanup; further it is accurate. I believe my edit history clearly shows my willingness to use talk pages to the point of overuse, and had I believed the edit to be a potential cause of controversy I would have proposed it on talk first (example - Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor). Now, if I had been changing "caused by" to "not caused by" or a similar unsupported POV shift, I could understand that "no amount of WP:AGF" would suffice. "Caused by" to "attributed to" is no where near the "whitewash" accused, is completely factual, supported by definitions used in our most notable source (IPCC), and used elsewhere on wiki - such as the title of attribution of recent climate change. I acknowlege I should not have reverted after Raul's revert; however the history between us is such that it can be difficult to assume good faith, especially given the incorrect summary the revert itself was made under.

• Indeed, this charge of "misleading" I find quite ironic. Raul's revert charactarised my edit as "inaccurate", which it is not; Raul stated my ANI thread to be a response to his, which it was not - a cursory examination of the edit timings will support the opposite - that Raul only started his own ANI in response to my declaration of intent to start one about his warning. Even if this is not so, the comment made in response to my initial ANI post Note that this thread was started in response to my above thread is not only inaccurate, but was almost certaintly a deliberate deception. I would like this to be addressed in some manner before this ANI is closed as I find it disturbing.

• Characterisation as an "aggressive POV pusher" - I personally believe this could not be further from the truth, but be it so I will quote the age old adage "it takes one to know one". Raul654 is quite aloof in his attitude towards the GW articles; as shown in his referenced warnings to myself he regards them as "our" articles that "you" are "disrupting"; he has been known to revert without giving reasons, then when reason is given, ignore challanges to the validity of the reason and continue reverting, ignore opposing consensus and continue reverting. From my perspective Raul regularly ignores WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BRD. This aloof attitude towards protecting his POV in "our" GW articles quite arguably lends itself to as much "disruption" and edit warring on the GW articles as caused by any "aggressive POV pusher".

• "Wiki-lawyering his way out of it" - in your opinion one aught to be able to do whatever they want as an administrator without the option of people taking their grievances up with other administrators, because that is "wiki-lawyering"? I disagree. Insomuch as wiki is not a court of law, the dispute resolution processes are available to us for a purpose.

In any case, I voluntarily accept without prejudice the proposed 0RR restriction as defined by Carcharoth - I have little reason to revert, and personally being able to revert only lends itself to situations as this (as much as reverts are not supposed to be taken personally, when we make what we believe is an accurate edit in good faith and it is reverted it can be a source of irritation). I ask for the following caveat - that Raul not be the one to enforce this, nor should he forum shop anything he believes to be a violation of it anywhere except ANI. I also need a clarification about how this "0RR" applies when an edit is made, reverted, discussed and remade. I do not intend to be blocked on thin technical grounds because I remade an edit after discussing it on talk. Jaimaster (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:69.23.156.97

Resolved

 – IP blocked.  Sandstein  06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

69.23.156.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This anonymous editor seems to have targeted PCE for unknown reasons. The anonymous editor has resulted to using:

• Personal insults and threats
• Personal insults, slurs, and threats
• The same insults, slurs and threats again
• And vandalizing a talk page.

He then asked to have PCE banned on the Professional Wrestling Project's Talk Page. I warned him about civility and also directed him to ANI to lodge his complaints while citing the above links.

Today I saw a revert the anon had made to Owen Hart and noticed that he put in the notes that he was undoing an edit by PCE, even though PCE was not the editor that he was reverting.

I had some minor vandalism done to my own userpage after posting the warnings to the anonymous editor, but they were from a varying IP. I still find the timing suspicious.  Hazardous Matt  01:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP does not appear to be shared. Blocked for 6 months for severe harrassment at [128].  Sandstein  06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Old but nasty vandalism case

Resolved

Not sure where to report this, but is has a couple of issues:

1. I refer to this edit. It appears to be a one off case of vandalism by an IP, BUT one of the nastier kind.
2. It was old, sitting there for just over 1 year. I have reverted it.

Just thought I should let someone know in case the IP is part of some wider pattern of abuse? Is there a bot which might have / should have picked up on this ? Peet Ern (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The anti-vandal bots can't pick up everything automatically, unfortunately - there could've been situations in which such an edit could have been factual. I have made a null edit to add an extra diff from yours, and then deleted all the revisions that contained the edit. Black Kite 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What was the point of that? The vandalism in question (admin only), (description removed per text below: see diff), was nothing more than common vandalism. The article isn't a biography of a living person and if we always deleted simple vandalism like that, the servers would soon crash. There are GFDL concerns with deleting edits like that, but the only affected diff in this case is an edit by User:Cydebot which is trivial. The fact that the vandalism lasted so long is indeed unfortunate, and I've found a few similar cases myself. However I'm inclined to undelete the edits on principle. Graham87 09:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the edit didn't need to be deleted there's no point restoring it now. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 09:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on the "better safe than sorry" basis - the revision had been there a long time and the article had probably been scraped a number of times; it doesn't look good if picked up by a search engine. I realise it's not a BLP, but he's still someone's ancestor. Also, since the article only had a few diffs, it wasn't a server issue - if it had had 4,000 revisions, that would have been different. If anyone wants to restore the diffs, feel free though. Black Kite 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted the edits, and removed the description of the vandalism in my first message so that search engines don't catch it. However the vandalism will probably still be in mirrors and forks, which will take longer to update. Graham87 09:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Special Boat Service image

Resolved

86.161.97.94 (talk · contribs), who may or may not be linked to blocked puppeteer 212223sassbs (talk · contribs), has again removed the image from the SBS page and has reposted apparent legal threats about breach of copyright on various editor talk and user pages, including mine, he was previously blocked for this behaviour and was unblocked to discuss the issue, but has mainly posted a his apparent threat ignoring the Fair use rational attached to the image. Some of the language seems to be other than would be expected if the claim was legitimate which dose not support that his actions are in good faith. --Nate1481 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:FisherQueen has already taken care of this BMW(drive) 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

121.90.238.224

Resolved

This user made a vandalizing edit to the article Beer and I used Huggle to revert and warn them. Not only did they undo my revert, they also decided to place a warning on my page. Can this warning be removed from my history? I've never been warned and I don't want to start now. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have given the IP a short break from editing. Just remove the warning, it's clearly not valid. Black Kite 11:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Continually linking to commercial information

Resolved

Anonymous user 80.176.226.26 (real Name (real name removed --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)), also has a user account User:Phaedsys) continues to edit the MISRA C++ page to reference press releases and products distributed by his own company, Phaedsys. The current round of edits is a continuation of something that started in July. Attempts by me to explain Wikipedia policy (I know him personally) have met with no success (he is a sales oriented person). Suggestions for what to do welcome. Derek farn (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the next time you see this buddy of yours, tell him it's not spelled "vandalisum". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy's spelling is "apllaling". Check the rant on the user talk page. --Smashville^talk 13:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Raised at COI notice board [129] Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• phaedsys.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
• 80.176.226.26 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 91.84.225.77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

I see three accounts adding the link, the reporter here and two IPs. I removed the personal information here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Phaedsys as a promotional username and warned the first IP. The second IP hasn't been active for three months, so there's is little point in warning them. If the COI editing continues, let me know. Stronger measures can be applied. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Zografski

Resolved

 – Vandal blocked, article speedied. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My article about Vladimir Zografski is always vandalised. Please lock it for new user or something. I also think it is sockpuppets owning the same IP as me thats makes the vandalism. AlwaysOnion (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was only one user, and that user has been indefinitely blocked. Resolute 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there were actually a few users, but two of them have been indef'd. In any event, the article is currently a speedy-deletion candidate. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Grr, i have been autoblocked by User:Box in snakeö too. And i think it is all the same person. AlwaysOnion (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Invocation of WP:3RR by Gwen Gale

Self-described sysop (the link on the User page is redirected to Wikipedia: Adminstrators) User:Gwen Gale blocked user User:RafaelRGarcia, citing WP:3RR. See the discussion on User Talk:Gwen Gale where I attempted to restore User:RafaelRGarcia's privileges, and suggested an apology was in order, due to the fact that Garcia at no time reverted the Sarah Palin page four times consecutively, as my understanding is that that is a requirement for WP:3RR. Anarchangel (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(Snipped from the policy's intro):

The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I had seen and inwardly digested the distinction between WP:3RR and blocks because of 3RR-like activity. See the Heading of this section. Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:RafaelRGarcia has been unblocked.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost simultaneously with my edit here.Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be four times consecutively, in fact, consecutive reverts count as 1. Grsz^X 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks like Anarchangel is somehow misreading 3RR. A violation is 4 nonconsecutive reverts (nonconsecutive by definition, since any number of consecutive reverts count as 1 for the purpose of 3RR). —KCinDC (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your response. The original text is "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert". There are two problems with this text, both of which are potentials for misinterpretation. And there is a major problem with the 3RR rule boundaries itself.

• I misread the text as "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user (each) count as one revert". I suggest removing the possibility of potential misreading altogether by adding the word 'together' to the text to amend it to "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user, together count as one revert."
• The second is that it can be mistaken for a definition of revert as used by 3RR. I was looking for a definition of revert, as at least one of RafaelRGarcia's edits was a single unit of punctuation. Believing four consecutive edits to be the defining attribute of 3RR, I challenged Gale's use of the rule.
• Lastly there is the issue of being outnumbered. I am sure this has come up on the 3RR discussion page itself, to which I shall add my voice shortly, but I shall give my argument against this being Consensus here. Consider the 3RR scenario of 2 reverters each reverting twice, each followed by one revert, by the crafter of the original edit, of their revert. Is it Consensus that has been achieved? How can we be certain that it is not an Edit War, won by a larger army?

I suggest that "on material by an individual editor" be added to the 3RR rule such that it reads: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page, "on material by an individual editor", within a 24-hour period" This allows egregious material remaining after 3 reverts to be challenged on its deficiencies, and prevents worthy material from being bulldozed by a team of detractors. I also suggest that the rule be reduced to 2 reverts and of course, be renamed the 2RR rule to avoid an increase in edits. Editors can bulldoze a bad edit through, leading to poor edit quality and increased arbitration, you say? Administrators can, as we have seen on this page, block users at their discretion, outside of the limits of the 3RR rule etc. Beyond that, I can only hypothesize that there could be ways of facilitating the arbitration process for both arbitrators and their clients. I know for a fact that this page is hard to find; both this page and arbitration pages could be made easier to find and use. Anarchangel (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) re-worded Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this suggestion. The current rule rewards banding together and ideological policing, the kind seen on many political figures' pages. In my particular situation, those who reverted me were outnumbered by those who agreed with me, but because the reverters were more aggressive and divided up their reverts, it seemed to some that I was in the wrong. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're under the false impression that there exist a "right" and "wrong" side in an edit war. Grsz^X 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't poke the Strawman Anarchangel (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was this editor unblocked? Undo, Readds "motivations", Undo, Undo, Undo, Readds "two or three times". Looks like edit-warring to me. Grsz^X 03:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The "two or three times" is well-cited. One of my reverts was to someone who agreed with me, but was using language I knew our opponents would revert. Another user I reverted retracted his revert on my talk page. And on the talk page, consensus was leaning towards the view I advocated, which suggests Connect should not have reverted me. But I did also misunderstand the 3RR rule, thinking I could revert any one user three times in a 24-hour period.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked after an apology, and an instruction to stay off the page for at least 24 hours. Dayewalker (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The instruction was that he wasn't to revert that page for at least 24 hours. Switzpaw (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Missed that bit. Grsz^X 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I've changed the title of this section since it was obviously an appropriate block. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User 124.189.83.130

Resolved

 – — Satori Son

According to this user's block log they have recently been blocked for a period of six months for vandalism and have not been unblocked. So how have they succeeded in makingthis edit? Surely not as a result of this rather eloquent unblock request. SpinningSpark 07:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The most recent block was in April. It's expired now. Algebraist 07:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The block expired on October 2, 2008. AdjustShift (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I did that in a tearing hurry going out the door this morning and misread the dates. Apologies again. SpinningSpark 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative account

At Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts, it is recommended that consensus to identify alternative accounts as appropriate or otherwise should be sought here. User:Hesperian has indicated that he considers my second account to be used for "obfuscation".[130]

I would point out that the alternative account is clearly identified as such, and is used for specific purposes as detailed in my reply to Hesperian.[131] DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly marked as such so it's fine, although the only difference being a mispelling can be confusing unless people clikc on the userpage. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as it's transparent, there is no problem. My second account (used for AWB), Orderinchaos 2 (talk · contribs), is a good example - its talk page redirects to mine, its user page clearly states what it is and its purpose, and it is only ever used for maintenance work. I think as long as such standards of scrutiny are maintained, it is unlikely there will be problems. Orderinchaos 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing dispute on the Noise music page

I have been experiencing a problem with editor Semitransgenic at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnote citations (53 to be exact), some lacking only page # which I can provide in the next few months when I return to my library (as previously explained a # of times to Semitransgenic), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline by reverting to the previous edit I am constantly stymied from doing so. Is there a 6 week deadline for page #s I am unaware of? What is the policy on this situation? My general feeling is that the display of WP:OR & WP:SYN flags turn off the wikipedia users and as I cannot provide the page #s for a few months that these flags are better left off. Please advise. Thank you in advance. Valueyou (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

They have been changed to "check" tags by another editor. BMW(drive) 11:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic is violating WP:NPA at the Noise music talk page by calling another editor (me) "largely dishonest" and by cursing. Kindly ask Semitransgenic to stop doing so. I understand that continued violation can lead to Semitransgenic being blocked. Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Both these editors need to calm down and stop making personal remarkes about each other. Matters are improving, and dialogue needs to continue. There's no reason why this can't become a positive situation. Participation from outside editors would be helpful. Ty 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, both editors needs to calm down, please don't make Wikipedia a battleground. AdjustShift (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic was also waging this battle on User talk:Wknight94's talk page. Hopefully it could be confined to this one place from here on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No I wasn't, I placed a request for a WP:RFC/USER signature following User talk:Wknight94's engagement in yesterdays debacle, Valueyou deemed it necessary to bail in on that legitimate request. I wasn't aware this case had been opened until I saw What's up, Doc? mention of it. I was not informed directly about the filing of this. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended. I just thought it best if all this discussion could be in one place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violations at Pablo Ganguli

Mishmish22 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed the article to make derogatory, unsourced assertions in this biographical article. I've discussed the matter with this editor, and - when he/she didn't seem to understand what providing a source meant - posted level 3 and level 4 user warnings on the user talk page. He/she still doesn't get it, and is continuing to post unsourced derogatory information. I request that the account be blocked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The block would be a good one, however the BLP noticeboard would be better for this request. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the gist of the edits in question. I've indef blocked the Mishmish22 account as an obvious block-evading sockpuppet of Gloriothebould (talk · contribs · block log). Do we want to do anything with the puppetmaster account? — Satori Son 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef it as an abusive puppetmaster, as is customary. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Watene

Resolved

 – Issue for article talk page. — Satori Son

The article states that he dies when weights dropped at smacked his skull.

This is actually incorrect.

He collapsed and died before he could receive medical treatment at hospital.

This is what his club is saying and what superleague.co.uk is saying.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.20.104 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue at Talk:Adam Watene. And if you make edits to the article, please remember to cite them to reliable sources. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:TremorChrist19

Resolved

 – The user blocked for 1 week.

User has become increasingly uncivil in talk pages (see Talk:Death_Magnetic), and contribution history shows immature behaviour (removing content from a series of articles because it hasn't been included in the above). User talk warnings have gone unheeded, and are removed with a condescening remark. User was blocked with a warning several days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TremorChrist19&oldid=243589843 Thedarxide (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I effectively had him figured as a troll account a week ago; it's good to see he hasn't changed. I hate it when I'm wrong about someone. HalfShadow 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been very busy, I see, he's removed material from a lot of articles. And put 'poop' on his talk page. Nice mature editor. Doug Weller (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for a week. Doesn't really show any signs of wanting to cooperate. --Smashville^talk 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I reviewed the edits of TremorChrist19 and I feel Smashville did the right thing. Disruptive editing and uncivil behavior shouldn't be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits of User:Yaneleksklus aka 86.57.*.* aka 93.85.*.*

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

User:Yaneleksklus aka 86.57.*.* aka 93.85.*.* sure is making life miserable for the maintainers of dubstep, bassline house, 2-step garage, and loads of others at present.

he doesn't seem to understand WP:RS and his english isn't great. and he doesn't respond to messages left on his talk page. in fact, it looks like he's causing hassle at about a zillion different pages on musical genres. his intentions do seem good, he just has no intention of discussing the changes he is making with anyone, let alone forming a consensus.

He's unresponsive to messages on his talk page, and causing a lot of hassle for certain editors. --Kaini (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave him a welcome message, for a start. He's new here. What administrator action would you like us to take?  Sandstein  06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yaneleksklus is new. I checked his contributions and he doesn't seems to be a vandal. Maybe after getting some experience, he will be easier to deal with. AdjustShift (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure he is new. his modus operandi very similar to User:Werwerwer11. actually he's doing massive edits without any consensus. he doesn't respond to any messages. he is aggressive POV pusher. he's playing edit war right now! i'm sure we should block him from wiki. --True Steppa (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He is indeed at it again on dubstep making changes when asked to discuss on the WT page. His/her ignoring requests to communicate and discuss is disruptive. I have commented on actions by other editors who ignore communication requests and just continue to make disputed changes. I still believe because of the disruptive nature of such activity, a short block is in order to gain the attention of the editor and bring home the fact that such continued disruption will not be tolerated. Wikipedia is a collabrative effort and if all attempts at communication are ignored and disruptive activity continues, action needs to be taken.--JavierMC 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

now im sure that User:Yaneleksklus and User:Werwerwer11 (already blocked three times) is the same person. they edit from the same ip range (86.57.*.* and 93.85.*.*) of belarus and at the same articles. we should stop him immediately! --True Steppa (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PLS LOOK AT 2-step garage AND BAN HIM! --True Steppa (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

please do something! :( --True Steppa (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk2me2day

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely. Garden. 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk2me2day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is committing serial copyright violation. Here's the diff of her removing her final warning, and here's the diff of me warning her about copyright violations. Every image she uploaded has been deleted, and now she's off like a bunny again, uploading copyright violations and placing them in celebrity bios.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked after numerous warnings. —kurykh 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

strange IP edits revisited, from IP previously blocked for same.

I'm moving this from the archive,[], where it was inappropriately added. (Abd (talk)):

The user struck again, and I just noticed all his edits at the article Estadio Roy Fearon. I have removed the false information he had added, and sourced correct information (see edit). Thanks. --ChaChaFut (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that, did more today, was scratching my head about it. Busy little bee. Editing from Special:Contributions/82.109.91.180 as before. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, easynet (his ISP) don't provide consumer services so he must be editing from work. Someone might want to point out to him that an abuse report would be passed onto his place of employment... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Easynet provide the internet for Sky Broadband if memory serves... ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 19:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the vandalism, mixed with some possibly true but weird edits, continues. He is insistent, returns after being reverted, again and again. Some of the edits can look like good faith edits, but then there are unsourced and probably wrong -- clearly wrong in some cases -- insertions, such as James Fearon being a graduate of Cornell Law School.[132] If so, he's elected not to put in in his resume at [133]. He has Estadio Roy Fearon being named after Guillermo Roy Fearon.[134]; the source gives, big surprise, Roy Alfonso Fearon. Some of what he inserts checks out, but the ratio of good text to clearly wrong text is too low to permit the editing. It seems that he puts in a lot of pretty bad stuff, then, when reverted, puts in some good and bad, then, maybe, some edits with just good stuff, but trivial. James Fearon did graduate from Harvard (BA) and UC Berkeley (MA and PhD). Something weird is going on, as was said before. I've tried a little to use what was good from his edits -- he's corrected a few typos, for example, but as to facts, too many of them don't pan out. At this point, I'm simply reverting as vandalism, but, because of the prior block, I've only issued one warning, a final one. --Abd (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Kurt Shaped Box has now blocked the IP for one month. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Resolved

 – Docu can consider himself WP:TROUTed, and as has been mentioned ad nauseam, these two users should just stand in opposite corners. Black Kite 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

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

According to User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Please_dont., it appears that after the recent block discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Pigsonthewing, Pigonthewing used email to do the similiar he was requested [135] not to do here. Docu 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you hear that the Titanic sank?

You are noting a talkpage comment dated 1st October, while the discussion you are linking is from 27th September to 1st October - or later, since I stopped reading at that point - so therefore that email occurred before the conclusion of the discussion and the confirmation of any restriction... Now, is there any particular reason why you were reviewing Andy Mabbutt's talkpage? Has the "...stay away from each other..." advice lapsed? I would suggest that if you are sanction shopping re Pigsonthewing then you had best make sure that your own house is in order first. Please stop, and stay the hell away from each other for the foreseeable future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Per LessHeard vanU, you'll be doing something constructive if you stay away from each other. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See also [136] [137] - Atmoz (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? It isn't Pigsonthewing, because Andy Mabbutt isn't so stupid and it won't be Docu for exactly the same reason. It's a troll, and trolls are born to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU: TenOfAllTrades should be able to clarify the exact date of the emails. The block was 27/28. If he continued after the 28, it's clearly unacceptable. -- Docu 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who left the warning for Pigsonthewing, I have to say that I'm also unimpressed by the way that Docu has conducted himself of late. (Why didn't he choose to notify me of this thread?) Since Docu commented on the warning I gave to Pigsonthewing on October 1 ([138]), one does wonder why he's only bringing it to AN/I now—ten days later.

This type of sanction-shopping is petty and entirely unhelpful. While redundant, I've left a warning on Docu's talk page that he needs to find non-Mabbett interests. Neither user should be campaigning in any way to encourage harrassment of the other. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we've stopped threatening to block Docu for being the only one whose signature doesn't rattle like a bottle of pills. Definitely progress. I agree, there will always be people you can't get along with, best to avoid them as much as possible, take them off your watchlist, etc., act like they don't exist. — CharlotteWebb 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just got this really odd note from TenOfAllTrades on my talk page [139]. It doesn't seem to occur to him that I might have looked at his contributions.

In the past TenOfAllTrades already came there noting that it's an "inconvenience of scrolling back" to get there [140] .. obviously it is if he was reading emails rather than editing onwiki. It was somewhat unclear what brought him there, as I don't recall participating in any discussions with him on pages other than my talk (did I forget one?).

Anyways, it might be interesting if he could detail the type of emails he received from Pigsonthewing and their dates which may have prompted him to post to my talk page. Possibly others received similar. -- Docu 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the "copyright" issue. He might want to publish those e-mails himself someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Having failed to stir up interest in one non-event from Sept, docu seems now to be raising an even more trivial non-event from Sept. Enough. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a request on 18 September for Docu to sign his talk page posts normally. (For the record, Docu had been signing posts with just his name, absent any link to his userspace and without a datestamp. The former is discourteous to editors who might wish to contact him, the latter can make it more difficult to follow the timing of complex discussions and breaks the functionality of some archive bots. I urged him to return to the standard sig or some variant of it, or to offer some explanation why it would be harmful for him to do so.)

I received exactly one email from Pigsonthewing, on 25 September, to which I made no off-wiki reply. He noted that Docu had blanked my request – essentially unanswered – from his talk page. I asked Pigsonthewing to stop emailing me in a message to his talk page on 1 October, and in that message noted that both editors needed to stay away from each other: [141]. (I had been travelling extensively during the previous week and had little time for Wikipedia editing.)

Also on 1 October, I renewed my request to Docu on his talk page. His response was to refer to his previous non-answers, and also to point to the warning I had left Pigsonthewing—implying that I was acting at the behest of POTW: [142]. Seeing as Docu clearly read my comment, I didn't think it a great leap to assume he understood that he should stay away from Pigsonthewing. To make that warning absolutely, explicitly, abundantly clear, I renewed it on Docu's talk page yesterday: [143]. The forum-shopping he started in this thread is a disruptive waste of time.

As to what brought me to Docu's talk page in the first place, it was his conduct on various noticeboards recently: first the obstinate refusal to sign his posts normally, now his inability to play nicely in the same sandbox as Pigsonthewing. (Note that I'm also unimpressed by Pigsonthewing's conduct at times, but as far as I know he did at least pay attention to the warning I left him.) I was not recruited secretly off-wiki as part of some conspiracy, and I'll thank Docu to stop implying any such thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, your note is entirely inappropriate. If you had brought up the email you received in the previous discussion, this would have avoided this thread.

Anyways, thank you for noting when you received the email, even if you avoid detailing which are the "various noticeboards recently" so one could assess where you had the "inconvenience of scrolling back". Docu (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you really just unarchive this thread just to get the last word in? --Smashville^talk 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone smack him with a trout, please? HalfShadow 21:15, 13 October 2008 (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.

Two users insisting on including false & somewhat contradictory information on a page.

In reference to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral [144]

The claim that the Chaparral can only engage in the daytime is false. The system uses (actually USED, since it's out of service for many years) a variety of methods for all-weather/day-time/night-time operation, including, but not limited to, night vision goggles, low-light binoculars, FLIR, & the trained ears of the operators.

This has been Army doctrine on the system for many years & is specified in numerous FM's, TM's, & other military publications. The fact is also known to the several tens of thousands of people who have either worked on, assembled, or operated the system in the past. As far as linking to the source documents, these are official military manuals that MAY include some still sensitive information. The Sidewinder used on the system is still in use & still being upgraded. Trying to include any type of sensitive information on an unofficial site like Wiki may not even be a good idea.

Further, the very statement of "day-time operation only" is contradictory to other parts of the article. Immediately below where the false statement once was, it mentions the FLIR & all weather operation. The reason that FLIR can allow the system to engage in the dark is the same principle that allows it to engage in ground-fog, heavy clouds, & rain....it can "see" the target by it's heat signature.

Two users, Inclusionist & 81.132.105.115, have reverted my corrections multiple times. They have been informed of all information above & even more, yet they still persist in including the inaccuracies. I feel that the IP user is also Inclusionist, since he appeared immediately after I asked the former to please stop with the reverting or I wuld report it as vandalism.

However, I can't prove that, so have to assume they are different people, even though they are doing the same identical thing, with the same article, within hours of each other. Inclusionist HASN'T did a revert back to the false information after I asked him not to & explained why. However, the IP user HAS....after he was presented with the same information.

Therefore, I am asking for a ban or block on him to prevent him simply adding back the wrong information each time that I attempt to correct it.

Also, there are even more inaccuracies within the page, once again disagreeing with Army doctrine, but I haven't changed them yet to the accurate version. I know, due to their past actions, one of the above two individuals will simply put it back the way it is, effectively making the Wiki-Article useless for any real reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk • contribs)

Could you paraphrase all of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war at MIM-72 Chaparral between User:81.132.104.115 and User:67.14.215.240. 81.XXX is intentionally including text with a dubious tag so he knows it's not proper to be included. User:Inclusionist also reverted and even listed 67.XXX at WP:AIV but it was considered stale there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, 67.XXX was the first to remove content with the others warring to include it. Remains unsourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling who's got the right info, and since this machine is no longer in operation, it seems like a serious tempest in a teapot. However, 67.XXX's megillah is filled with personal opinions about "Army doctrine", whatever that means, yet not one actual citation. It sounds like original research on his part, so he's on just as shaky ground as anyone in this edit skirmish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this (I'm also 81.132.104.115): the information had been there for a while, unquestioned by multiple editors, so I assumed (not having read all of the references) sufficient consensus for its correctness. 67.14.215.240 (talk · contribs) has disputed it, so the correct response is to put a {{dubious}} tag on it and remove it soon if no verification is forthcoming.

67.14.215.240, however, simply removed the text on grounds of unsupported original research, and can't/won't provide sources for his claims to the contrary. His other edits have involved similar unexplained removal of text ([145],[146],[147],[148]). Particularly, blanking all the external links to Black site [149] can hardly be viewed as anything but vandalism. 86.160.183.164 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to show the accuracy of how I was TRYING to make the article read, the part in question can be referenced in FM44-16, 44-18-1, 44-4, & 44-3....along with several others. However, access to some of this, but not all, is password protected on official military sites. I TRY to make Wiki as accurate as possible, within the limits of my knowledge, and then only on articles which I am sure of & know that my statements can be documented.

Others, like the ones who repeatably vandalise my contributions, are more interested in policing OTHER people than actually working to help increase the quality of Wiki. This incident is a perfect example....there have been others.

The reason for the deletion of the external links is that ANOTHER Wiki-Policeman was intent on reverting some of my past edits with the reason being,"External links are not content" & "Wiki is not a repository of links".....so I'm simply following his instructions.....and I believe he was an admin.

But really, I don't care. I'm not like many "editors" who are only interested in adding 1 more notch to their edit-count, which they proudly display on their Talk-Page. I'm interested in ONLY 1 thing with Wiki....to help make it as accurate as possible. I found an inaccuracy in an article which I KNEW didn't belong, so I corrected it by deleting the inappropriate part. The article, as it stands at this minute, agrees with the official sources which I have already provided.

If these other guys would rather Wiki show FALSE information, by all means, let them. I tried my best to make it correct & won't fight them anymore, since they obviously have much more "correct" information on the article in question than I do. So go change it back to the inaccurate version if that's what makes you happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You "knowing" something is right or wrong doesn't past muster. You must find a citation for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams and threat of libel lawsuit

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 month.

We have an anonymous IP address, User:71.167.232.90, threatening a libel lawsuit against Wikipedia and/or User:Sean D Martin.[150] I thought it best to contact the administrators since threatening a libel lawsuit seems rather disruptive to the editing process. I'd appreciate if someone would take a look at it as soon as possible. Regards, J Readings (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for one month by User:EdJohnston. AdjustShift (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between this editor and User:Gingerhillinc? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forget the WP:DOLT principle. Just a reminder. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The level of disruption, mostly. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. User:Gingerhillinc issued a legal threat and vandalised an AfD. How is that less disruptive than 'only' issuing a legal threat? Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What should one make of this?

User:Lansing3456 has taken a particular interest in me. Here are some of his recent posts:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Bahrain&diff=prev&oldid=245092081

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarion_Fund&diff=prev&oldid=245090210

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Clarion_Fund&diff=prev&oldid=245089926

Any thoughts on how I should respond? --John Bahrain (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much to do. I wouldn't dignify him by acknowledging his actions. He's been warned on his talk page and he should be blocked if he continues to do this. Oren0 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New editor laying down nothing but sockpuppet tags

Resolved

 – Indef block by Rodhullandemu. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird one here, and I'm not at all familiar with who he's talking about, but Andrew Sterns (talk · contribs) is a new user who is doing nothing but posting sockpuppet tags on other editors' userpages. He tagged Bongwarrior as one, which is obviously wrong. Anyone familiar with this editor, or I need a name (talk · contribs), which is the editor he's claiming is mega-socking? Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like bull- looking at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of I need a name, there's something odd going on here. User:Darth Mike, User:Ed seem like a couple of obviously wrong ones. Also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/You need a name; there was suspicion of something for User:I need a name, but there was nothing wrong there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag he placed on the (apparently wikibreaking) admin Black Falcon's user page. Frankly, I think all of this user's edits need to be rolled back. The one-word message on Sterns's own user page ("Quack") seems to indicate that the sock may be on another hand. Deor (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start rolling them back if there's consensus to do so. His answer on my page seems to indicate he doesn't have proof [151]. Dayewalker (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do; a random sample shows completely harmless editors, and he should put up or shut up. I'd suggest inviting him to file WP:SSP reports but somehow I doubt that would produce anything. Meanwhile, an SPA account with no mainspace edits smells of duck, complete with orange sauce, saute potatoes and lightly steamed asparagus. --Rodhullandemu 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yum. Perhaps we should give him the bill? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait. This blatant troll only gets a 24 hour block??? --barneca (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say. There is a deletion notice on his page for a userpage for a renamed user; that's pointless. Indef, I would say, as no apparent intention to improve the project. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While processing speedy deletion requests, I ran into several of the user pages that this editor had created with his suspect tagging. I went ahead and deleted around 30 of the pages, and also left a note [152] for the blocking admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. I've indeffed this account and notified the blocking admin. something is rotten in the state of Denmark and I suggest a full explanation and justification is required. --Rodhullandemu 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle lists nominations for speedy deletion as minor edits

See, for example, this nomination. I am not discussing the merits of the nomination, just that the placing of the speedy deletion tag is being listed as a minor edit. It seems to me that all nominations for deletion should be open to public view, not hidden as minor edits. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits are still visible to anybody. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if one has set up their watchlist to hide minor edits. All nominations for deletion should be considered major edits and this should be fixed. MarnetteD | Talk 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this setting should be changed. As per Help:Minor edit and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Minor edits, edits that might reasonably call for scrutiny by other editors watching an article should not be classified as minor. It is pretty obvious that a proposal to delete an article would be of interest to other editors watching that article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, edits tagging an article for deletion should not be marked as minor. Is Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback the best place to request a change to huggle in this respect? WJBscribe (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be a change to Twinkle, though, not huggle. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/Bugs? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a report there. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FireandFlames17

Resolved

 – Legal threat retracted, articles in question are now being admin-monitored. --Elonka 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FireandFlames17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Legal threat: [153]

Edit warring:

• Warned: 20:18, 9 October 2008

• 19:16, 1 October 2008 reverting Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 13:35, 1 October 2008 reverting 71.213.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 01:24, 2 October 2008 reverting Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:26, 3 October 2008 reverting Scott MacDonald again
• 23:21, 8 October 2008
• 19:52, 9 October 2008
• 13:53, 10 October 2008 reverting 76.217.93.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 19:39, 12 October 2008
• 22:43, 12 October 2008
• 22:43, 12 October 2008
• 01:21, 14 October 2008 reverting C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 01:23, 14 October 2008
• 02:44, 14 October 2008
• 02:49, 14 October 2008

The ones not identified are his reverts of my edits. He especially dislikes tags and merge notices.

--Ronz (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In my defense Most edits were VERY MINOR edits. This user (Ronz) has been warned SEVERAL times by MANY editors to not continually replace tags that most all believe to be unwaranted, and yet he continues to make edits himself that violate the same rule he cites:

User contributions

01:42, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (Undid revision 245126597 by FireandFlames17 (talk) restored tags removed without reason) 01:41, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (Undid revision 245126877 by FireandFlames17 (talk) restored edits removed without rationale) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (→External links: removed blog per WP:ELNO #11) 22:33, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→advert: making progress) (top) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (can't find date for ref - Oct or Nov 2007 if it's monthly) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (citation info) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (→Reviews: removed blog per WP:ELNO #11) 22:09, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (→Reviews: third) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (→Reviews: nor the second) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (→Reviews: can't find date for first) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (begin wikifying reviews) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (update tags to reflect current discussion - this is a notice to attract other editors contributions - please respect this request to get others' opinions) 21:58, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (removed link that fails WP:EL - definitely not an independent source - definitely a promotional one - info not demonstrated important by an independent source) 21:57, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Passage to Zarahemla ‎ (Advert) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (update tags to reflect current discussion - this is a notice to attract other editors contributions - please respect this request to get others' opinions) 21:47, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (restored notice of merge discussion - placed 11 Oct - removed without rationale) 19:51, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Books and films: second ref just links to first) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Books and films) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Books and films) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Early life: got it) 19:36, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Early life: hmmm - cant find date for this) 19:34, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Books and films: nytimes ref adds nothing) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Early life: this the last?) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→Novels: again, WP:UNDUE that looks promotional) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (Undid revision 244868285 by Ronz (talk) because it is still under construction) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Chris Heimerdinger ‎ (→External links: I'm not sure why this was removed)

And that's just TODAY!!!! If there's anyone in violation of ANYTHING....it would be this user!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(numerous ecs) You still made legal threats and edit warred, just because he did too, you are not excused yourself. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that he's edit-warring with numerous editors. --Ronz (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are against the rules. Retract or you will be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats. Legal threats are never acceptable, and you would do well to retract it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez. This is one of the only times that I can say, "thanks" to the OP for making it easy. seicer | talk | contribs 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I retract???--FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just <strike></strike> (ie. text); it and add a note after it explaining that you retract it? Anything of that nature. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already deleted the post off the talkpage, so there's nothing left to strike out. --Elonka 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see he re-added it, just so that he could strike it out...[154] He's doing what we're asking of him here, but I think it would be better to just let the whole thing be deleted. What do others think? --Elonka 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to repost it for the express purpose of withdrawing it himself rather than having another user do that for him, I don't see anything wrong. Even if it's deleted from the page it exists in the history. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for getting hotheaded and threatening legal actions against the site or its editors. I admit that I was in the wrong. I said it in a fit of rage, having felt extremely harassed and was not fully aware of alternate dispute resolutions that could be pursued other than those I was already aware of. It is not my intention to create a war on here or disrupt the neutral stance and/or normal operations of the site. Again, I was in the wrong, and retract any perceived threats that may have indicated possible legal action. Respectfully - --FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When tags are placed on an article, it is normal to have a discussion before they are removed. Some editors on the Chris Heimerdinger article show enough enthusiasm for the article subject that they should probably look at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. If you have a connection to the subject of an article, or a particular enthusiasm, you should wait to be sure that your edits have consensus. It is not good to see so many reverts, including reverts of some people who we usually think of as very balanced editors. Consider opening a discussion at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which could bring in a wider set of editors to see whether issues are truly present that require tags. You might also get some advice at that noticeboard on how to fix any remaining neutrality problems with the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the COI issues a bit and commented in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Chris_Heimerdinger. We may need another to properly address the strong feelings of the many WP:SPA editors involved in the three articles. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Fhawd

Resolved

 – Or we could just block, tell them to go to AIV next time, and move on :) Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fhawd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism edit account. Every contrib is plain vandalism to the same article.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the right place for obvious vandalism reports, not here. This is for things of a more complex nature. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A more vandalism-specific area might have been more appropriate, but while you are here, a block is probably warranted. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV works when the edits have occured after a final warning. If not they refer you to WP:ANI--Cube lurker (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's the process. You template them up to level 4, then report if they pass it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo non-consensus move

• diff]

User:KMusgrave moved Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes with no discussion whatsoever, so (obviously) with no consensus. Can someone undo this, please? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Added diff of move above for those interested. - jc37 05:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User seems to have self-reverted. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am struck by the similarity of this incident to the recent one where the article for Dr. Strangelove was moved without consensus to the film's full title. That editor, User:Jabunga, was blocked shortly thereafter for move vandalism on Gwen Gale's talk page. Should I AGF or should I give in to the coincidence? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said. You go with the most commonly known name. For comparison, there is H.M.S. Pinafore, whose full title is H.M.S. Pinafore, or The Lass That Loved a Sailor. No one would call it by the longer name, hence it's merely mentioned in the first line of the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by 82.13.248.29

82.13.248.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps introducing "new" scores into Strictly Come Dancing pages without any kind of explanation or edit summary. They were blocked only a few weeks ago for disruption, but continued to introduce these errors after their block. Their contributions to other articles don't appear to be any better IMHO. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours this time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:202.51.72.254 & 5 attempts to insert blatant copyvio at Tamang

Tamang has been subject to the mass duplication of copyrighted material five times over the last 48-72 hours by User:205.51.72.254. User has completely ignored posts to their talk page. Reported to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 13 after the first two or three blatant copyvios, but no action yet taken. User should be blocked or page semiprotected to stop this before it becomes a legal issue. If I had ever bothered to get the tools I probably wouldn't use an autoblock - Share IPs are the rule, not the exception, in Nepal. Don't care too much what happens here, but some quick action seems warranted. MrZaius^talk 07:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean User:202.51.72.254. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup - You beat me to the correction. Corrected in section header above. MrZaius^talk 07:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this nonsense was clearly wrong so he's been final warned. It may be too late to block now as the IP may have rotated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits to Tamang were fairly consistent - Each of the five edits over the past several days originated from the same IP address. MrZaius^talk 09:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal-Sockpuppets on my IP

Resolved

 – NN article on ski jumper deleted per WP:SNOW (I kill myself sometimes) Black Kite 10:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BOX in snakeö, User: Pitbullfrogman. Both had vandalised on Vladimir Zografski and i have been autoblocked by both. AlwaysOnion (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't autoblocked if you can post here. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but have been before AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You won't be affected in future then. If you are, simply post {{unblock}} on your talk page and an admin will lift it. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And? I cant write on my talk page. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have been affected by a recent bug; normally, blocked users retain the ability to edit their talk page. That bug should have been fixed now. -- how do you turn this on 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Thank You! But can you please lock Vladimir Zografski? It is so boring to remove vandalism from it. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You can try requesting at WP:RPP; or another admin watching this thread may well do it. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what is going on here? You created Vladimir Zografski, it was vandalized by people with your same IP. When you complained here, the article was speedy deleted, and then you re-created it anyway, and it's been re-vandalized several times since. Are these friends of yours? Or pranksters in your office or dorm or something? Then why did you re-create the article? I was going to suggest WP:IPEXEMPT, but something seems amiss here. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the article is about AlwaysOnion (or someone he knows). I expect it's either friends/relations/schoolmates vandalizing as a joke. IPexempt may well be the way to go here. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

HAGGER?

Resolved

 – no further vandalism occurred, no action necessary

While checking my watchlist, I observed that Creston Township, Platte County, Nebraska had been vandalised by IP 83.91.152.209 in this edit, who replaced two sections with "HAGGER???". Should the IP be blocked as a Grawp sock? Nyttend (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More like a briefly-bored Grawp wannabe given that Grawp's standard operating procedure is page-move vandalism. Warn the IP and block as simple vandalism if it continues, I'd say. WP:RBI. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seattle needs to be moved back to Seattle, Washington

Resolved

 – Everyone seems to have worked out their differences on their talk pages and is working collaboratively. --Smashville^talk 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. For those curious to follow it through, discussion has moved to here. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

A rogue admin moved the article, despite a clear lack of consensus on the talk page, and a clear violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). The naming convention for US city articles is 'city, state', not 'city', and the only exceptions granted are for large cities, like New York City and Chicago. The only discussion that took place on the Seattle article was posted at Talk:Seattle, Washington, and there was ZERO effort made to seek the opinion of anyone else involved in the community, outside of a small group of Seattle-focused editors. Therefore, I think this decision needs to be reversed immediately, and more effort needs to be made to seek the opinions of a wider sampling of the wikipedia community before making broad-based changes to the well-established naming conventions of wikipedia articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are right here, it really doesn't help by starting off with "a rouge admin..." I expect many people will stop reading at that point. -- how do you turn this on 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with above. In any event, according to Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), "result of survey is move". Was there actually a survey? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Doesn't seem to come up with much consensus, to be honest. Garden. 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's hardly a consensus for a move there, quite the opposite. Has someone told Deacon about this thread? -- how do you turn this on 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the "rogue admin" bit was a little harsh, after all. Not sure what a "rouge admin" is, though? Dr. Cash (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A typo. -- how do you turn this on 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I, sir, am a rouge admin! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A typo?! Surely you meant a Wikipedia:Rouge admin! Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article in question was moved Sept 18th after a discussion at Talk:Seattle#Requested_move, which was closed by an uninvolved administrator. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_process, I do not see where there was a failure to follow procedure in the move request. Why wait until now to challenge it? and why at ANI instead of WP:RM? MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the naming conventions page. I see nothing that prohibits the move; it's one of about 25-30 cities in the U.S. that, according to the AP Stylebook, don't require the state modifier, and thus the article title doesn't have to use the modifier. Now, only four of those, including Seattle, don't use the modifier. But that doesn't mean that the modifier is necessary. You mention "large cities", which isn't a requirement listed anywhere as a naming convention. Even if it is, Chicago is the largest metropolitan area in the Midwest, and Seattle is the largest metropolitan area in the Northwest. I don't see any reason why it couldn't, or shouldn't, be located at Seattle. Ral315 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless busy work. Whoever made that change needs to find something more productive to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference on the naming conventions page to the AP stylebook is vague, at best. I do not have access to the AP stylebook to verify if what is written on that page is actually accurate to begin with. But since when did we follow the AP stylebook to begin with. The longstanding policy for US city articles has been 'city, state' and not 'city'. If exceptions to this are proposed, there needs to be more broad consensus than a small discussion on one single city article talk page -- that's not achieving true consensus. It's more like, ... dictatorship. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, following up on HDYTTO's advice above, saying someone bringing something similar up on Talk:Boston, Massachusetts is promoting "fascism and dictatorship" makes you look... well... I can't think of a way to describe it that isn't a personal attack. Maybe "unwise". Please stop saying things like that, lest I be tempted to template a regular.

I did not mean that as a "personal attack". What I meant to say is that it appears that the democratic process of achieving proper consensus is breaking down. The problem I currently see with this situation is that the Seattle renaming discussion slipped through the cracks by being done completely on its talk page, and there are currently discussions at Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana and Talk:Boston, Massachusetts to do the same. None of this discussions were posted at WP:CITIES (the wikiproject that oversees this), nor were the discussions advertised at WP:RFC. So the proponents of renaming appear to be trying to slip this through past established consensus. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been expressing a concern about WP:RM for a while now. The problem is that the notices are only placed on the page of the affected article. So the notice is in effect only given to those with a vested interest in the article. While in most cases this does not create a problem, it does produce a bias in the discussion. The feeling and the opinions of the editors involved get a much strong representation. So while there may be consensus, it is only a consensus in name only. If that consensus was opened to a wide community the results might not be the same. With the limited participation, the broader view for overriding conventions is often not respected, especially for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Not sure where this discussion belongs. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't be the only person who takes a look at WP:RM every so often to see whether there are any discussions in which I might want to participate. To the best of my recollection, all of my comments in move discussions (except for one or two that I've initiated myself) have related to articles in which I have no vested interest whatsoever. Deor (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else, please don't tell me we're about to have a content discussion at WP:ANI for the 10 billionth time. Pick a forum (WP:RM seems reasonable), and discuss it there. --barneca (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship? Paging Mr. Godwin. Paging Mr. Godwin. --Smashville^talk 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was actually initially proposed some time ago to do a mass move of the cities that are both considered as primary topics and listed in the AP style book to the stand alone name. The result of that survey was essentially 50-50. The final result of that debate was to not do mass moves but have the discussion of whether to move or not on an individual city basis. If there is no longer any opposition to a mass move of the AP cities that are inarguably the primary topics for their name, then it should be done, which should finally make this never ending source of contention go away. --Polaron | Talk 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be far more in favor of a mass move of all the cities on the AP Stylebook rather than the status quo of selectively moving this cities over at the whim of the prevailing "groupthink" mentality of wikipedia. If we're going to follow the AP Stylebook, let's f**king follow it, not pick and choose which cities are going to follow it and which cities are not going to follow it. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just point out that the vast majority of the people who voted oppose did so saying it was against the naming guideline. In fact, Seattle is listed as a possible exception so moving the article would not be against the guideline. Only one person who opposed argued with about whether the city of Seattle is the primary topic for "Seattle" or not. Many of the Seattle article editors, however, have argued that the city is indeed the primary meaning of "Seattle". The move was therefore closed properly. --Polaron | Talk 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's bullcrap and you know it! Seattle was only added to the list of exceptions (third paragraph) after it was moved. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...and it's been in the AP stylebook since at least 2004 as seen here. We just never updated the Naming Convention page. Please do not try to swing that as manipulation that an oversight here has been fixed. rootology (C)(T) 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

User talk:Rollosmokes and "The CW" again

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by Firsfron.

He's back from an indef-block for only a week, and he's starting in with the same thing that got him blocked the last time - this nonsense over the "ungrammatical" use of "The CW". [155] He has thus shown that being blocked for nearly 4 months was not enough to get the message across. He also stomps on the good faith shown by User:Firsfron who unblocked him [156] based on an e-mail promise that he would not start this nonsense again. Here [157] along with verbal shots against anyone disagreed with him (i.e. "persecuted" him) he promises that he will do just that - i.e, that he will resume the behavior that got him blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

hum - that's quite an odd one, he thinks that his preference for things to be "correct" overwrites what the entity is actually called. If he's been blocked for this before and his behaviour hasn't changed, then he should just be blocked again (maybe 24 hrs) and told that every time he persists, he will be blocked and the block will double (so the next time it would be 48 hrs). --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who originally reverted the "CW" not "The CW" changes made in this edit. I warned Rollo to not make such edits and recieved this response which said in part that he hadn't changed his stance on what he "believed to be a blatant error in proper capitalization" and he would may "revisit this issue at some point, in another manner."

After several posts, back and forth with my side being "it's the company's right to call themselves whatever they want" and his being "it isn't proper grammar", I guess he signed off for the night. I did email (via Wiki) Firsfron who was the one who asked for Rollo's unblock.

According to my knowledge, one of the conditions of Rollo's return was to knock off this "CW" not "The CW" thing. Rollo claimed his only condition was no "controversial editing, no insults, and no wars". I believe the "CW not "The CW" thing would fall under "controversial editing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 11:41

Block and throw away the key. Rollosmokes doesn't get it on so many levels that this will be a recurring problem while he continues to edit.

Has he and Firsfron been advised of this thread? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to go notify him, and an admin beat me to it: [158] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...and I emailed Firsfron as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 12:24

• Sigh* This again? Indef block, Rollo has proven that he does not need any more "last chances". Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he needs to rethink his position on this. Perhaps he could check The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal to see how they, and pretty much everyone else, handle names starting with 'The'. Failing that, or a willingness to finally walk away from a fight he can obviously never win, there seems little choice but to block. --CBD 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. As I recall, last spring when this tempest was first brewing, he was making the same argument against the "ungrammatical" use of The Chicago Tribune. He just never got rung up for that since the number of pages was small. And there's no "rethinking" about it. He remains unrepentent despite a 4-month block. The only "rethinking" he might possibly do is the answer to the question, "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" So far his behavior shows that his answer is, "Not badly enough to stop fomenting this conflict." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this comment from his talk page sums this issue up: As for the "issue" that got me banned, I'll be quite honest -- I HAVE NOT GIVEN UP ON IT.". Even after repeated requests to do so, and being blocked for it? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should warn that he's looking at an indef block, then indefblock him, perhaps? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He was already indef-blocked for precisely this behavior, after repeated warnings as well as short-term blocks. A generous admin unblocked him a week ago, and he picked up right where he left off - as he had done in the past when his short-term blocks expired. It's clear that NO warning to this guy is going to make any difference in his approach to things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was 3 months, not 4. But in reviewing his block log again [159] I was reminded that he has twice had indefinite block lifted due to sending an e-mail in which he promised to behave - and he has betrayed the unblocking admins both times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He was indef-blocked twice? I was going to wait til Firsfron weighed in before weighing in with my opinion, but I think after hearing that...Rollo needs to be given the ol' heave-ho. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 14:22

He has been now. Firsfron just indef-blocked him again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That didn't last long. I'm sad to see Rollo didn't use this opportunity very well. Apologies, all. Back to indefinite block. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 14:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries Dude. We all deserve a second chance, some use theirs better than others. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 14:37

Firsfron's generosity shines here. There needs to be a barnstar with a bootprint on it - denoting good faith that was trampled upon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak's User 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.

---

I would like to ask admins to do something about User:Kuban kazak's page. Currently, in addition to superfluous personal information it makes references to Georgians as fascists. This is not only offensive and uncivil, but these inflammatory polemic statements are also contrary to Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?. There is enough content dispute going around for user pages to be used for soapboxing too. I asked him politely at the talk to remove inflammatory statements, but apparently this cannot be resolved without admins' intervention. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All I could say is that the reporting party has herself previously indulged in WP:SOAPboxing no less [160], [161], [162], [163], [164]. However I usually don't care what people write on their userpages, I have long asked for wikipedia to delete this, for reasons that like Hillock said there is enough content disputes to allow nationalist-derivative media to be uploaded to wikipedia since the image is not used in any article space and uploaded to be exclusively used in soapboxing elements. Delete the image, i'll blank my userpage.

PS. I never intended on calling all Georgians fascists, after all how could Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, could have made such a contribution in destroying fascism during World War II? However the cowardly attack on South Osetia was done with clear intention in genocide and ethnic cleansing. The fact that the Georgian leadership, who masterminded this atrocity belong on the gallows is a matter of justice, just like those of Nuremberg. The key words are the fascist-georgian attack, the "georgian" is an adjective in the passage, not a noun. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have expected that a pretty reasonable request to remove insidious content will turn into mud-slinging. I hope people won't engage in polemic with someone, who until recently proudly displayed a picture of Stalin. This is the question of WP rules and respect for other users, not about what this user thinks of Georgia and Georgians.--Hillock65 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the offending term from the userpage, and have warned the user against returning it or similar terminology. Directly to Kuban kazak I would say; You seem to be under the mistaken belief that this is an area for the discussion of post Soviet Easter Europe politics - it is not, it is an encyclopedia. We welcome all contributions that help build the project, and we insist that all editors should treat each other will appropriate respect and civility. We recognise that there will be problems, but insist that all parties are required to act in good faith in constructing the encyclopedia; those who cannot or will not will be required to leave. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kuban kazak restored it, worded slightly differently, so I have re-removed it (diff) and blocked him for 24 hours. fish&karate 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just declined his unblock request. The page is borderline offensive as it is, and I'm not even Georgian *or* Russian. 24 hours will give him time to re-plan his userpage, and help him to understand that userpages are not somewhere to push a PoV anymore than articles are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I got edit conflicted in declining. Consider the above message an endorsement of the block. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, another attack on an opponent. Kuban_kazak is simply using terminology that is widely used in Russia to describe Saakashvili's regime. It is not an attack on the Georgian people as a whole, but the leadership of that country. And frankly, as Kuban_kazak has experienced the war firsthand, and from what I have seen of devastation in South Ossetia (look at video on Youtube of Georgian military yahoo'ing thru Tskhinvali), I can see why he may hold that opinion; an opinion that it is. Also, Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? is but a guideline, can someone explain what WP:POLICY is broken by placing this on the user page; knowing Kuban_kazak's edits, it's been kept on the userpage and not within his actual edits -- quite unusual, compared to those who let their editing show their POVs. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See this policy. For the record, I also endorse this block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And it's interesting to read verbiage that looks like it was written by someone who beamed down from the Tsar's army defending against Napoleon. Meanwhile, the only fascist Georgian I can think of offhand is Lester Maddox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the block, since this is an encyclopedia, not a set of soapboxes from which pots and kettles propagandistically call each other black. Edison (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I like better what another user once said, "This is a community, not a crazy den of pigs!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, no attack pages, right? I also endorse the block. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's probably not long enough. But he can always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 14 October 2008 (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.