Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553

Philadelphia

Hi there, I wanted to notify you of an incident happening on the Philadelphia page. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't do a lot about it, except revert things. I created the new lead image for the article and replaced the old one with it by a majority of votes (see the talk page). One or more users however keep reverting it to the old lead image. Despite several warnings they still refuse to take part in the discussion on the talk page. I'm willing to restore the old lead image only if a majority of users decides so through this discussion. So I'm asking you, to put a lock on the article or something similar. Thanks in advance, Massimo --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it, to encourage discussion. You should be aware, however, that you're technically violated WP:3RR, as those reverts were not vandalism (consider this your warning), and it'd be best to get the user(s) to discuss on the talk page, perhaps by asking at their talk pages, or perhaps by placing a note on the article's talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll place a note on the article's page to refer to the discussion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a comment would be much better. Or something inside an {{ambox}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Swamilive rangeblock expired

Hello. A 1-month range block was placed to stop User:Swamilive in March (seen here). As soon as that expired, he came back to the old things. The block was reset to 3 months in April (seen here. Now, that's expired and he's back at it. See the history of Winnipeg Folk Festival. Also, see these edits to Graham [1] [2] compared to these edits [3] [4] by former sock.

For the more of the history here, see:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_rampage
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive168#Yet_another_Swamilive_sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive_-_Sockpuppeteer_and_harasser_wrapped_up_and_ready_to_go

Would someone mind resetting the block? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for six months. If anyone objects, feel free to remove/modify. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks a lot! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Breast article

Check my History and see that all of the edits i did make on this page was quickly removed and now im scared to edit again because of getting blocked for a simple reason, how shall i handle it?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not edited the article Breast since February. When you did edit the article, it appears that you added unsourced original research. I would encourage you to read our info on using reliable sources and verifiability. TNXMan 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did make an edit now and got it removed by another user without leaving a note or a reason? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nakon removed your edit, probably for the reasons I stated above. Please do not re-add the material without a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on info that can be verified in independent sources and all of our articles should reflect that. TNXMan 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine I will not change the article but eh? everyone knows that African woman are known for having large breasts and by adding this information should be pretty normal--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. We can't accept material simply because "everyone knows it". It has be cited in an independent source before we can add it to an article here. TNXMan 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, someone was scarred by the covers of National Geographic when growing up. I know a great number of African women who do not have "large breasts". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! That stuff was rarely on the covers of National Geographic. I had to actually look through the magazine (oh wait, too much information.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, and Jenna Jameson will someday settle down and have kids. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this nonsense back in February or so? Wasn't Wiikiiwriter seriously chastised then? → ROUX ₪ 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was February, the same types of edits, and I believe he was blocked at one point for the same edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again regarding that stuff about African women. Regarding NG, I recall one black comedian (can't think of his name - might have been Irwin C. Watson) said, "National Geographic was our Playboy!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I also remember a story from the sixties about a "Native" woman who was shown bare-breasted, be cause it was educational. She was, however, quite pale-skinned, and had to take a trip through PhotoShop under the airbrush before she appeared in the magazine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Individuals with an agenda against subject matter pertaining to or related to the noble Barbaro-family

Resolved

I have been picked on, today, after I edited the Barbaro family recently, only to find out, by a little research on line, that there has been some long-standing agenda against Barbaro-family information on Wikipedia. False cases of sockpuppetry have been made up against users and tons of legitimate information has also been destroyed in the process. I am asking a professional administrator to keep a look out against the several prolematic editors talked about in this link: [[5]]. I have currently been harrassed by user Deor and Edward 321, who are both talked about in the link as problematic. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Our only agenda is removing hoaxes. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain/Archive, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mctrain, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive95#Hoaxer, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Barbaro_family, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#User:Mctrain. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend that the problematic administators taked about in the link that I posted above be permanently banned from Wikipedia. What they have said is libelous, and was fueled by a jealous agenda against one of the Barbaro family members, who happened to be an American. They are also liars, who blocked unjustly, and then proceeded to write whatever they wanted in their case files, which are completely bogus. Their libelous and bogus accusations have spilled all across the internet- on what can be deemed as nothing more than a childish, jealous agenda. They have made a mockery out of Wikipedia [[6]].

• In one case file above, they try to discredit the family's ancient Roman links, yet that point was absolutely accurate and sourced within the original article that they have sought to destroy. Here is a link of the original fully sourced article, and if you back track on Wikipedia, you will find the most excellent sourcing available was used for the topic, such as the Encylcopedia of Italian Nobility by Spretti and works by Zorzi, the finest historain of Venetian subject matter. Here is alink of just some of the information that has since been destroyed by their outrageous actions: [[7]]. Pagetools (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• But this is only the tip of the iceberg, these users went and destroyed anything and everything related to the Albergo branch of the Barbaro family, including an article about a well-known French abstract experssionist by the name of Lucien Ruolle [[8]], Baroness Capace, Countless noble Barbaro family members throughout history, and their nonstop attacks on the Current Head of the Albergo branch, a well known aerospace engineer who has worked on the development of Vision Industries K2, which if you back track you will see the appropriate page- fully sourced and even with links to images.Pagetools (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• You tell me, is honest and good hard work, that is done for free and which allows Wikipedia to keep on existing, deserving of this treatment by individuals like Deor and Edward 321, who appear to be clearly on a power trip to support their jealous agenda. Is good sourced work a hoax? And are individuals with seperate accounts on a public-used terminal sockpuppets? Of course not- this outrageous agenda needs to end- and I strongly recommend that users like Deor and Edward 321 be permanently banned- their 'power-trip' antics have gone on long enough: with unjust blocking, destroying good information, and outrageous hoax and sockpuppet accusations. There unwillingness to listen to reason, is mighty immature- to say the leastPagetools (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The abuse to users intersted in Barbaro-family subject matter has gone on for years now- at least since 2007- to the point where individuals like Deor and Edward 321 have almost completely removed any information about the Albergo branch of the noble Barbaro family from Wikipedia- and they have completely succeeded in removing any mention of both acting heads from both branches of the noble Barbaro family right out of Wikipedia. They have fully established a strong history of libelous accusations that both members don't exist, or are hoaxes- right up to abuse that even went to freebase encyclopedia. You can not google Barbaro subject matter today without coming accross countless accusations of "hoaxes" from these users. I am livid at my treatment today, and I strongly recommend that these problematic individuals get banned- they are unchecked with their blocking privledges and they are liars and coverup artists who change their case file pages to suit any agenda they are after.Pagetools (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide WP:RS reliable sources about this family and about the "Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent". Never mind, I read in one of the links provided by Edward312 above and I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sacred_Order_of_Skull_and_Crescent which were closed as obvious hoaxes and as the creator making up sources. I notice that he has not provided any source here apart from old copies of his own hoaxes. I suggest archiving this thread as trolling and blocking this account as another sock of Mctrain. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an open SPI, so just archive the thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pagetools as a disruptive account and high probability sockpuppet of Mctrain. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been funny business going on here for years, I started once to write about the Barbaro palazzi in Italy, and gave up because of constant rubbish (and dubious unreferenced material) being added - it became virtually impossible to keep even a stub stable if it had any mention of the Barbaro. From what I remember when I looked into it, this trouble seems to come from an "American branch" of the family headed by a "Prince Vitus" - I keep meaning to look them up in the Libro d'oro when I am at home, but always forget, anyway an American citizen cannot be an Italian prince so he would not be there anyway. Giano (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

3-revert rule broken

Resolved

 – — Aitias // discussion 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 has broken the 3-revert rule on the page The Fame Ball Tour. Please have him blocked. Alex (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You should report 3-revert issues at WP:AN3. You'll need to list the reverts, and show where the user was warned. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Legolas didn't even come close to breaking 3RR on that page. Tan | 39 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

True (hadn't spotted that, thanks). Hadn't been warned, either. I figured a link to AN3 and the requirements would be informative to the OP, though. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

AlexHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), here, is a fairly blatant sockpuppet of indef-blocked Alexander.hugh.george (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suggest blockage. McJeff (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Tan | 39 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic IP at Earth Song

80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A very problematic IP is continually removing a quote from Earth Song, mainly because he doesn't like it and apparently can't understand it, although it seems quite clear what the quote means to me. Not once has he used the talk page, continuing on after his final warning. The quote has been removed six times this month: [9][10][11][12][13][14] Pyrrhus16 19:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Left 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from administrator

Resolved

 – — Aitias // discussion 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the editing in Turkish Van cat article, but mixed the signs of references, and I am not able to solve it. Please, help to correct the reference marks. Thanks in advance.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please see my edit to see where you went wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure that this is the best place to ask for help with editing. Try placing the {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Abecedare user:Shreevatsa user:Priyanath at Aryabhata

Resolved

 – Stopthenonsense blocked for edit warring--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

There is a violation on WP:Biography, because of the not so conservative style they want to press into the article. They are not interested in WP:NPOV. Abecedere is the most troublesome edit warrior with no interest in talk page discussion. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC) A quick run over the page history and talk page suggest that the two editors are anxious to find sources for "everyone knows he comes from Kerala" type of statements. In fact, I note that the current lede of the article states without source that he definitively comes from Kerala, whereas a whole section lower down provides plenty of evidence that he doesn't. Is this the POV pushing you are refering to?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Elen of the Roads is correct in pointing out that 'Stopthenonsense' is doing anything but. By "not so conservative style", Stopthenonsense means that user:Abecedare and user:Shreevatsa favor a very liberal use of reliable sources and hold the radical view that the mainstream academic view should be given prominence in the lede. Priyanath talk 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Attempting to use ANI as a stick to beat someone because you disagree on sources, seldom comes out well for the complainant.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) No, the latest research suggest, that he was from Kerala. Hence there is nothing wrong about it to tell it in the lead. The study was from 2007, and since then not disputed. However, this is not the main issue here. The problem is, that these people want to make Aryabhata a man, who's identity is Sanskritian. There is no way, he would have spoken Sanskrit, since this language died long before. Since this is a biography, which has to be handled cautiously, the best way to handle this is to keep any language out. The point in this report is not the content wise issue. It's the identity stealing point, which is not supported by WP:Biography.--Stopthenonsense (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC) More eyes at the article are welcome. In my view this is a simple case of POV pushing and edit-warring by Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) and possible IP socks 91.130.188.40 (talk · contribs), 91.130.91.7 (talk · contribs) and 195.64.23.130 (talk · contribs) who are trying to promote the view that the Indian mathematician Aryabhata unambiguously hailed from the Indian state of Kerala and spoke Malayalam. The editors have been repeatedly asked to discuss on talk page and cite reliable sources to support their views (see latest request), but have edit-warred instead (diffs: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Stopthenonsense was give a 3RR warning just yesterday, but has persisted with edit warring since then. Is it time for blocks yet ? Abecedare (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC) And the edit-warring by Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) continues [29]. Admin intervention will be useful at this point. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) There was enough discussion, where YOU did not participate. Somebody should block you indefiniteley from editing in wikipedia.--Stopthenonsense (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: just in case anyone has missed it, this chap died in the 6th century AD. I do not think it is Wikipedia's policy on biographies that is the main driver here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) That would certainly suggest that WP:BLP would not apply... :D -- Deville (Talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) ... and even though the original complaint cites WP:BIOGRAPHY, I'd say that notability is not an issue for this historical mathematician and astronomer given that a lunar crater and India's first satellite were named after him. :-) Abecedare (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Update I have filed a SPI report to confirm if Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) and the Austria based IPs mentioned above are abusive sock accounts. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Glad to see some discussion finally. Just in case it isn't clear from the discussion above, the issue is that User:Stopthenonsense (along with some IPs who might also be the same person) wants to stick into the first sentence of the lead a place of birth and a language, which are in contradiction to what historians actually think (and what the article summarises), and do this with just edit warring and no discussion. Reverting these undue edits and insisting on discussion apparently makes us violate NPOV, in Stopthenonsense's view. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Personally, in the long run I don't care what historians think, I care about what historians wrote down and published in a recognized book :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Uh, that's what I meant, modulo including journal papers as well. (How else can we verifiably know what historians think?) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy is Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) who has a long block log YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dopplegangerr at Serial killer

Unresolved

 – No admin intervention required (especially as subject has not edited since final warning), suggest WP:WQA or WP:DR. Black Kite 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dopplegangerr (talk · contribs) has made repeated racially motivated POV edits to Serial killer, ignoring notifications on their user page and the article talk page. momoricks 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WADR to Black Kite, I have reviewed Dopplegangerr's edits and he does seem to be a disruptive SPA. His name implies that he is a sock. WP:SOCK explicitly forbids "Good hand, bad hand" accounts and says it "is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior". --B (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's disruptive edits have continued after the final warning and now include Carl Eugene Watts. momoricks 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Does seem to have an unfortunate preoccupation with race... seems most every edit deals with it in some way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have changed the resolved template to unresolved. --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose editor with dynamic IP causing disruption

The IP 86.136.34.91 is repeatedly rearranging band members without explanation at 21st Century Breakdown and The Network and has received a final warning. See [30], [31], [32], [33] for their edits. Also personal attack here. Has made these edits after being warned as another IP, under which he made the exact same edits to the same articles. Even before that, he had been doing the same edits under numerous other IPs for weeks. The only edits this person has made under his multiple IPs are to rearrange the band members on Green Day articles regardless of edit notes and attempts to discuss the matter with him. Timmeh 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An area-block seems needed. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP is a BT Broadband dynamic and as such is far too large a range to block; if they start again, I suggest nominating the articles for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Black Kite 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Timmeh 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock list

Posted on OfficerJackBoot's talk page(an idef banned user. Could an admin look in to it? Possible sockfarm.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: several of these are socks of User:ClaimJumperPete.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a checkuser or IP block do any good? This guy is getting annoying.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to file a sockpuppet report? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it as I speak.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lineup

Checkusered all. Those not stale are all  Confirmed, for what it's worth. I'll refrain from mentioning more on the wiki at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please keep an eye on an IP please?

I have other things I need to do, and 68.185.89.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making tendentious edits like this which is a highly inappropriate link. They are also rambling on about "liberals" amongst other things, and their previous edits are also highly dubious. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think O fenian needs some watching too. We don't remove people's attempts to discuss content disputes from talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, do you have a clue? It isn't a content dispute, look at where the link goes and the sentence it was put in. Then look at what was written on the talk page, it was bigoted soapboxing which you have added back. If the "watchers" are all like you, we're doomed. In case you cannot work it out, that link is similar to pipe linking to Criticism of Christianity with a visible link to Jesus. It was vandalism, it even says as much in the vandalism policy under "Link vandalism". The IPs edit summaries make their intentions clear, that was not a good faith attempt at discussion, it was bigoted soapboxing and should have been removed. And it was removed, until you came along.. O Fenian (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian does have a point. The link, [[Religious arguments about same-sex marriage#Religious opposition|same]] links to an opposition page not to a support page. This should be removed immediately and the anon user warned. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with the IP either. However, we don't remove people's attempts to discuss their edits from article talk pages unless they're offensive. My point is that both editors appear to be wrong in this conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What the IP wrote was offensive, do you not understand that? O Fenian (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it is OK for the IP to add an intentionally misleading wikilink on the page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are missing the points. There are two issues here: There was nothing offensive in this comment. It removing the comment from the talk page is highly inappropriate. I agree that the link in the article was misleading. However, discussing things on talk pages is how we solve issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying anything about the comment, just the link that was placed by the anon. That is the only think that should be removed. Comment should stay, link should go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I said something about the comment. And I discussed it on O Fenian's talk page as well. Toddst1 (talk)

Then my main concern is the link, which with your revert, still remains and should be removed. Correction: the link has been removed (by O Fenian) and that is my main concern, that the link stays gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. My initial revert of the inappropriate link was reverted with an edit summary of "Reverted bad-faith extreme POV reversion". That instantly tells me, and 99% of other people, that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Then for the IP to claim it is "extremely biased of Wikipedia to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate", based on the previous edits I, and 99% of other people, would correctly identify that as bigoted soapboxing against even the inclusion of a mention of same-sex unions. If that the first comment from an editor it could be interpreted differently, but from that editor with that history it is not a good faith attempt at discussion, and nothing meaningful could possibly come from that discussion. And Toddst1, you didn't discuss anything on my talk page. You came along with a pointless templated warning, and still don't understand that the discussion is pointless, offensive, and should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I sort of see what Toddst1 is getting at here, I think that it's a little akin to raising a stink because we didn't serve a condemned man's last meal at the proper temperature. The IP editor lost his "discussion" privileges. These IP edits are clearly not appropriate, and I see no need for them to be discussed on the article talk page, as there's no way in hell those edits are ever going to be included on the page. Tan | 39 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern was the link. If it isn't there, I am happy. It appears it has, in fact, been removed, so my involvement in this issue is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the link was never and isn't in question. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not serving a condemned man's last meal at the proper temperature is a horrible thing to do! Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Imposter

Resolved

 – Impostor account blocked. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwens Gale (talk · contribs) is a new user vandalizing various articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Was a new user; I blocked it about an hour ago [34]. Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unusual hobbies and civility

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One thing that amazes me about Wikipedia's admins approach to civility is that when confronted with true abuse and incivility from those who one must assume have limited vocabulary[35] the civility police are strangly silent and reticent - or is it that when they are singing on behalf of Slim Virgin they are allowed to use the language of the gutter? Obviously those Admins so beloved of civility have varying standards when blocking will give them less kudos and publicity than blocking certaon others. Giano (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Your own comments weren't too nice, you know. Such words as "mob" and "maliciously" really do not improve the civility of Wikipedia. And when you got bitten you ran over to AN/I. Really, that's trollish behavior. Cut it out, please, it isn't resolving anything or helping anything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Not at all, were I to use such language, I would rightfully be blocked. Such a word is not in my vocabulary or that of many other educated people. were I to use it Sandstein, Connolly and God knows who else would be racing and falling over each other to block. A comment such as yours displays a monumantal ignorance of what is actually going on here, with one law for one and another for another. Get real! I see you an Admin too, Wehwalt - what a poor one you must be.Giano (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I appreciate the feedback! I guess you saw the mop on my user page next to the dozen or so FA stars and GA crosses. However, I don't let myself be drawn in that manner. I will leave a comment in the thread asking both you and the other editor against provocative and strong language. Administrators are not here to mete out justice, but to keep the peace so we all can build an encyclopedia. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC) "Fuck off Cocksucker! "That is obviously completely OK to say - is it, so I shall not hesitate to say it when confronted with things I do not care for. If you read my post there, you will see it is succinct and accurate, if you post anything to the effect that is it is inflamattory you will have such a fight on your hands here you won't know what has hit you. Giano (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I appreciate on the latter count. As I don't qualify on the first count, I will assume it is for dramatic effect and measure your maturity level accordingly. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) and that is whay I think of your post [36] Now I am quite happy to be blocked for objecting to being called a "cock sucker" and highlight the doubkle standards you Admins employ here. Giano (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not blocking either of you, but I don't distinguish between the "seven dirty words" and language otherwise phrased to get the same reaction. You've both been given friendly advice to cut it out and the thread over there has died. I suggest we mark this resolved and move on to building an encyclopedia, which is supposedly what we're here for!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And ... stop. IMHO Giano is actually right here - whilst his posting on the thread was perhaps a little intemperate it wasn't aimed at any user in particular. Doc Tropic's posting, however, was - and was out of line. It ias absolutely correct that there are admins who would've blocked Giano in a heartbeat for posting something similar, and that smacks of double standards to me. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably issued a short block for Doc (or anyone else for that matter), but I'm not going to do it 8 hours after the event - instead I'm going to drop a stern warning on his talkpage. But Giano - this doesn't help either. Black Kite 10:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker! Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - you would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Why is that, Giano?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC) your reply above is exactly what I have come to expect from Admins on this page. Giano (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Because Giano has a point that any incivility from him is usually met with a block, whereas this one wasn't. So this looks like double standards from his point of view, though I suggest it was more likely that no-one actually noticed it at the time, and probably wouldn't unless someone had reposted it here. I have locked the ADCP thread for a short while however in an attempt to stop G getting himself blocked as a WP:POINT exercise. Black Kite 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I would rather be blocked that sit and look at the gross hypocrisy displayed by Wikipedia's admins on this page! at least, my actions would be honest! Giano (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) There's honest, and then there's futile, however. You can call me - or anyone else - hypocritical but there's no way I'd block Doc, you, or anyone else for a comment made 9 hours ago unless it was part of a repeating pattern. Black Kite 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And to call me hypocritical and make it stick would require you to show that I had treated you or other involved editors differently on another occasion. Good luck on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I see you have reverted me and replace Wehwalt's ill conceived warning - well if you read my paost you will see it requires no warning. In fact I suspect we have a little partisan here. You will either gave to block me over this hypocrisy or keep that page protected for a very long time. As for you Wehwalt, we only have to look at your initial response here. Giano (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Nothing further to do here. Again suggest we mark this resolved. Thanks for your help, BK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Nope it is far from resolved - if you think cock sucker is an acceptable term to be permitted, then you are quite wrong. Giano (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed Doc Tropic's personal attack and the sub-thread that led from it. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. Now I'm going to do something more productive and go down the pub go to take some more photos to help get Brandon Marsh to GA. Black Kite 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another editor as a cock sucker [37]. Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) As I see from the diff, he said as soon as he learned how to spell "cosk sucker", he was going to give you a piece of his mind. That is rather different from what you said. Frankly, I'd consider referring to others' motives as malicious to be as bad or worse. I know which would result in a bigger payday in a libel suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Glad you have finally read it. I think that you have displayed your ignorance quite enough for one day. Giano (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Right, seeing as you obvioulsy want to continue this, what is unacceptable as you say here [38]. Think before you answer this timeplease, you may find I have right on my side. Giano (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Calling other editor's actions or attitudes "malicious" is horribly destructive of WP:AGF and inconsistent with the collegial atmosphere that we hope WP should have. And really, that is all I have to say about it. Please feel free to respond at your leisure, I don't think there's more to be done here unless you hope that the admins you named will weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Given that this is a site that deals with facts it must therefore be incumbent on us to ascertain that you don't actually suck cocks before the statement can be construed as an insult. Should it be the case that you do indeed suck cocks then it is merely a statement of fact. --WebHamster 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I confirm have never sucked anything more than a a peppermint. My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules [39] that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC) We're going to need diffs on that peppermint!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And Peppermint's surname is? Just for the files of course ;) --WebHamster 12:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I can't say that I'm a fan of retroactive blocks, but obviously this comment should have caught attention sooner. Seems like it's been blanked, by now, and rightfully so. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Block resulting from the above I have given Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) a 24 hour deterrence block, retroactive to the time the comment was made. There is no excuse for making derogatory and sexual remarks at another user. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you Jehochman, obviously the usual members of the civility police are taking a day off. Giano (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) A good block, in my view. Endorse. Note, however, that I've unblocked Doc [40] ... I think he gets the point and is not likely to repeat the error or cause further disruption. He has a block on his block log forever more to remind him not to, as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) The editor-in-question (Doc Tropic) has certainly breached CIVIL & therefore should have served out his block. Indeed, Giano has been blocked (and had them reverted) numerious times for 'colorful language'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not bothered about him being unblocked, so long after the event because today, we have seen the end of any pretence that Wikipedia's admins may have of being genuinely concerned about civility. The civility block is just a weapon to be used at random and for personal gain and whim. I'm glad Jehochman and Lar arrived belatedly on the scene, but as for the usuals! well contempt is to put it mildly, but at least we now know their true colours. If it had been me they would have been conflicting each other in their obscene salivatory need to have the block extended - what jokes they are, and we all know who they are - don't we? Giano (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'm only surprised that you seem to be surprised. The double standards that you're drawing attention to have surely been evident for some time? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'll tell you how surprised I am, I even checked to see who of the well known ones were editing during all of this, and 66% of them were. Obviously "Doc" was singing the right song - "cocksucker" indeed, I can think of few words more offensive to anyone. Giano (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) @GoodDay: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I endorse the block, even coming late. But I also note that Doc spent some time thinking about why his approach was not a good one, and when pressed on the matter, gave an entirely satisfactory indication that there won't be a recurrence. I could be wrong, it was a judgement call, but the disruption that the block would be preventing is not, in my view, likely to recur now that Doc has had a chance to contemplate, reflect, and make assurances, giving his word. The word of another user should always be taken unless they have given us cause in the past to doubt it. I hope that addresses your concern about the unblock. 'Tis the reason I could never be an Administrator. IMO, blocks should be (at least) equally punitive/preventative. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC) @Giano: I derived no personal gain one way or the other from either the block or unblock, to the best of my knowledge. But the wiki took a loss. Fortunately you are not such a delicate flower that the original comment had a chilling effect on your inclination to share your views, but this is just another (relatively minor) corrosive episode in a long series. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) You are correct, Giano. That diff should have resulted in a short block immediately—implying that someone is an "arrogant cocksucker" is not acceptable here. You are also correct that if it had been you, you probably would have been blocked. If I were a sysop, I would have issued a block when I saw it. Even though the block was issued late, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Hopefully the user in question won't do it again. Cheers, Firestorm Talk 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Late to the party again, but I endorse Jehochman's block, which should indeed have happened much sooner. Administrators should also not be so quick to unblock users sanctions for uncivility.  Sandstein  06:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC) No sandstein, you were not late to the party, you failed to attend. Giano (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Alas, Wikimedia does not pay me well enough to weigh in on every ANI thread minutes after its inception. Should you really value my assessment of specific situations, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page the next time.  Sandstein  07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Just don't worry about it Sandstein - blocks etc concerning you are so much clearer now. It was a revealing 24 hours - very revealng.Don't let me keep you, you can resume your daily blocking now. Giano (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Recommended reading I recommend Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm... I was going to recommend Mutz D, Effects of "In-Your-Face" Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition, American Political Science Review (2007) 101(4):621-35. "Violating social norms... increased the intensity of affect among the opposition, but remaining civil did not intensify the positive feelings viewers held toward their own side. Civility appears to be the default expectation, and it is arousing and influential only when people deviate from it... When those holding differing views violate social norms by being uncivil and disagreeable right in viewers’ faces, it is all that much easier to demonize them along multiple dimensions." MastCell Talk 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I recommend my own 4 rules regarding civility. Giano (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I thought it was three, per your above comment. And while we are on the subject, Giano, I'd recommend you consider adding some more, since you are in expansion mode. For example, "Don't goad other editors by provocative language." And "Take seriously the admonition on AN/I to try to work things out on their talk page before running here." And "If you are offended by a 'dirty' word, there is no particular need to spray it all over AN/I." And , "If you are considering whose rules for civility to adopt, examine the author's block log before deciding." And lastly WP:AGF and all that it entails. So far as I can see, you have questioned the good faith of almost everyone in these threads, other than those who did or supported what you wanted. If there's nothing more to be done here, let's get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Your opinions here are now considered worthless. Some may even feel you are unfit to be an Admin. I suggest you slink away quietly and hope others forget your part in this disgraceful episode. Now let's just see which of the clockwork mice scurry here to offer an opinion on me now - having been so silent yesterday. Giano (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome, perhaps misunderstood user: Aliveatoms

Resolved

 – User blockcked for 72 hours by User:Tanthalas39 after reverting a closed AfD Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Aliveatoms (talk · contribs)

This user is upset because User:RadioFan, who is doing new page patrol, speedied and nominated Jim Braden for deletion. The AfD is progressing normally, but Aliveatoms is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, by disrupting AfDs (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4), and was warned for this by RadioFan and also by C.Fred. The user also ranted on RadioFan's page, and was warning for it- perhaps a little too strongly, but still warned.

The user 'responds' to any message on their user talk page by removing them without comment, except the replacement text ("I am Alive Atoms. I welcome your comments"). This is well within their rights, but (if nothing else) serves to prove they have seen the warnings and queries for information.

About 90 minutes after the disruptive AfD warnings, the user made a series of possibly legitimate comments on AfDs (examples: 1, 2, 3), but then started keeping an "editors I hate" list on their user page, titled "I Dislike Overzealous Deletionists, Including, but Not Limited To". That certainly seems to cross the boundary into a personal attack. Next the user went to KZEY, a radio station, and nominated it for deletion, claiming "I'm not finding significant coverage of this radio station in 3rd party sources". This appears to be a blatant bad-faith nomination with unknown motive, except to be disruptive, considering there are high-quality sources given (Arbitron, FCC, and so on).

I'm of two minds on this. First, blocking the user would be easy and justified. Second, if someone uninvolved can reach out (again) to the editor and encourage productive edits, they might become a valuable asset to Wikipedia.

That's why I'm posting it here, rather than on WP:WQA; at a minimum, it's likely to need an uninvolved editor to monitor the situation closely.

Sorry for the verbose post; it seemed like there was a lot of necessary context to the situation, especially to present it somewhat neutrally. tedder (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I warned the editor on his blantant bad faith AfD. If an admin would kindly speedy keep the AfD in question, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"All radio stations are notable". Is this Wikipedia policy/guideline? Seems to me radio stations are companies, subject to WP:ORG. I'm jusssayin', I really didn't look into the situation that hard. Tan | 39 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The standard notability, which has been upheld in many AfDs, is that if the station (be it AM, FM or Low Power) has a license or had a license (for defunct stations), then it is notable. If the station is CC (Closed Curcuit) or a Pirate station, then it is not notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An odd way to measure notability, as a license is a matter of money - any license may be bought and sold from party to party. Tan | 39 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an old essay out there that kinda says the same thing for both radio and television stations. It needs some serious updating, so for now we just go with the standard precedent standing notability with the license. Also, and it doesn't happen often, but a license can be sold for as little as $1.00 US. It doesn't matter the price. I bet some have been swapped around for nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if the article in question had significant and reliable sourcing, we might know how much they paid for their license and Arbitron listing. As it stands, this article is not noteworthy. Sorry. Aliveatoms (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...and if you knew anything about radio stations you would know that that information is not listed on any application. But you don't, cause this is POINTed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, r to Tanthalus39) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Media: "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios". Not policy, but precedent. tedder (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(go left) Now the editor is striking Neutralhomer's 'speedy keep' vote. Good times! tedder

I liked that one myself. :) I responded back to Aliveatoms on that one.

Anywho, Tan39, I dug up the two inactive and kinda out of date essays that have the notability concerns spelled out. Please see here and here for both of them. They need to be updated and brought into mainspace (perferably), as I think the members of WP:WPRS and WP:TVS do a very good job (Dravecky and Mlaffs especially) weeding out the pirates and CCs and adding references and the like for all the radio and television station pages out there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw those guidelines. Actually reading WP:BCAST kinda makes me think this "every radio station is notable" shouldn't be the prevailing precedent. We are not a directory of all radio stations. Note that this is not an endorsement of Aliveatoms, who I warned in multiple venues for making pointed and bad faith edits (and who needs to stop). Tan | 39 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We only list AM, FM and LP (low power) stations. Those translators that serve a tiny little area, those are not included, they don't get a page. They are listed on the parent stations page, but don't get a page of their own. We are very careful who gets a page, what is added and where the pages are linked to. Trust me, this is a careful project. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this user feels my efforts to save intersting pages from deletion is somehow disruptive. Aliveatoms (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh drop the empty apologizes and the "I am just here to help" attitude. You are doing nothing but making pointed AfDs and personal attacks. Stop or be blocked, it is up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of igniting a flame war, I really don't appreciate the multiple opinions that I am DISRUPTIVE and making BAD FAITH efforts. I'm sorry, my opinion is that an unremarkable radio station in a small town that has garnered no press coverage just does not seem notable and meritous of inclusion. That is my opinion. Aliveatoms (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The risk isn't a flame war; the risk is you being blocked or not. User has been warned to stop disruptive, point-y behavior. Marking as resolved. Tan | 39 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this user has gone beyond troublesome. So we've got nonconstructive !votes in multiple AFDs, copyright violations, multiple removals of speedy deletion tags, removing other editors comments in an AFD, vandalizing a user page, consistently removing warnings from their talk page from any and all editors and administrators, and a bad faith AFD nomination. I think this editor has moved beyond the good faith consideration offered new editors. Its pretty clear that their intentions are not constructive here and have no interest in constructive criticism of others. WP:AIV refused to do anything here, will some other editor help out? I do not consider this issue resolved. This editor has been warned numerous times. I fail to understand how an additional warning will resolve this.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Temporary blocks are meant to prevent disruption and (hopefully) get through to a user that what they are doing cannot continue. I think the time for a short block is at hand and even if it doesn't modify aliveatoms behavior, it will stop the disruption. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Loyzaga Article

I would like to report, this Anonymous IP user User:122.104.194.58 keeps editing and removing the proper terms of an Individual Award in the article Carlos Loyzaga. My argument is that the individual award he received in the 1954 FIBA World Championship was called "1954 FIBA World Championship Mythical Team", means the five best players of the tournament. But the said user, keep re-editing the article and change to "1954 FIBA World Championship All-Star" and its gives people the wrong idea that the World Championship has an "All-Star" game. I even provided a source but he deleted that source as well. --peads (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy also uses this IP address User:122.104.185.193.. So I'm guessing he is using an Internet Cafe--peads (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Crosswiki vandalism by Disney Vandal?

Hi All

Here we just see a whole lot of sockpuppets at work (all the red ones) over at dewiki. According to this, it's presumably the disney vandal. I've heard about this guy before, but didn't know about him spamming other projects than enwiki (fortunatelly). Looks as if this has changed, if it really is so. Can someone give us a hint on the kinds of edits this user does and what the problem with him/her is? That would simplify identifying such vandalism accounts on other projects. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you read Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101? Stifle (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I did now. Interesting, two pages of text for a single vandal :-( But I'm still not sure how to identify him. But it does look like the following accounts are him: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Gopigates and http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=TheBigTubeAnim and http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=FroggoFan64

Any opposition agains a global block request? --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, none here Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested global block over there. I hope that was the right page for this... (seems not to have big traffic there *blink*) --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incident report against editor 162.6.97.3

An editor under the IP address 162.6.97.3 wrongfully reported me for edit warring today after only one single revert on CNBC’s TV personality Rebecca Quick under the edit warring (3RR) noticeboard. This is the complaint [[41]] in question . While I don’t anticipate the complaint going anywhere, I am really disappointed at the unprofessional approach this editor took. I did not revert his edit without reason. I explained my reason in the edit summary. He did not take my revert into consideration, and automatically wrote me off as a hostile editor with this complaint which doesn’t have any sufficient evident to support it. This is an act of incivility by this editor on me. I would appreciate an administrator step in, look at this matter, and perhaps issue a warning. I do not come on Wikipedia to be pushed around by editors who do not have things go to their way when it involves me in some form or fashion. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor issued warning. KMF, you might not want to take such offense to things like this - if you edit Wikipedia, you're going to come across editors who react this way. Tan | 39 15:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is KMF's warning, based on KMF's edit-warring behavior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while in the instance noted in the initial report I agree with KMF, I have to acknowledge that KMF's behavior can be at times rude and one-sided. Will put a reminder on KMF's talk page to maintain civility and follow the WP:BRD format for content disputes. Tan | 39 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I edit on Wikipedia, never would I add edits that would violate wikipedia guidelines, like unsource or inflammatory information to name two of the most common issues. In the past when I encounter instances like this one, and another from a couple days ago, I would have taken matters in my own hands. Like I said, that was in the past. Now, I do what I am instructed to do by administrators if I’m ever in these types of situations, take it up on the noticeboards, the most appropriate way. You are right, Tan. I shouldn’t take offense to these things, and I don’t. But at the same time, I am not going to let an editor such as my accuser be allowed to have his or her way on wikipedia if I know that what they are doing is against rules and regulations. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to a casual observer you took quite a bit into your hands the past few days. Based on your message trail, you sought refuge in rules & regulations only after failing to advance some odd bias against basic marital information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

You are reminded to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Also, how about signing your posts and giving poor sinebot a rest? Syrthiss (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I look at it this way: if the IP does it once, make sure they have a Welcome with links to policy. After all, the folks at edit-warring are going to ignore it. They do it again, it's a civility issue more than anything else, so off to WP:WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Would 162.6.97.3's recent edits to another IP talk page at User talk:76.114.133.44 be evidence that they are evading a current block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a strong possibility. Sonething to definately take a look at. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I had already made that assumption, but was willing to go with it since I had protected the Rebecca Quick page. Looks like they've been blocked now as well. Syrthiss (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN

SOPHIAN (talk · contribs) Recreated the deleted article Sub-Saharan African DNA admixture in Europe, diff, after it was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (2nd nomination). A speedy deletion tag was place on the article which SOPHIAN proceeded to remove diff. Okay stuff happens, ordinarily not too much of a big deal. The problem is this is part of a long pattern of eccentric and counter productive behavior that include

• Inappropriate accusations of Sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pdeitiker/Archive
• Request for adminship after only 37 edits Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN and solicitation
• Edit warring without discussion on talk pages that has resulted in three blocks within a month. [42]

Unfortunately the pattern of behavior is not getting better. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page, blocked S William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Refusal to engage arguments

Sturm College of Law

I have edited Sturm College of Law to look like a wiki page. Another user on here keeps reverting and placing a picture in a blatant attempt to vandalize the page. Please look into. keystoneridin! (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no way that the other user was trying to "vandalize" this page. Please review the Wikipedia definition of vandalism before making any accusations of the same nature. I have protected the article for a week due to the edit warring. Tan | 39 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• As per convention and common courtesy I have informed User:Wikics14 of this discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Gah, that whole article reads like an ad. It's going to have to be depeacockitized after the protection expires. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keystoneridin, your edit summaries are misleading and your approach to content disputes needs improving. This edit is not "wikified page". It's an outright removal of an image. And the first response to a novice editor who tries to revert your change, to restore the article back to its prior state after you removed the image, should not be to issue bureaucratic warnings. Further responses should not continue in that vein, moreover. Your bold change was (imperfectly) reverted and so, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your next step should have been discussion, not handing out boilerplate warnings. Read your own boilerplate and take your own advice: Treat your fellow editors like human beings, and they won't regard you poorly. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• I was trying to convey that the picture was in the wrong place. This novice editor seems to think that because he/she put an article in place, it cannot be removed for any reason. I am sorry to hurt any feelings, as I was trying to make the page better. I do admit that I should have relocated the picture in the first place instead of deleting it;however, I did move the picture in subsequent edits to a proper location within the page that the user felt was inadequate. I extended my apologies to the user and I hope that they can understand what a "typical" wikipedia page format looks like.keystoneridin! (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by U-Mos

While its on my watchlist, I've been tracking the edit-warring between U-Mos and...well, just about everyone else. I decided to stay out of it until I saw this edit summary by U-Mos:

"Don't undo good edits even if you disagree with other parts of it. Don't continue to be counter-productive and introduce contradictions into wikipedia. And don't be so fucking patronising."

I cannot speak for anyone else, but that doesn't seem like an edit summary conducive to polite discussion to me. While discussion is ongoing, U-Mos appears to be addressing the editors more than the edits. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that U-Mos has had this issue, especially with Doctor Who-related articles. He was warned about 3RR, and - without having closely inspected the actual edits (there are puh-lenty of them), I think the user might have made over 3 reverts. That, coupled with the unacceptable language in the edit summary suggests that there are some problems that need addressing. I cannot step in, as I don't consider myself neutral where U-Mos is concerned. I thought someone else might be able to step in, calm folk down, dispute protect the article for a bit (though that's been tried before), or issue a block to protect the stability of the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Three most recent parties notified of this incident report (1, 2, 3) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a big boy and am more than capable of taking the comments U-Mos has directed at me, and have no particular desire to see him sanctioned for it. On the other hand, I would appreciate someone uninvolved undoing U-Mos's removal of sourced information from the article in question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Phil - this complaint wasn't a reflection of your ability to bear the brunt of personal attacks, but rather that no one should have to. I wasn't even involved, and I thought it was unacceptable. Statements like that create a toxic editing environment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see Arcayne did not link the article in question. It is Companion (Doctor Who). Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

oops. Sorry bout dat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If it would help, I would like to apologise if my language at any point was "unnacceptable". Facing editors who consistently and persistently ignore my points and instead decide to patronise and accuse (in short, who assume bad faith), it can sometimes be hard to remain totally civil. I merely reverted a major (although addmitedly old) edit that had been made without obvious consensus, and subsequently have been trying to make my reasons for doing that known, and seem to have got nowhere. U-Mos (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if I may, if I have written what are deemed to be personal attacks (and if so, they were unintentional and I can only apologise for them), I must also have been subject to them myself. I don't appreciate such portrayal as the "villain", for want of a better term springing to mind, as suggested in this section's title. U-Mos (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And, of course there's the matter of U-Mos' 3RR violation... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

U-Mos is guilty of constantly removing fully and reliably sourced material from a wikipedia page. I have backed out of this discussion, and from making edits after making my opinions clear. I asked for requests for comment in hope that a discussion could be entered into in an effort to avoid a protracted edit war, unfortunatly other editors decided to continue warring. U-Mos is particulatly out of order for reverting after a 3RR warning was issued, and further let him/herself down by using foul language in an edit summary. I would like to point out that although I have made more than 3 edits on this page today, only 3 are in relation to this particular incident, so I do not believe that I have breached the 3RR...if I have then I apologise and would repeat that I have disengaged from editing until a consensus can reached amicably. magnius (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were an admin (and I am) who was going to step into the middle of this (and I'm not), I would be sure to note Phil Sandifer's comments such as "kthxbye" in an edit summary, and "When your argument consists of shouting in all caps that you do not need consensus and that it's OK to ignore reliable sources, it's probably time to go have a nice little nap and come back later" in the talk page in question. While U-Mos might have made some personal attacks, he was goaded into them a bit. This doesn't mean he needs to stop with the edit warring and such, but there's two editors tangoing here, not one. Tan | 39 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to clarify once again that if any of my comments were or can be interpreted as personal, they were not meant to be that way. Any rules I have broken were done so either through carelessness, ignorance, or simply being too quick to rise to bait, and I really do not like the implication of more sinister motives existing in either this or my "misleading edit summaries" (I know my edit summaries can be lazy or unclear at times, but this is by no means to hide what I am doing in the edits). U-Mos (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to Tan I agree with you, Tan; all three demonstrated a bit less WikiLove than they needed to, turning the interaction into a pissing contest, but I'd point out that only U-Mos violated 3RR and started dropping f-bombs into the edit summaries, which cannot be redacted or stricken through. Edit summaries are just that - summaries. They aren't argument as to why the other folk should simply shut up and accept their edits. That never seems to work, and only crowds and clouds the issue.

Additionally, you assessed that U-Mos was "goaded" into his inappropriate remarks and behavior. Respectfully, I think it's over-simplifying to infantilize U-Mos' ability to control his own behavior. If someone cannot control themselves, Wikipedia is probably not a good fit for their low self-control. Cooler heads should have prevailed. That U-Mos and the others were edit-warring clearly implies that no one was retaining a clear head during the fray. That U-Mos broke 3RR rather flagrantly means that - over the course of five hours, U-Mos did not step away, did not take a little nap and was not thinking about the good of the article.

Not sure if block is called for, but I am pretty sure that suggesting that all parties retreat to separate corners to spank their Inner Child isn't going to be the more effective course here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, no block really needed, we just need to step back and talk like grown ups...and not edit war! U-Mos's arguement does seem flimsy at best though, it seems to rely on calling into question the BBC's status as a reliable source. Surely it's an open and shut case if the network, who have been making the show for the best part of 45 years, list the character in question as a companion? All wiki articles that relate to the Brigadier should respect that and list him as a companion where appropriate. magnius (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that steps into the domain of content issues, which aren't really the milieu of this noticeboard. It specifically addresses behavioral abnormalities and other hiccups throughout the wiki. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

U-Mos has admitted the error of his ways and undertaken not to repeat said error. I suggest we take him at his word and let him go with a stiff warning. To block him now would be punitive. Of course, if he repeats it, then we assume that he is not gonna be keeping his word, and the block then would be to avoid potential damage to the editing environment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think he deserves another chance to keep his cool. He was blocked for the 3RR, though, but just for 48 dayshours. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

48 days'???? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, hours. ;-) — Aitias // discussion 22:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Wow, I thought George's head was going to Pompeii there for a moment! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Enough time for a flood, re-build the planet, PLUS a trip to the pub around the corner! Sweeeeet! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately I was laughing, not taking it seriously. It takes a lot to get my head to go pyroclastic about Wikipedia events... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar

Resolved

 – Page redirected and protected. We don't need it being used like that. Black Kite 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user NYScholar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been using his/her talk page to wikilawyer regarding the incidents surrounding the ban and to repeatedly contest the ban/block (contests that have been repeatedly denied by independent reviewing sysops). I would suggest removing the user's access to his/her talk page due to exhaustion of the community's patience, in line with the community ban and repeated affirmation of its validity. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the reviewing admins, I concur.  Sandstein  21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why was this fellow's talk page not fully protected once the community ban went into effect? I would suggest that we not reward this tirade by preserving it, and instead revert back to the last post before the ban went into effect and purge the editing history. The former user doesn't get to rewrite history and have it preserved. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest turning the talk page into a redirect to the user page, where the {{Banned user}} template is displayed. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever mechanism is employed is fine with me. I just take exception to NYSc using the wiki to soapbox and rewrite history in an attempt to martyr him/herself. I think the posts from the ban forward should be purged. When we come to the rather exceptional point of view that we collectively not only want to block the person but ban them throughout the community, the subject of our agreement doesn;t get any say in the matter afterwards. They do not get to contribute in any way; that's part of the price. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I just read that load - can anyone, anywhere give me that 10 minutes of my life back? As someone uninvolved with the issue, I am already convinced to support the ban based on the talkpage alone. I do hope that everyone realizes that the talkpage protection is just going to increase his paranoia and belief that he's being improperly silenced by the mob (not that I disagree with the protection)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuh-uh! There is no cabal. FNORD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I was completely uninvolved, happened to stumble onto the the talk page and have been watching as the tirade continued and increased in volume. I thought it was about time to bring the nonsense to a close.

As for feeling improperly silenced by the mob... eh, what can you do? Get a domain name, some server space and MediaWiki, and you can wiki as you please to your heart's content. Free speech is not a right on a private website like this. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What an idea, a site made by disgruntled ex-Wiki editors. Now, why hasn't someone already come up with that? ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

?:-D Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

2 words: "smart" + "arse"  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

: heh heh. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just skimming that diatribe, to avoid taking up all of the expected 10 minutes, I was vaguely reminded of a bit from The Odd Couple (film), in which Oscar tells some buddies about how Felix was once locked in a bathroom for many hours, and wrote out his last will and testament on a roll of toilet paper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IP disruption on Vlore

The IP 91.187.117.132 has been disrupting on Vlore. This IP is only active when there is a dispute involving User:I Pakapshem or User:Sarandioti [43] (June 8, July 15, July 20), who may also be the same individual. --Athenean (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Athenean stop accusing me, I havent even edited in the article. There is an open report on this user, he has been edit-warring [44]. The admin told him to stop it or he would get blocked. See talkpage of Vlore, to see the validity of his source, which is based on a "perhaps". --Sarandioti (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He made his first edits by saying "per talk" although no one agreed with the validity of his sources, which are based on perhaps. --Sarandioti (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that someone forgot to log in. Is there some pressing reason to assume the intent is malicious, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not --Sarandioti (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is, because the pattern is consistent. The IP appears *only* when there is edit-warring involving those two users. On June 8 [45], the IP is edit-warring on the same exact articles as I Pakapshem [46], namely, Saranda, Gjirokaster, and Paramythia. The Ip is not active during I Pakapshem's two week long block, but reappears shortly on July 15, right after the expiration of Pak's block, on June 14. Again the IP edit-wars over the same article Pak is edit-warring, namely Epirotes. Then, today the Pak is edit-warring over Vlore, and surprise, the IP edit-wars on the same article. The IP appears only after Pak has initiated edit-warring, never before, or on days that that user is not edit-warring. There is clearly a pattern here. --Athenean (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. enh

Resolved

 – User pointed towards WP:BLANKING. Black Kite 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr.enh put a WP:CIVIL warning on my talk page about me saying that he was twisting the guidelines, vandalizing the article, and lying about the amount of reliable sources and info in the Child Trends AFD. My comment was true because his edits relating to Child Trends and other articles showed that he does that a lot in content disputes and gets in edit wars about it. The warnings for them fill up most of his talk page. I removed the warning yesterday, but he replaced it today. Please tell him to stop adding the warning. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mischa Barton / User:MJBurrage/BLP violations

There are a lot of tabloid reports about a recent incident involving this actress. However, most of the reports, and virtually all the reliable-source reports, are hedged and report matters in speculative terms. (The less reliable sources are, unsurprisingly, becoming increasingly sensational.) WP:BLP requires that biographical articles be "written conservatively" and "be sourced very carefully." MJBurrage has repeatedly added a short section to the article stating as fact that the actress suffered a "breakdown" -- sourced only to a newspaper report presenting the claim as "reported," not as established fact -- and stating as fact that the actress was involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric observation/treatment under a specific provision of California law -- sourced only to a caption/introduction in an online photo gallery hosted by the LA Times, which states the claim as factual even though the Times's actual news articles don't even present the claim in a speculative form (and was written by a columnist who, per the LA Times, "dishes celebrity gossip and fashion" rather than by a news reporter). The news cycle has reached the point where less careful news organizations are repeating each others' claim with fewer and fewer of the appropriate qualifications, and the presence of such unverifiable (to date) claims on Wikipedia only contributes to the problem. I don't think there's any question about what BLP requires here -- that we "get the article right." The only substantiation for the claims involved turns out to be an anonymously-made statement to Access Hollywood (self-identified as a gossip source) by an undescribed and unidentified "source close to the situation." No matter how often that gets repeated, carefully or carelessly, it's not appropriate support for a Wikipedia BLP. I'm sure the other editor is acting in good faith, but isn't following BLP carefully enough -- and some reminders could be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There seem several problems with this summary: First, even as Access Hollywood may call itself a gossip site, it is affiliated with MSNBC.com, which carries articles in its Entertainment section under the AH byline (see, e.g., here), and, as such, is a reliable source. Second, some of the articles offered on the talk page are not as oblique as you suggest; that of BBC.com, for instance, sources directly to the Los Angeles Police Department and a statement issued by the biographical subject's publicist. Third, there is no consensus for the exclusion under BLP of material published in prominent reliable sources but given as the fruit of unidentified sources. We need not reach the broader issues here, though, I think, because of the BBC and AP stories, which, again, quote the Barton's own publicist as confirming her admission and make the unqualified assertion that her admission followed from the LAPD's "escorting her from her home"; those, I think, permit us to add most of the disputed text (there is no debate, AFAICT, over whether the incident is sufficiently notable as to merit mention in the article), after which we might debate whether to state explicitly the section 5150 commitment reported by AH/MSNBC.com. 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No. This simply does not address the BLP issues, and is inaccurate on crucial points. Newspapers that are otherwise reliable sources often enough run gossip columns that aren't reliable, and in any event the Access Hollywood piece is quite careful not to report the key claims as established facts, but only as claims made by its unidentified source. The BBC article does not mention the claims at issue here. BLP certainly does not allow editors to present as established facts matters reported by sources, reliable or otherwise, as unverified claims. The only relevant established fact out of this morass of public speculation is that Barton's treatment for an unidentified medical condition prevented her from attending the premiere of her most recent film -- a point already included in the article, properly framed in the context of her career. BLP requires that articles be written "conversatively," not in a "sensationalist" manner, and should not "spread ... titillating claims about people's lives." Nobody gets hurt if we wait for a genuinely reliable account of the situation, and James Forrestal she's not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in the BLP guidelines does it say we can't use reliable sources, based on how someone perceives the merit or flaws of an article published by said source. Multiple reliable sources have stated she is/was on an 5150 hold; the fact that you don't like their reporting in this case does not change there validity as sources.—MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they haven't. We have, at best, a single unverified claim passed along in various forms by sources of various levels of reliability, some quite bad. An online photo caption written by a gossip columnist is not given the same weight as a fact-checked news article, and an otherwise reliable newspaper's horoscope column is not a reliable source at all. Absent a clearly reported source, we can't even be sure that the claim isn't being repeated from a version of the Wikipedia Barton article that included it. And piecing together a set of questionable claims, not presented as factual in the underlying sources, and glossing them into worst-case supposedly acknowledged facts, certainly isn't the "conservative" editing WP:BLP calls for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested criteria would make almost all sources unusable. If a reputable source says something that is enough. It is not required by either citation, nor BLP guidelines to second guess reputable sources just because said source does not make their own research or sources explicit. Reputable sources have reported that she was/is on a 5150 hold, that is all that is required.—MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, BLP is pretty clear that "second guessing" of reputable sources is appropriate in particular circumstances, as in the case of "feedback loops, in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper." And BLP requires us to edit "conservatively" -- not to "cherry pick" sources to support the most provocative version of events. With no one, reliable or unreliable, cited this claim to anything but an anonymous source, it remains unconfirmed. And given the significant number, probably the great bulk, of reliable sources still reporting things exactly that way, BLP's requirement that we edit "conservatively" requires that we include in the article only what has clearly been confirmed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search easily shows that my edit was conservative given the information that is all over the internet. Like many things I hear in passing, I came to wikipedia looking for a good unbiased summary, finding none I did some work and posted one. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SLJ merge

Back on June 5, I opened up a discussion for merging Samuel L. Jackson filmography back into the actor's main article. There hasn't been any recent comments, so I was wondering if an uninvolved admin could take a look and see if there should be a merge or not. Let me know if there are any questions or if any help is needed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! You don't need an admin for that. Looie496 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I normally would, but I'm involved with the discussion. That's why I'd prefer an uninvolved editor to take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'd have to say there isn't consensus for it. I'm also making a comment there, and I'd like to note that my opinion didn't influence my reading of consensus (much). Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk page multiple move horror

Mrwick1 (talk · contribs) keeps uploading images sourced on Google and licenses them as if he were the copyright holder. A glance at his talk page history reveals he sometimes creates articles there and moves them, it's a complete mess. His move log is here. Good luck sorting that out. Polly (Parrot) 02:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have indef'ed him for the copyright violation issue - I invite someone who's awake to review the other edits, but we have to protect the encyclopedia on the copyright violations front while this gets sorted out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

IP declares intent to continue edit warring after multiple last warnings

These contributions are appalling. The IP is editing against consensus at the talkpage, and has openly declared his intention to edit war "all night". Unitanode 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit waring massively. Next time take it to WP:AIV or WP:AN3 sooner. And don't contribute to the edit war, either. lifebaka++ 03:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even necessarily agree with the consensus view, but those of us reverting the IP were simply restoring the consensus version. In fact, at the talkpage, I argued FOR inclusion of the material, but when consensus is established, it needs to be respected, which is why I reverted the IP, though I'm actually a bit sympathetic to his viewpoint. Unitanode 03:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, I suggest you take a look here, where I reported the edit warring a while ago. Timmeh 04:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Erin Andrews

Erin Andrews contains a link to download an illegal nude video of her. someone needs to be blocked bigtime for this... --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave the inserting IP a 3 hour block, which should outlast his patience, so it shouldn't happen again. Cheers. lifebaka++

In this case, would a request for oversight be appropriate? McJEFF ^(talk) 05:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We oversight stuff which doesn't widely appear on the net; if it's out there, just deleting revisions is enough. Find any admin awake enough and zap those particular revisions out... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Useless pedantry: mere possession of the video would not be illegal, and it's tremendously naive to assume otherwise. Of course, deleting the revisions is appropriate, since distributing said video is a whole different story. Badger Drink (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Overdue AfD closure

Resolved

Would some kind, uninvolved admin, please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living With Fibromyalgia‎ as it's been running for 8 days now. Cheers. --WebHamster 10:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I checked, there were actually 10 unclosed AfD's from 8 days ago, according to the log. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the AFD above, insufficent time at present to read through any more that are overdue. Pedro :  Chat  10:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the rest. Regards SoWhy 11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --WebHamster 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All closed now. Black Kite 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this need oversight

Resolved

 – deleted, no need for oversight, edits deleted

I came across this attack on a talk page. I've blanked the page, but I was wondering if oversight was needed in this case? Astronaut (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really need an oversight IMHO, but I have deleted the talk page as there was nothing in the history of value. Pedro :  Chat  12:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have qualified as G10. It does not qualify for oversight because there is no "non-public personal information" (and the other two reasons need further outside action, either by the cousel or the subject), see Wikipedia:OS#Policy. Note that it also says "Suppression is not used on usual vandalism—even egregious and offensive vandalism—unless it is one of the above". Regards SoWhy 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

G3 was closer on the list than G10 :). Marking as resolved and thanks to Astronaut for his assistance. Pedro :  Chat  12:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia town article needing outside eyes

I just spotted on my watchlist an edit [47] to the article Louisdale, Nova Scotia. I believe this matches material that I deleted from the article twice back in November 2007 for copyright violation.[48] Since I turned in my admin tools last October, I can't check myself. Could a current admin check? If it is the same material, it would be wonderful if you could find a way to communicate with the IP editor that periodically adds it.

And it would be wonderful if an established Wikipedia would take this article in hand and give it an update and refresh to current standards (it is unsourced). It has seen spamming, copyright violations, (edit warring if I remember the deleted history correctly) and the other things you expect on an article about a subject of significant notice. Yet it is a town of roughly 1,150, if our article is reliable. GRBerry 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor obsessed with making Morganton, North Carolina seem like a KKK center

In the article for Morganton, North Carolina, there are a series of repeating edits that make the city seem like a racist, backwards town with a huge KKK presence. These edits contain misleading and disturbing edit summaries (ex. "Minor Grammatical Revisions"), and "Deal with it"). Not surprisingly, there have been no sources to backup these claims, except a link to a message board post about a KKK rally 6 years ago, and an image (both unreliable). The user who apparently is making all these edits now has a user name Gene Ray Wisest Human (talk · contribs). The last edit by the user was posting a photo that I think is a copyvio [49] (not sure about the fair use claims) and inserting in the article (edit summary: "I win")

Links: [50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55], [56]

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the Morganton article on my watchlist due to some previous vandalism and saw the "I win" edit as well. I left a note on the user's talk page pointing him to WP:WIN (prior to seeing this posting). ponyo (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor reinserted content, posted on talk page saying Morganton is a "Klan hotbed" [57] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't WP:3RR been reached? Mathsci (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With Gene's latest edit, yes. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway an admin Tan has intervened, so all is well. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Geez, save everyone some time: Time Cube + Stormfront = indefblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He's now posting to the article's talk page and Tan's and Omarcheeseboro, he doesn't seem to appreciate Tan's warning. :-) He thinks that the article needs to show " several of the most notable aspects of Morganton (i.e. Klan rallies, book bannings, and child molesters)". Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's more than one admin on the scene now; no need to keep alerting people of the most recent events here. Tan | 39 16:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time for WP:RBI, though I don't agree with his rationale for having the npov tag up. The only part that could possibly justify the tag is the "pr-friendly" argument, but in looking at the page, it doesn't seem to have an unusual amount of promotion. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're about to reach the limit of WP:AGF over there if we haven't already. — Satori Son 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was probably too cryptic earlier.

• Either this is "the" Gene Ray, or not.

• If not, then indefblock as a impersonation account.
• If so, then I think it's been previously established this is Time Cube Guy (see Talk:Time Cube), who's on an extremely short leash re: Time Cube. His edits to Time Cube earlier today were self-promotional.

• If it is Gene Ray, it's fairly well established (see article, and if you have the time and the stomach, the website) that this is an anti-semitic crank. Edits by anti-semitic cranks using the Stormfront website as a reference should be a gigantic red flag.
• I know we don't want to appear unwelcoming to non-standard editors, but good Lord; does anyone here think there is more than a 0.00001% chance this guy is going to make productive edits? Does anyone here think there is less than a 99.9999% chance of more disruption?

WP:RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I think you underestimate the possibility of future productive edits by 1E+5 (1%), if he posts a courteous unblock request, 1E+6 (10%). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Gene Ray Wisest Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's no indication of him being here to contribute productively.  Sandstein  21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was going to re-review this afternoon but expected to indef myself, after a first review this morning. Good block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also support - you actually beat me to it by about 15 minutes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Support block for disruptive editing and per Floquenbeam’s analysis. — Satori Son 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Help needed filing SPI report

Resolved

 – Information given. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to start dealing with a serial hoaxer at CheckUser level and see if there's anything to be done. Unfortunately, that means that I need to know the creator account of several deleted articles, and I can't see that. Could anyone be so kind as to tell me who created these articles:

• DisneyMania Presents: WOW! Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cry No More (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wish Come True (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unicorn School: First-Class Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Greatest Hits: DisneyMania 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prince DisneyMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Princess 2 DisneyMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Disney Channel Mania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Group DisneyMania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Disney Games 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Radio Disney Xmas Jams 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Disneymania 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DisneyMixer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DisneyMixer 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DisneyMixer 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These actually do not seem to be BambiFan101, for all of those that pop up with that answer. These have all been extremely detailed fabrications, all with a common theme of detailing Disney albums that are due to arrive two to three years in the future. If I can get the list of creating accounts, I can take them to SPI and hopefully do something at the underlying IP level.—Kww(talk) 13:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Similar modus operandi to User:GMTV Chart Show's highly-detailed/total-bollocks article creation and alteration. Also similar editing styles for the accounts. The underlying IP there was a UK ISP IIRC. ➲ redvers ^{Buy war bonds} 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on this and assuming that I don't get sidetracked, I will have an answer for you in a bit. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:

• Lingx91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Demi2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Boi91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Mr.s85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kielz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CyrusStone91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kielz86 created, as Kielz86 seems to be the oldest of the accounts.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible malfunctioning/unpermitted robot

Hi - there's been some odd activity from IP 213.171.34.250. Creating some new pages with delete tags and a line of russian-looking text, or sometimes just a delete tag on a nonsense title. I've left them a note on their talk page and they've not replied, since a lot of the description fields include 'robot', I'm wondering if this is a malfunctioning robot, or one that doesn't have permission on EN that possibly should be blocked until it gets fixed? Cheers --Saalstin (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (p.s. I know there are bot and vandal noticeboards for those purposes, since this isn't obvious vandalism, not certain bot, I figured this was the better place for it. Please move if I got it wrong)

It appears to be a bot that has lost its session. I've temporarily blocked the IP until the operator can log the bot back in. Nakon 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:VinnyVictorious

Resolved

this user is uploading new versions of files that are unrelated to the previous versions. can someone revert the files? i don't know how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.246.1 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Like uploads, file reverts are not possible for IP users, you need to have an account to do so. I have reverted those the user overwrote in an attempt to add equally named different pictures. I also left them a message to be more careful. Regards SoWhy 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Muntuwandi (and his socks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Muntuwandi keep adding a copyright violation to wikimedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Haplogroup_E.png and then posts it to wikipedia articles and talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe/_Sub-Saharan_African_admixture_in_Europe and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&diff=293884174&oldid=293863579 The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) To see all the copyright image problems he is causing you may visit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to discuss your edits as well. Yesterday I filed a report on your editing here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#SOPHIAN, after which Sophian was blocked for creating a deleted article. Since his block expired, SOPHIAN has proceeded to undo a number of my edits with no discussion.

• diff
• diff
• diff

Wapondaponda (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed this enough to know the details, so I don't want to suggest specific sanctions, but this fight has gotten ridiculous. kwami (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is up to SOPHIAN. He is not engaging in discussion, not just with me but other editors as well. He is unilaterally making edits, even in the face of overwhelming consensus. For example, he has reverted five different editors by inserting the same content.

• reverts Andrew.
• revert's Yom
• reverts Causteau,
• reverts Jingiby

Wapondaponda (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You get blocked for recreated a deleted article but not for recreating a deleted copyright violation image using a sock? I sincerely hope this isn't the way wikipedia works. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sophian you have to understand, if you have an issue with commons, then take it to the commons noticeboard, not here. The reason why so many editors have complained about your images is that you have been uploading copyrighted material using your using your Wikipedia account. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

wikistalking by IP editor

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

IP 91.187.117.132 has been following me around since yesterday, undoing a number of my edits without any discussion [[58]]. It has reverted me in this fashion 7 times since yesterday. It is particularly disruptive on Vlore, but other articles as well, such as Origin of the Albanians. --Athenean (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this IP has never done anything but to edit-war against Athenean and another editor, Alexikoua, always in tag-team with two nationalist POV-pushers, I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) and Sarandioti (talk · contribs). Both of the latter finally got long-term blocks and revert paroles under WP:ARBMAC today, while the IP continues their revert wars. It should be treated as a meat/sockpuppet and be automatically held to the same sanctions, given the fact that its behaviour is indistinguishable from theirs (even though, if I understood Nishkid64 correctly, it is probably not directly their own IP.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And now this [59], by an account created minutes ago, most likely the IP. --Athenean (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week and the account indefinitely for disruptive editing. I see the pattern here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

CU results have not revealed any sort of sockpuppetry, even though this quacks very loudly. I figure another IP/user is going to pop up on those articles, so treat it as a meatpuppet as Future Perfect suggested. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed "abusing multiple accounts" from the block reasons however the blocks still stand based on the clear disruptive editing. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I have posted here regarding this IP and possible meat/sockpuppetry several times in the past, and got no response until now. --Athenean (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy

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.

---

Resolved

 – Correct venue for this is WP:RFC, if anything. There is nothing for administrators to respond to at this present time. Black Kite 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy (talk · contribs) appears to have a history of conflicting with users, from failing to agf, misusing talk pages, edit warring, masking comments in archiving. Most recent contributions appear to be disputed removal of material. Now there's no argument that some of his contributions in this way are valuable and appropriate, but his continual inability to assume good faith and general disruptiveness are harmful (and long term looking at the block log). I think a short block for disruption would be called for. Ian¹³/t 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since users are perfectly able to remove comments from their own talk page, there is nothing disruptive at all here. In fact, it looks more like agitating for a block for a user with whom you have been in dispute. Black Kite 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Like many highly active contributors, I've had my run-ins with DreamGuy, but removing comments from his own talk page is absolutely his prerogative. I would suggest that you pursue avenues of engagement other than the dramaboard for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat amazed that an administrator didn't know this ... but *shrugs* Black Kite 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was including diffs to show that notices had been left to this user, but no action was taken. I'm obviously aware the user is utterly entitled to remove notices from his own talk page but I thought the diff would save spamming this page with all the links and details already conveyed. Ian¹³/t 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it says Resolved, but I think the people doing the resolving didn't dig very deeply. DreamGuy has a long history of antagonism, of acting like he owns Wikipedia, that he is the only person who understands the rules, etc. It seems that, to DreamGuy, all WP policies are absolute and only he can interpret them properly. Check out his edit summaries -- everybody else is an idiot, a liar, has a COI, nobody understands policy but him, his adversarial actions are good, etc.

Recently, rather than work to improve the Ambigram page that I have spent a lot of time editing, he spent a great deal time on the Talk page attacking me and others. He repeated the same baseless claims of COI, puppetry, etc., over and over again. He claims anyone who agrees with me must be my meatpuppet. He has repeatedly accused another user of COI and sockpuppetry with no evidence, despite both contrary evidence and my assertion that I believe it not to be true (based on editing pattern and contact with people at the company he claims there is a COI with). Because I disagreed with him, he put an "edit war" warning on my Talk page, then accused me of deleting comments by others when I removed it from my talk page. Of course, that editing is ok, as noted above, but he seems to think it's ok for him but not for anyone else. In fact, he attempted to suppress debate on the Talk:Ambigram page by archiving the entire page, including active discussions, when there was already auto-archiving in place. There is ample evidence of antagonism by DreamGuy on the Talk:Ambigram page, plus a lengthy commentary on his editing that I wrote when it all grew too much for me.

User:Ian13 has no special interest in the Ambigram page. I'm not sure how he happened upon it and I don't believe he had edited it previously. But, when he attempted to help, he was also attacked by DreamGuy.

You would be very hard pressed to find something that DreamGuy has added to Wikipedia. Almost all of his edits are deletions. Yes, it's true some of that is spam fighting, but it's not all spam fighting, and it certainly isn't in this case. This antagonistic, non-consensus and arbitrary editing make Wikipedia worse (the Ambigram article is certainly the worse for wear, having lost 30% of its content in the last ten days). It also drives good editors away from Wikipedia.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RoyLeban's comments are somewhat disingenuous; at Ambigram, it seems that from late January till May, he was responsible for adding the afore-mentioned 30%, and thus a great deal of his anger and ire seems to stem from a long running content dispute, and not from any objective view of DreamGuy. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just limited to that article though. Ian¹³/t 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments are honest. Yes, some of the content that was deleted was added by me, but plenty of content that I did not add has also been summarily deleted. Some was restored, but most has not. The justification for deletion included statements like "Wikipedia does not have timelines" when it has thousands and "Wikipedia does not have external links" when it has millions. He claims every thing I've ever added is a COI edit. He repeatedly called me a liar (as I said, check out his edit summaries, we're all liars). Ignoring everything else, he is exteremely uncivil. DreamGuy acts as if he thinks he alone can decide what is appropriate and the rest of us are idiots or liars. Somebody should reign him in. RoyLeban (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. This isn't about Ambigram. You might want to look at Garden of Eden, Ian Stevenson, and Smiley face murder theory (where he's probably right, but rude). And that's just in the last few days. Calling him uncivil is being nice. RoyLeban (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are personal attacks because you have not provided evidence in the form of diffs to back up your assertions. WP:ANI is not for dispute resolutions; it's for incidents requiring administative action. When you come here with complaints it is expected that you will provide specific diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this action. I just added additional information. If it will actually make a difference, I can provide diffs, but the incivility can be easily seen in edit summaries and on talk pages. RoyLeban (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am involved in a mess on the Rorschach article in which dreamguy is on the opposing side. But his pattern is similar to what others claim here. He falsely accused four editors of being sockpuppets, leading to the incorrect block of three of them: [60]. Note that he continued to accuse the fourth of being one. And he continued doing so here: [61]. I wasn't going to bother opening this up myself but since it's happened I thought I'd add more info.Faustian (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Odd that, because the sockpuppet investigation revealed that at least the first three were clearly socks, or at the very least meatpuppets. There's nothing for admins to do here. If you wish to raise a comment about DreamGuy's behaviour, then the correct venue is WP:RFC. Black Kite 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Where should this go/what should be done?

Resolved

Sorry to bring this here, as I suspect it isn't the right place—but the problem is that I can't figure out where the right place is.

Mark West Charter School is a new article about a middle school, which has little to no sourcing. Upon reading it, there's a not-so-nice little WP:BLP violation (which I won't repeat here) smack in the middle. And although it appears that there's a source, that reference actually does not in any way support what's being claimed. I've searched to try to find something that backs this up, and came up with zip.

The article is by new editor User:Pam618 (Talk, Contributions), who wrote on her page:

Hi I'm just a parent. My daughter attends Mark West Charter School. my name is Pam, but I am not the same principle of the school, it's just a coincidence. feel free to chat with me on my page, I can clarify anything about the Mark West Charter School page or answer some questions to the best of my ability. Thank you for caring enough about your child's education to take notice of the Wikipedia. [sic]

In this edit, her summary said:

Just reinforcing and entering the schoo's new wikipedia page for you, and the incoming parents to help decide if they want their child to go to this school [sic]

Because it's an article ostensibly about a school, it's not subject to {{db-inc}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-nn}}, or {{db-person}} (or at least not as I understand them).

I could just cut the BLP, but that single sentence is over 25% of the article's entire content. And what would be left isn't sourced, either.

Something's funky here, but I don't know what it is, or what to do about it, or where it should go. Someone want to take this on? Thanks. — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the obvious BLP violation. As for notability, I'll leave that to others. --NE2 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I added back in who the principle is, less the BLP vio. It is probably a good idea to discuss this issue with Pam618 rather than bring it here, now that there's nothing urgent about this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

With such a potentially damaging BLP violation in the article history, shouldn't we delete the offending revisions? AniMate^draw 04:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there's nothing notable about the school, per precedent, it should be redirected to Santa_Rosa,_California#Education. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I've done that, post-Stifle's history cleanup. Thanks, all! — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User: SUClover

• SUClover (talk · contribs)

Apparently "SUC" is a group called Screwed Up Click. That's fine, but the user is creating pages the dozen or more rappers and members of the SUC. A quick check of the user's contribs or their talk page will show the extent of it.

Even as I type, the user is continuing to create these pages. A good (bad) example is Woss Ness, created with the text "'Woss Ness' or Woss Ness Family is an american hip hop screwed up group." That's it. No more context or claims.

Some of the newly created articles are missing context (Woss Ness), some are copyvios (TowDown), many are simply lacking much hope of meeting WP:MUSIC (A.C.E.S., Lil' Randy, Dat Boi T, Big Toon). tedder (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So where is the need for admin intervention? Explain to the user the concepts of notability and sources and try to fix the articles or use appropriate deletion venues (speedy deletion is not one of them because they all fail A7 by being member of the notable Screwed Up Click entity). There is nothing that needs admins to invervene, is there? Regards SoWhy 12:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

At what point is (re)creation of ineligible pages considered disruptive? tedder (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation should never be viewed as disruptive. It's not an admin's decision whether a page should be considered disruptive or not (except clear-cut cases of vandalism and attack pages) and as such, no sanctions can be based on such creations. If someone recreates pages multiple times after being told not do so and to use the correct processes, then it may be considered vandalism and acted upon as such but needs clear evidence of disruptive behavior. Such is not evident here, so if you just want to get rid of the articles (instead of fixing them), open a multi-AFD to deal with them. If they get deleted and if they are recreated afterwards then, G4 and SALT can take care of it. Until then, no admin intervention seems necessary. Regards SoWhy 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SoWhy. I didn't know how page creation was dealt with. I appreciate the verbose reply so I can understand it better. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation of articles is not disruptive. Complaining about them can be. If they are unreferenced substub BLP's as I came across the other day, redirect the page to Screwed Up Click, which has a list containing many of its former members and is otherwise in poor shape, but unref'd BLP's don't belong here, esp. when there's a good redirect target. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and disruption

IPUser 71.212.10.108

• makes sexual harassing comments in edit summaries like "hey sexy lady" [62] and is putting a very large username of me in their Talk Page.
• abusing edit summaries at talk page like calling respected editor "monkey boy"
• blanks reliable sourced content w/o discussion [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]
• refuses discuss after repeated tries from different editors to get discussion on talk page

I think this is same editor that was edit-warring before on [Fibromyalgia], the IP is very different but same behavior. RetroS1mone talk 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has just called me "monkey boy" as well. This user's edits are very similar to User:Dr._Anymouse. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree very similar even to the using the giant bold print on the user page. I wonder how this user was using Texas IPs last week and is now Washington state?? Sock?? RetroS1mone talk

IP has just been blocked for 48 hours by Aitias for 3RR at Fibromyalgia. I've removed the great big banner "RetroS1mone" from the IP's talk page as it's harrassment. Whois says "Qwest Colorado, by the way. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

189.18.116.166 and 189.46.245.72 Blocking

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

These two IPs (the same user) continues to make unproductive edits and leaves the wikipedia pages worse than they were originally. Has been contact several times and ignores absolutely everything.Jacksonori47 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see two attempts to contact on the two talk pages, neither of which you signed or left much information on what the problem was with their editing.

I agree that the whole discography is probably a mistake, but you need to WP:AGF and spend more effort to try to talk to them constructively before this is at the level of needing administrator intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern about excessive rangeblocks

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

A few weeks ago I guestblogged a series of posts on The Volokh Conspiracy. Since then I have received e-mails from several readers of that blog on various issues. One of the most frustrating was from an eminent retired law professor, who indicated that he has attempted to contribute to Wikipedia articles several times, but has been blocked from doing so. He summarized the message that he receives when he tries to log in, and it turns out to be a Scibaby rangeblock. I have written back and explained how I can go ahead and create an account for this editor, but he seems to have moved on and I fear that we have lost the possibility of his contributing permanently.

In the wake of the publicity surrounding the ArbCom decision in the Scientology case, I was asked to appear on a radio show. There was a short call-in segment in which three people called in, and one of them also complained that he too has been caught up in longterm rangeblocks. Again, I offered to explain to him how to get an account opened if he would e-mail me, but I never heard from him, so he may have given up as well.

It is understood that rangeblocks, particularly ones placed by checkusers, are intended to address long-term abuse situations and are sometimes necessary. However, if they are overused, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face, and there are also times when semiprotection or just dealing with petty nonsense is a better answer than blocking tens of thousands of IPs. I think we should all please make a point to use rangeblocks as narrowly as is reasonably possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make instructions on how to have an account created more prominent/easier to understand for folks who encounter a rangeblock. Some collateral on rangeblocks is inevitable, but possibly it can be addressed and explained more constructively. Nathan ^T 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are instances where as many as a dozen range blocks have been imposed in attempts to control only one vandal. In one case, the blocks of User:Scibaby, at least one person mails unblock-en-l every day asking for help. Who knows how many give up when they encounter the block. Fred Talk 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. These SciBaby rangeblocks have been up for years. I would say that several times per week someone asks for help in navigating these at CAT:UNB and they are almost always legitimate users. Most vandals get bored and move on; I think it may be worthwhile to test the waters and remove these on a trial basis. If SciBaby becomes a problem again, we can always reinstate them, but for the time being, I think they are currently doing FAR more harm than good. Additionally, the rangeblocks were placed long before the Edit Filter came on line; SciBaby's abuse can now be controlled using appropriate edit filters much more easily, and it would be preferable for the project if those methods were attempted now that we have them availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support lifting them. These rangeblocks definitely turn off new contributors. –xeno^talk 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are here to protect the project from harm, and to cause less stress for those involved in doing so. But when they result in at least one on-wiki unblock request a week, and a email to the unblock mailing list almost every day, the rangeblock is accomplishing the opposite. I say that we lift the rangeblocks, and take a look at setting up an abuse filter instead. Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If the range blocks are targetted at one person, they should be replaced with an abuse filter. An abuse filter could protect just certain articles from certain ranges or stop a particular type of vandalism from certain ranges, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These Scibaby rangeblocks have been going on for months if not longer. We get unblock requests on a regular basis as well. I've been against these excessive blocks for a while and I've heard that there has been extended discussion amongst checkusers and other functionaries. Given that admins are (rightfully) hesitant to remove rangeblocks and Raul is generally against removing them I think that ArbCom needs to address the issue. Generally speaking, I don't think we have a problem with "regular" admins excessively blocking ranges. So please, checkusers/functionaries/arbcom - this is something that you all need to work out (in my opinion). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support lifting the Scibaby rangeblocks. It's been suggested several times, but Raul always resists. Enigma^msg 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all reality it is not really up to him. Should the community, or the functionaries feel that the ranges need to be unblocked to better serve the community then that is what needs to happen. The decision, is really the communities (as it is with any other block). Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've often geolocated the IPs in the sockpuppet category for this user and have mapped them to every corner of the USA, from California, to Texas, to the east coast, and up to Montana. If this is one user, he appears to have the ability to change IPs at will (maybe through zombie proxies) and it appears this would make rangeblocks entirely ineffective against him. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been privately complaining about these rangeblocks for some time (citation needed, I know), and I'm glad to see it under discussion. The disruption these rangeblocks is undoubtedly causing is not worth the effort to block a single vandal who can easily be identified otherwise, is easy to revert, and persistently evades the bans. The rangeblocks should be removed. --Bastique ^demandez 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lifted about 15 of the blocks at this time, and note that an abuse filter has been set up. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a few hours programming up a couple of abuse filters, #205 and #206. (Note: do not discuss the rule-sets publicly. Scibaby is very good at changing behavior once it is revealed how we track him) Thanks, Wknight94, for the tip. I somehow hadn't heard about the abuse filter feature until you mentioned it.

There are two problems with the situation as it now stands. (1) The abuse filters do not have access to private checkuser data and the developers are not going to implement that feature until there is consensus on-wiki to do so. (See Bug 18429) As such, the rule sets cannot take advantage of the knowledge we have accumulated about the IPs he uses. All IP checks still have to be done manually by someone with checkuser access. (2) The abuse filters apply only at edit time. So there is no way to prevent Scibaby is maturing sockpuppet accounts.

Taken together, what this means is dramatically more work for the admins and checkusers who deal with him -- primarily me. I'm open to suggestions for fixing this, because I consider this an intolerable situation. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note, see bug 19796, a feature request for a checkuser watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, I encourage you to discuss the issue on the Functionaries-l. We've been discussing the topic for the past week. My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. - that is true.

As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. - that is partly true. (A) In general, you actually have to know a little something about the topic (global warming) before you can recognize his edits. Otherwise, it's all meaningless jibberish. (B) Occasoinally a legit user is confused for a Scibaby sockpuppet. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while. (C) There is a cadre of users (GoRight and Abd among them) who have a history of meatpuppeting on his behalf (That is to say, restoring edits by Scibaby after a sockpuppet of his has been identified, tagged, and blocked). In the latter case, earlier this week I issued both GoRight and Abd final warnings that further such edits will result in a block. However, dealing with such meatpuppetry by disruptive users is both time consuming and, in the long run, exhausting.

So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. - I have *repeatedly* asked for other checkusers to pitch in and help, so that I wasn't the only one paying attention to these articles. Little to no help has been forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was blissfully unaware of Scibaby until I noticed that Raul654 had reverted, with no explanation, an edit to User talk:GoRight. Since Raul654 is a dedicated opponent of GoRight, I wondered what he was doing reverting an apparently harmless edit to GoRight's Talk. Having, myself, reverted vandalism to user talk pages, and having been reverted on the claim that the user could handle it themselves, I reverted. I was reverted, and Raul654 warned me about "meat puppeting", and we debated it with no resolution. Notice above how the single incident, where I had no information at all about socks, has been conflated into a pattern by Raul654, who, in spite of now being directly involved in a dispute with me, was and is threatening to block me. I have no intention of defying him to make a point, but if I see an example where the benefit to the project would outweigh the possible disruption, I'd have no hesitation in going ahead.

So I looked into the situation. Scibaby, an editor interested in Global warming, was originally indef blocked in September, 2007, by William M. Connolley, on a charge of sock puppetry; it looks like WMC had been reverting this user. However, at that point, as far as I've been able to find, there was one old account, Obedium which may have been a role account, it was odd for sock puppetry because it was actually old, as old as Scibaby. But identical interests. No checkuser was run, to my knowledge, to connect Scibaby and Obedium. Neither editor was warned about the SSP report. There was no warning before Scibaby was blocked. Obedium was not indef blocked at that point, but was short-blocked for edit warring. However, Obedium was meeting what all editors skeptical about global warming have met, and continue to meet, at global warming: hostility and tag-team reversion. Few survive this. (By the way, I am not of this POV, I believe global warming is real and very dangerous.) In December, 2007, Obdeium apparently created a series of socks. It looks to me like, by failing make sure we welcome editors with dissident views, and that we integrate them into the community and the consensus, as was the original vision, and instead relying on blocks and bans, we have created a situation where some people resent that and refuse to be shut up, they don't just go away. Scibaby has now created as many as 300 or more new accounts; and this is one reason why I consider administrative recusal to be such a crucial issue that I've been willing to risk my account confronting it. Raul654 is complaining about lack of help. He helped create the situation that requires this continual defense. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a cost-benefit analysis? I understand not wanting to make things needlessly difficult for new users, but before lifting the rangeblocks altogether I would ask that at least some consideration be given to those of us who edit the articles that Scibaby targets. This is just one more thing we have to deal with in addition to the other stuff that happens on those pages. Raul, what's your impression of how effective the rangeblocks are? (BTW semiprotection won't work, because he ages his accounts.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)\

A year or two ago, it was commonplace for me to find 10, 15, or 20 scibaby socks at a time. Now he registers them in ones and twos, and spends a couple of days maturing them. Clearly the range blocks have been effective in reducing the number of accounts he registers. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The checkusers report that rangeblocks have been effecting a large number of new users. There have been concerns raised about these blocks over time. This is not something sudden. And most significant, it does not seem to be very effective since he finds new ips to use. We need to consider other ways of dealing with the edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always up for a new approach. Got any ideas? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time I tried something new (protecting the affected pages), Cool Hand Luke unilaterally decided to unprotect them all. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess who just showed up twice on one of the ranges Tiptoey unblocked? (Namely, from 24.205.68.78) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and a third time... Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and a fourth time (all four from ranges Tiptoey just unblocked - the latest from 71.94.156.13). Is anyone else noticing a pattern? Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...and #5. And with that, I've restored the 24.205.0.0/16 range block for a week, because I'm getting tired of these games. Raul654 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I can understand your frustration but when the rangeblocks you implement end up doing more harm than good it is time to try something else. There are many other active sockpuppeteers whom operate from such active ranges that Checkusers have declined to block them, and as a result multiple SPI cases are opened every week and accounts manually blocked by hand. We should not be treating this person any differently. Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If this person's MO is to push POV in a few articles, why don't we just protect these articles and/or disallow his edits with the abuse filter instead of blocking ranges? That should be just as effective and produce less collateral damage.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with protecting the affected articles. Note, though, that that's probably about 100 articles in total (possibly more).

As for the abuse filter, it's *not* a magic bullet. All of the accounts it detects still have to be manually checked and blocked. And I have yet to see anyone volunteer to help do this. The abuse filters also have a workload issue -- that there's a finite limit on how many filters can run, and apparently the two Scibaby filters (one of which is currently disabled) are complex ones that add to the workload. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the conversation, but I will add that I am currently under a Scibaby block. Riffraffselbow (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...except that the block only affected logged-out users. So as you have already noted on my talk page, the block didn't affect you, except when you wanted to edit while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that many people who advocated most strongly for removing the rangeblocks seem to have conveniently disappeared from this thread, just as it is becoming apparent how much work that decision is going to create. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made in bad faith, Raul. I for one, am willing to help. I just need to be told how I can. Would you like me to watchlist some pages for you? Should I be looking for certain usernames in the user creation logs? Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is needed to deal with Scibaby are:

• Technical measures that obstruct his ability to register new accounts and edit (This was done with the rangeblocks)
• Technical measures that highlight his editing when it occurs (this is being done - crudely - with the one Scibaby abuse filter that is currently enabled)
• Users who watch the articles he edits and are adept at spotting his editing. (We have a fair group of editors who are now doing that - WMC, Boris, Stephen, MastCell, etc)
• Users with checkuser access who are willing to do work identifying and blocking his accounts.
• Developers who are willing to implement the dozen-or-so Scibaby-inspired feature requests I've put in

To be perfectly frank, people without checkuser access aren't really able to do a whole lot to deal with Scibaby (only #3 and #5 above). What is especially needed is 3 or 4 (or more) people with checkuser access who will watchlist the 25 or 30 articles he pops up on most frequently, and checkuser him without being asked to do so (blocking the confirmed sockpuppets), and keep doing it until he goes away. Right now, that's just not happening. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

When a mess is made, it can take work to clean it up. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should create a copy of Wikipedia on some servers and redirect the IP ranges used by Scibaby socks to such servers. They can then edit the global warming related pages all they like on the fake Wikpedia. Only edits on other pages will update the real Wikipedia. To fool Scibaby for as long as possible, you need to revert the Global Warming page on that fake Wikipedia to let it look like the real Wikipedia. It must also be synchronized with the real Wikipedia from time to time. Only a careful examination of the history will reveal that something is wrong, so Scibaby may not find out that he is editing a fake Wikipedia for quite some time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that idea is quite impossible to implement. —Dark ^talk 07:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Iblis's suggestion is creative, but as DarkFalls said, it's a technical non-starter. Anyone have any other ideas? Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Caught two more Scibaby sockpuppets this morning, both on ranges Tiptoey just unblocked. That makes them #6 and #7 since this crackpot idea was put into action, and still nary a peep from those who pushed it. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So he removed two unsourced statements? And as a result we should prevent many new users from easily signing up and contributing to Wikipedia? I don't understand why these content disputes can't be handled in the usual way. Perhaps Scibaby should request unblocking. –xeno^talk 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he's banned because he used *hundreds* of accounts to vandalize thousands of articles. Nor is it a content dispute. His MO is simple - he removes statements pertaining to global warming and its consequences. If it's not cited, he claims it's unsourced, and if it is cited, he claims it's POV, or misleading, or undo weight, or any one of 100 other subjective excuses. That's why he is be banned. I don't understand why these content disputes can't be handled in the usual way. - then perhaps you should take the time to actually find out *why* he was banned before posting an apologia for him. Raul654 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well if you want volunteers to help, perhaps you should bluelink this as a start. –xeno^talk 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I might just fill out that blue link. It will be helpful to have a reference for his misbehavior when issues like this come up. But as I have already said above to Tiptoey -- there's not a whole lot of good that non-checkusers can do in this case, and what little they can do (mostly spotting potential Scibaby socks and asking a checkuser to check them) is already fairly well covered by the people who regularly edit the global warming articles. So, to review: rangeblocks are effective; checkusers are effective; new Mediawiki features are effective; throwing more admins at the problem is not effective. Raul654 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful. Otherwise folks who want to help (other checkusers included) will have to learn his MO by trawling through the various noticceboard threads and sockpuppet contribs. –xeno^talk 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest, however, that the two User:Tile join rangeblocks be lifted? They are 86.148.71.0/24 and 79.76.96.0/20, both of which are parts of very large UK dynamic DSL ranges. They were set in 2008, so our friend will have moved on by now - indeed has, as can be seen from the cavalcade of new socks at this article. Black Kite 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They were set in 2008, so our friend will have moved on by now - Wrong Raul654 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant he will have moved on from those ranges, and in fact your diff shows that he has moved to a completely different ISP - that is an NTL range, whereas the two blocked ones are BT Broadband and Tiscali. All the more reason to lift them IMHO, especially the BT one, as BT Broadband has changed the way it allocates dynamic IPs since 2008.Black Kite 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he has access to a second ISP does not mean he does not mean he has lost access to the first one. But what the above block shows is that he's still interested in causing us trouble. Raul654 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps I'm not making myself clear - I am merely pointing out that even if he still has access to the other two ISPs (which could be quickly confirmed by CUing the procession of socks at Witton Albion F.C.), the rangeblocks are both only a fraction of the dynamic range which he would have access to, and so are unlikely to be preventing him from creating socks whilst still hitting large numbers of users. Black Kite 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not contact the ISPs Scibaby is using and demand that they take action within some reasonable time (e.g. they could warn Scibaby to stop or else he'll lose his internet access)? If the ISPs do not act, then Wikipedia could simply block access to everyone attempting to log on from the ISPs Scibaby is using, not just for editing but also to simply read Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ISP complaints could be effective, but (a) he has access to a lot of ISPs, so corrosponding with each one is akin to blocking each individual IP address, only more time consuming (b) ideally, the letters should come from the WMF, but they have to date shown absolutely no interest in supporting the admin community in dealing with troublemakers. If they won't get involved to deal with the likes of Amorrow and Grawp, then I doubt there would be any chance of them becoming involved in this (c) You also need someone with familiarity with ISP abuse complaints who is willing to write up and submit the complaints. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

and another sockpuppet... Raul654 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the general issue of range blocks

Not to sidetrack any discussion above, but I've asked for a database report to be created listing all range blocks. It will be updated every week. You can view the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Rangeblocks. This should help increase transparency with regards to range blocks and allow administrators to monitor for blocks that may be excessive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this could be helpful for admins monitoring the blocks, but making the report viewable by anyone and everyone might not be the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone can see it now here. BJ^Talk 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can already see rangeblocks by going to special:IPBlocklist and hiding registered users and single IPs. Thatcher 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than worry about the recent ones, would it make more sense to start by reviewing the range blocks that were set more than three years ago? Also rather than indef blocking IP's that are currently open proxies why don't we take a feed from one or more of these sites? Unless I'm missing something wouldn't that be slicker both for blocking new open proxies, and for unblocking closed formerly open proxies. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User By78

For some time now, By78 has been making edits to pages related to India without consulting others. Most of edits have alarmingly negative overtones. While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source (i.e. using 2002 data about India's road network and pass it off as current). This has brought him into conflict with many other Indian editors of Wikipedia as his behaviour seems motivated by hate and not by a desire to improve the article. He continues to engage in edit-warring and seems to revert any claim that does not conform to his point of view. In his Mumbai article, he added 20 pictures of Mumbai's slums and then proceeded to make the argument that 60% of the city's population are slum dwellers while not providing any strong evidence to back this up. It is also worth noting that other cities in the developing world also have large slum populations but this isn't reference all throughout the article. There are places where this is appropriate but modifying a featured article in such a way seems to me like a blatant violation of some of Wikipedia's policies. Either By78 should collaborate with other users before making modifications to the article OR he should be prevented from making any modifications. His presumed YouTube profile page (http://www.youtube.com/user/by78) is riddled with anti-India information that spews hatred on the country and Indians in general. A look at his recent contributions will reveal this and substantiate my accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/By78). Vedant (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have merely uploaded more than 20 pictures of Mumbai slums to Wiki Commons, but why does that make me biased? If I upload 20 pictures of Saudi Arabia, does that make me anti-muslim or anti-Saudi? You could accuse me of comitting vandalism if I had added all 20 slum pictures to an India-related wiki article, but I have not and will not. I think your disliking of the slum pictures says more about your value system than mine. Poverty is not a crime and certainly not shameful. Are the slum residents inferior, less than human than a Manhattenite? Of course NOT. So what is so controversial about two dozen pics of Mumbai slums being uploaded to Wiki Commons? By your logic, Danny Boyle (the British director of Slumdog Millionaire) would be the number one enemy of India. Of course, Danny Boyle is not anti-India, and then why should I be accused of being anti-India? By78 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source". Vedant, could you please provide concrete examples of the "non-neural sites" and "outdated sources" that I have used in my edits? Let's hear them. By78 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

According to CBC 60% of Mumbai's population do live in slums, so it's not hard to source......although 20 pictures is surely excessive and could probably come under the heading of POV pushing. I can't see any relevance in an article on Mumbai to point out that there are slums in other countries as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his last 300 edits or so, the Indian roads article and the article on the tallest buildings in India seem to be the only two he has edited. Freeways, armaments and tall buildings - guy (yeah, stereotyping I know) seems to be a numbers nut. And is there more current data than 2002 for indian roads? My guess is there isn't much more up to data info in public domain for roads in the UK!!. I think the admins might need a few more diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say but it is my impression that his edits have a fundamentally discriminatory character associated with them. I did not mean to imply that the Mumbai article should state that slums exist in other cities. What I meant is that other cities in the developing world (including Beijing, Shanghai and many other Chinese cities) have their own fair share of issues including poverty and environmental pollution. I don't see other users however using Wikipedia as a political platform on which to launch attacks so they can push their own point of view the way By78 has. Another example I can cite is on the Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles page [70], he explicitly removed the Indian entry on the page citing lack of evidence even though VOLUMES of evidence existed. In addition, regarding his modifications to India's Road Network, I don't see why India's road network has to be compared to the United States or China. If this article is indeed on India's road network, then the opening paragraph does not need to draw comparisons to other countries. It is widely understood that India being a developing country is not going to have the first world infrastructure of the United States. It is also widely understood that the Indian Road Network has its fair share of problems and they are discussed in the article but By78 is attempting to make these problems the core focus of the article and thus pushing his anti-India POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can't India be compared with China? I mean the comparison is practically an academic pastime, with India and China part of the BRIC designaion and both being large developing countries. The comparison, I believe, is both relevant and informative, as both countries have fast growing economies, are of similar population size, etc. I certainly wouldn't compare India with Brazil or Indonesia. If I remember correctly, at least two comparisons are made with China in the Economy of India wiki article. Furthermore, there are plenty of wiki articles that are titled "List of Countries by...". You get the point.By78 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I think he's probably seen this or something similar, which reports that the sub (the SSBN) won't be commissioned by the Indian Navy for maybe 3 years. He's right - you can't say you've got submarine launched ballistic missile capability if you haven't got the sub to launch the thing fromElen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lest I seem totally unsympathetic, I think if you provide the admins some proper diffs for edit warring, they may take more of a look at this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will keep an eye on him in the future though. I do however want to make one thing absolutely clear; my intention is not to promote "Indian triumphalism" as By78 claims but I do want to prevent vandalism or other inappropriate edits to India related pages. I do think that judging by his likely YouTube profile page and his previous edits on India related pages, he seems to be intent on promoting a negative (and non-neutral) portrayal of these articles.

99.238.167.207 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I smell a sock. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be as skeptical as you please but I have no relation to Chanakyathegreat. You can check the IPs if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I smell a sock too, Jaerback. Vedant, or Chanakyathegreat, is that you? Back to the substance of the accusation, I think my edits have been well researched, and backed up by well-cited sources (no blogs, no internet rumors), and most of my sources are from newspapers and specialists magazines and websites such as Globalsecurity, CIA World Factbook, BBC, AFP, Reuters, etc. Vedant has accused me of vandalism, which is simply unfair. Vedant has also accused me of POV-pushing and Chinese-Triumphalism. To be honest, I am interested in East Asian culture and do speak a bit of mandarin, but I am not Chinese, and I have no desire to demonstrate one country's superiority over another. If you look at my edit history, you will find that I have also frequently removed questionable claims from China-related articles. I stand accused, however, for being a stickler to facts, numbers, and figures. User "Elen of the Roads" was correct in saying that I am a numbers nut, and I happened to notice many more incidents of questionable, premature, triumphant claims being made in India-related articles, and I did what any good editor would do, I researched into these claims, and I corrected them as I saw fit. I will not make any apology for that. Oh, one last thing, I do NOT have an account on Youtube. By78 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an account on YouTube? So the page /user/by78 with an impressive list of Indophobic and Sinophilic favorites which closely mirror your Wikipedia edits, and which spouts frequent hate speech against India and Indians, is not you? Give me a break. Even on a site like Wikipedia where you are expected behave professionally and maturely that Indophobic attitude of yours pokes out, as evidenced by the two warnings you have. GSMR (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No I certainly do NOT have an account on Youtube. Although I might get one, seems like a good idea. One has to wonder, of all the hundreds of millions, no, billions of people who have Internet access, what are the chances of two or more people picking "by78" as their account names. Hmmmm... I did a cursory search on "by78" in google, and lo and behold, I found no less than a dozen accounts, spread across a wide variety of websites, by this name. So why pick my account on Wikipedia and this other person's on Youtube and try to make sense out of the supposed similarities? Funny, it's not hard to see that if we are to take into consideration of all these other "by78s" out there, then, gasp, there is really not much there in behavior similarities, except of course, that they all have Internet access. It seems to me that those who objected to my edits are those who are a bit lacking in skeptical attitude and all too eager to accept "facts" at face value, OR, has a bone to pick with me because I've edited some India-related articles with factual sources, which strangely offended some editors out of India. Who is at fault here, I do wonder sometimes. I also ponder as to when these editors would stop using ad hominem attacks on me and instead, as they should per wiki policies, focus on the merit, content, and factual accuracy of my edits. Thus far, it seems, that few had been able to raise objections to my edits on factual grounds, which is no surprise, as my sources have been chosen rather, I might boast a bit, judiciously. Lest you want to write off AFP, Reuters, Indian Express, Globalsecurity, CIA World Fact Book, Ernst&Young, Der Spiegel, UNICEF, World Bank, and IMF as a bunch of propagandists bent on sullying India's good image. By78 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Really?

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7706/youtubem.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8582/wikipedia.jpg

That sure seems like an amazing coincidence.

And no, the only reason I have a bone to pick with you is because I have witnessed this behavior on YouTube and then again on Wikipedia - while I have no problem with your constructive edits based on factual sources, you may remember the brief edit war we had regarding the etymology of cash where your reason for believing that Englishmen did not use the word "cash" for the currency in Canton was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is, FYI, an Indophobic theory which credits Vedic culture to White Europeans rather than Indians) was false. Aside from the fact that this theory does not and never did entail Indian conquest of China or anywhere else, your comment that "aryan" is synonymous with "German" angered me - the fact is that the word "aryan" was never in the European lexicon until Max Muller borrowed it from the Vedas, and that in its original Sanskrit context 'Aryan' did not refer to a race at all. (and yes, the Aryan Invasion Theory _is_ false, the only people who believe that Nords had anything to do with Indian achievements are White Nationalists on Stormfront).

GSMR (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I do appreciate the "evidence" you presented. But, anyone can make a screen grab, errr, I meant use photoshop, provided there is enough motivation. Furthermore, anyone can copy what I said on wikipedia, and then create a youtube account to make the same comments, so as to "prove" that I am the same person in both places. Good job. Good job indeed. If you so want to accuse me of being anti-India based on my Wiki edits, then so be it, but do make the same accusation against the good folks working at AFP, Indian Express, The Indian Business Standard, BBC, CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Janes Defense Weekly, Federation of American Scientists, the Indian Parliament, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Why? Because the whole world is out to get India, sully her good name, and bring her down. Even better, why not accuse Danny Boyle of anti-Indian sentiments as well in his wiki article. Oh, even better, might I suggest that you finally get around to provide some REAL evidence of my so-called BIASED editorship. Anyone care to give it a try? I thought not. Why? Ad Hominem attacks are just so much more exciting. By78 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are five months old!

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=oYxO3LOZQ6Q&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DoYxO3LOZQ6Q (deleting them won't help; it will still say "comment removed by author").

Yes, for the past five months, I have been operating a YouTube account with your username from Wikipedia with the sole intention of associating it with you. Come on, Bo Yu, just searching for "Eendiah" on Google shows me everywhere you have an account.

Also, if you care to read what I said above, I do not condemn any of your VERIFIABLE edits.

GSMR (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So what if the youtube comment is five months old? Does that prove anything? My so-called anti-India edits have been going on, let's see here, for almost two years. I wouldn't put it past someone to fake an account on youtube just to engage in ad hominem attacks (silly, but somewhat sophisticated). However, whoever is doing this, for whatever reason, has not read wikipedia policies carefully, namely that it is the content and merit of the edits that should be under discussion, not the editor, unless of course, the editor is engaging in questionable behavior. Now, maybe I am biased, but I just don't see my edits as anti-India, unless of course, you really want to go with the conspiracy theory of the world is against India, which I suppose could be plausible, but I need proof. Now, could someone list the anti-India edits I have made so that we can have an open, honest debate about them? Vedant has brought up two examples, but obviously they have NOT been accepted as demonstrating my so-called anti-India bias, but rather as examples of old-fashioned paraphrasing of news reports and specialist information (with proper citations, of course). What else have you got? Let's hear it. By78 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Youtube: by78. Joined: August 26, 2006. Last Sign In: 3 hours ago

Wikipedia: your first contribution was on July 26, 2006, and you did not start editing India-related articles until October 2008. In fact, the "Eendiah" phrase on YouTube predates your use of it on Wikipedia. (March 25 2009 is four months ago).

Not that it matters; your standing on Wikipedia is not affected by accounts elsewhere on the Internet. Hell, I'm a member of a hate forum against a certain minority, does that mean I can't edit Wikipedia as long as I abide by the rules and etiquette policy? No, what you do off-site is strictly your business - but you don't need to deny it.

Anyhow, Bo, I believe that you are prejudiced against Indians and despite the fact that India rakes in more money per year her former crown, beats your beloved PRC on the failed state index, and created the number system without which your username would be ByLXXVIII, you are still determined to degrade the image of India on Wikipedia.

Verifiable and sourced contributions aside, let's not forget those 20-some pictures of Mumbai you uploaded showing nothing but the slums of the city, your flame-war with ChanakayatheGreat where you compared the country with the fourth largest economy in the world and her flag on the moon with Sub Saharan Africa, your mockery of an Indian accent, your disbelief at the verifiable etymology of the word "cash" (sense 2 on Encarta Dictionary), and your own bigotry by using the Sanskrit word Aryan to describe blond-haired, blue-eyed Nords on my talk page, though in truth, the word "Aryan" was never used outside the Vedas until Max Muller borrowed the term from them, and came up with the ridiculous theory that Aryans were a race of White Europeans who civilized India (which, to repeat something you said yourself, is false. In fact, using the original Sanskrit definition of the term, only Indians are Aryans. The Aryan Invasion never happened, despite what some White nationalists who want to claim India's history for themselves would like you to think).

Fortunately, the Tamil etymology of Chinese Cash remains clear on the Wikipedia article about it (and on the MSN Encarta Dictionary).

Yes, I think it is quite clear that your main purpose on Wikipedia is to ridicule India.

GSMR (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GSMR,

Please don't engage in personal attacks against other Wiki editors, especially on the administrator page. If you have problems with their edits, engage the content of those edits. I can't tell what the bias of by78 is anymore than you or anyone else can. Also, I don't think that it matters at all. Even if he was personally biased against India, does that make the sources that he cited less accurate? Jjc16 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, however, I have already engaged with the content of the edits that I had problems with (see my and by78's talk page regarding the etymology of the word cash). I also did not like his POV-pushing with the 20+ pictures of slums in Mumbai, nor his mockery of an Indian accent on the Great Power talk page, nor his denial of the Sanskrit origin of the word Aryan - and he asked me to point out what edits of his I had problems with or found biased (and I have given examples above). GSMR (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for god sake, I have already conceded the point regarding the Chinese cash article. You were right, and I was WRONG, and your edit stayed. Are you happy now? What else have you got? I've only seen pages after pages of ad hominem attacks on my supposed bias against India, by way of some tenuous link with some user on Youtube. Frankly, all this is rather pathetic. Now, would some one please furnish more "evidence" of my wiki edits that you or anyone else deem biased and anti-India? By78 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the off-Wiki issues are slightly less-than-tenuous, we do have to WP:AGF about them at this moment. It's only the on-wiki stuff that matters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, yes, I engage in non-orthodox behavior on non-Wikimedia sites, I agree, as I said before, that there is nothing wrong with that. But the "Eendiah" phrase on Youtube predates your word-for-word use of it on Wikipedia, so why deny the association of the two accounts? What is it this time, did someone hack YouTube's server and set their date back a couple of months?

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=FkPBBZiMAjY&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DFkPBBZiMAjY - "Eendiah", 2 months before you got warned here for mocking Indians with the exact same phrase

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Zg5PwBTk4aU&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DZg5PwBTk4aU - Same as above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQWD6KcZcY - Same as above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARKp_ZHQvU - Same as above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOBCWN8HWXs - Three months before

So... what is there to deny? Come on, just be honest. You will only save face... unless, of course, you are the one stealing lines from your impostor on YouTube.

Okay, fine, lets forget the cash thing. The only reason I'm bringing that up is because that was the only time I have ever encountered and challenged you on Wikipedia (before this). But after that, I did, out of sheer interest, browse through your contributions and found that you have a very derisive view of India. While, and I repeat myself for the trillionth time, I do not contest your cited edits and reverts, what I do find indicatave of your Indophobic bias includes the "Eendiah" phrase (which occured first on YouTube by someone very much like yourself, and then as a remarkable coincidence was said again word-for-word by you on Wikipedia, as well as the whole second-warning thing with me.

Go ahead, make as many cited, verifiable edits on India-related articles edits as you want, but keep your racist comments to YouTube and what is likely your Facebook account (as evidenced by another repition of the "Eendiah" phrase here and possible source of the b.y. initials.)

Personally, I would have gone with a less unique catch phrase. http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en___CA336&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=eendiah just gives it away.

GSMR (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that this entire thread has descended into a farce. Let's see some real proof of my anti-India wiki edits. Anyone? I suggest that someone please list the edits that I have made that are anti-India, edits that are tenuously sourced, or are inflammatory, or whatever. Ad Hominem attacks are not going to get you anywhere. By78 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad Hominem? You're the one persistently denying affiliation with the YouTube account by78, and thereby keeping it a part of the discussion. Because you have repeated word for word on Wikipedia, "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie!", a comment which has been made three months previously on a YouTube account with YOUR username and from YOUR facebook account recently, are you going to call it an Ad Hominem attack when I respond directly to denials that you make about your accounts elsewhere on the Internet? GSMR (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to review what Ad Hominem means. If you scroll up to the top of this thread (I know, it's a long way up), you will find that it was started because someone (Vedant) had made an accusation that my wiki edits are anti-India, and as a proof, he listed this youtube page. This is ad hominem attack. As for the merit of my edits, Vedant raised the Mumbai slum issue and submarine launched missiles as two examples, which have been rejected as demonstrating nothing other than good old fashioned paraphrasing of verifiable, reputable sources. Now, as far as I can tell, no more examples have been brought up. I would like more, since the thread is about my anti-India edits, and surely there must be many many more examples of my racist rant on wikipedia; but, despite my repeated appeal for more examples, I have received none. However, I have received more of the same tenuous link with this Bo character on youtube. Hmmm, youtube is not wikipedia, and wikipedia is not youtube. I am not Bo, and Bo is not I. Bill Clinton the former president is not the Bill Clinton the former British army general. Chankayathegreat is not Chanakya the Great. So, could you please, for the sake of Krishna, provide some additional examples of my so-called anti-India edits? Otherwise, why look for things that are not there, like Vedant does with his looking for a slum-free Mumbai, which does not exist, yet. By78 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if we ignore the edits for which you earned your two existing warnings, and if we ignore the YouTube account, then here are some of your anti-India comments/reverts made on Wikipedia, where the rules apply:

You should make a real attempt to read. Those two warnings are not for edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arjun_(tank)#Revert_of_recent_edits_of_Hohum_by_by78

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hohum#Arjun_article_revert...

Need I say more?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278455547

What does your opinion on neocons have to do with their credibility on India?

Hmmm, what does Bernard Madoff have to do with his credibility on making good investments?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, this mirrors an opinion voiced on here, interestingly, one month before this edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278666046

Back to the Youtube dead horse again? So tell me, why is the above an EDIT? It was expressed in the discussion pages, NOT written into the Great Power article. So, you are implying that no two persons can do the same research and reach the same conclusion? Oh well, I suppose I am brilliant. Now, that is a brilliant idea. Thank you very much!By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"As well Sub-Saharan Africa"? So having the fourth highest GDP in the world (PPP) is doing "just as well as SSA" economically?

Yes, as well as SSA. I stand by that statement. In terms of HDI, child malnurition rate, hunger rate, percentage of population below poverty line, literacy, etc., India is doing as well as SSA.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you said economically, and therefore, your comparison must only regard India's economy, not her HDI. In any case, I see several Sub-Saharan African countries, in fact, most of them, under India's HDI. And yes, for the record, China is ranked 94th on the UN's 2006 HDI assessment (in which countries like Uganda, Gambia, and the Congo are below India's HDI, and some of the others you mentioned (like Botswana and North Korea) have no data available. GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(No, FYI, I do not believe that "Eendiah will be a soopa powa by twenty-twendy").

Let me repeat, with more clarity, "no, fyi, I do not believe that India will be a super power by 2020". Do you?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe India will be a superpower by 2020. But that doesn't mean I don't believe that India has vast potential for growth. GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278852147

Why do you have to insult the Bhagavadgita?

Yes, I do think Chanakyathegreat got his info. out of the Bhagvagita, which is obviously widly outdated, which would explain his unreasonable stance on things. Nothing wrong with the book, I got a copy myself, thanks to the Hare Krishna house. Good food there too. Did you catch my sarcasm, both then and now? And of course, let's not forget, this comment of mine was made in the DISCUSSION page, not in the actual article. So what examples of EDITS have you got?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you, you'll find that Albert Einstein praised the Bhagavad Gita as well. But in response to the "EDIT" thing, are you forgetting that all of Wikipedia's rules apply on talk pages as well? Or that whether one's edits are made in good faith can be reasonably judged by their talk page comments? My definition of "edit" may not be the same as Vedant's, as I include any contribution to Wikipedia. You can follow all the rules but still be a troll, for an example, look here: http://www.youtube.com/JenkemKang (Though note that I have no problem with African Americans - I am merely using this person's YouTube channel as an example of trolling, while following the rules). GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278874506

"Hindish"?

Yes, Hindish. As in [71]. It is not a bad word, unless you are overly sensitive, which I don't think you are. Anyhow, this again is NOT an EDIT. Sigh, when am I going to get a real example of my mythical anti-India EDIT?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278874506

"Slumbai"?

Yes, it's a nick name of Mumbai. Have you not heard of it? It's part of the memestream. Again, this was used in the DISCUSSIONS page, NOT an actual EDIT.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=279266345

"Holy cow"?

Agai not an EDIT, but something written in the DISCUSSIONS page. Did I not ask for EDITS? See [72]. I think I was given a warning about this comment, in all fairness. If you talked to somebody as stubborn as Chanakyathegreat, you would not remain a pacifist for long. So I think I did pretty well there. Sarcasm intended.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, an "edit" is a modification of any page, talk or otherwise. However, if you are referring to specific incidences of ARTICLE edits, then I addressed this above - good faith can be judged by any form of edit. For example, I find your assumption above that I am a Hindu who believes in Krishna just because I'm Indian is prejudiced and racist, and merely an attempt to incite me to get angry - I am in fact agnostic. In response to your Krishna reference, however, I should point out that the Proto-Indo-European religion has been completely displaced by the faith of Abraham in Europe. The lightning bolt-wielding, serpent crushing god known to the Norsemen as Thor, the Greeks as Zeus, and the Romans as Jupiter lives only by one name today - Indra. The common religion of both our ancestors survives today in India only. (Yes, I am agnostic, but if I were to convince myself that god(s) exist, I would be sure to put the pantheon higher on the plane of probability than the God of Abraham). Ha! If I did believe in Krishna, then I would be a part of the only religion which can claim Indo-European cultural hegemony. Oh, it's so, so, insulting... GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I've said before, a nation with her flag on the moon and the fourth-highest GDP in the world at parity is considerably more advanced than Sub Saharan Africa. I am not discussing poverty, I am discussing how technologically and militarily (if that's a word) advanced they are, given that when one thinks "advanced", that is the sense of the word that enters their mind.

EDITS! I was really hoping, as I was going down this long list, to finally see that anti-India EDIT I allegedly made. Bummer! Anyhow, other editors on the DISCUSSION page did not agree with this above statement, when applied to India. You should ask them.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=279497792

"English is 'forced upon' him"? Is that a reference to the British era? Yes, I suppose, after repelling Alexander the Great, refusing to accept Islam under Mughal rule, allowing the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and the British (what was your fascination with us?) to set foot in India, someone was bound to end up in charge. It should be noted that the British Isles were ruled by Rome for about twice as long as the British ruled India, and to this day their national motto is in Norman French, a foreign element to the English and the indigenous Celts.

EDITS, again, EDITS. Anyhow, what is so controversial about the above statement? Was English voluntarily acquired at first? Obviously NOT. Many in Africa still speak English or French, and their forefathers didn't go to England or France to study the language. Was India not colonized? History revisions should not be carelessly made.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this "cow piss" stuff? That was, so you know, because some crazy scientist said that it cures cancer. I suppose that addressing the rest of that edit is a moot point because you've already been reprimanded for it (though, and I'm sure you can speak from experience, the management at YouTube and Facebook don't mind it as much.)

Again, NOT an EDIT. Wow, I think your failure, thus far, to provide concrete examples of my alleged anti-India EDITS says more about you than me. You do know what "piss" is, right? Cow piss = cow uraine. Does cow uraine taste like Sprite? I never tasted cow Urine, and I can't imagine it tastes like Sprite. In any event, I don't have a cow handy, and I don't care to try. My point was, democracy is nice, but it is not magic. I was relating to the suffering of the poor. Being a democracy does not make a country a great power, which was the subject of the discussion, and democracy itself does not feed the poor, as it is not ingestable.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyhoo, it is clear from these comments/reverts made on Wikipedia that you are racist against Indians and derisive of India and are not genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia's quality, rather, degrading its image of India and flaming Indian editors. My talk page is still testament to that.

Anyhow, some list of evidence. As for proving that I made anti-India EDITS, it fell far short of my lofty expectations. Again, just so you are not clear, I, and other editors, asked for specific instances of my EDITS of ARTICLES that you believe are anti-India. So far, zilch. Waste of time? Hardly, I am having fun, and I hope you are too ;) By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GSMR (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I have yet to hear why that youtube account with the same name as yours has made the "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie!" with the exact same words and spelling, three months before you did on Wikipedia. Sheer coincidence, right? GSMR (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheer coincidence indeed, and you should accept that. After all, same words have been uttered by many people, by coincidence or by something we call RECITATION, or they are uttered by different people pretending to be somebody else out of ulterior motive (not accusing you here). If I am correct, I believe the quoted statement was meant to convey a certain accent and sentiment perculiar to a certain group, which is rather easy to do. Just picture how the accent is, and wola, there you have transcribed it. <sarcasm begin>Good detective work, Detective Jacques Clouseau. You must be Jacques Clouseau, as your detective style is exactly the same as his. That can't be a coincidence, can it? Or is it someone pretending to be him responsible for the work?<sarcasm end>

If it is someone pretending to be you, then he seems to have a time machine, or at least the ability to hack YouTube and set its date ahead to make it look like you're the one stealing lines from him. Damn him!

It doesn't take more than a Google search for "Eendiah" to reveal your presence everywhere on the Internet. I mean, you must be the only person who transcribes an Indian accent like that - the phonology of every Indian language has a short /i/, /a/, and /u/ - and a consonant /r/ that is identical to the one in English - and most foreign people who hear these languages can establish that with ease. There are many ways to transcribe an accent using a form of orthography as flexible as the Roman alphabet, why is it that both accounts named B(o)Y(u)78 just happen to do it the exact same way?

GSMR (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well well well, still skirting the issue here, aren't we? What specific EDITS are you objecting to? None of the listed items above appear in any wiki ARTICLE EDITS. EDITS are not comments in talk pages, are they? Care to list some of the alleged anti-India EDITS I have made, which have by now become almost mythical for their absense in this discussion. EDITS, anyone? No? Ad Hominem attacks, anyone? Yes, do sign up. Funny you admitted that you yourself have gone on racist and ethnic rants about a particular minority group before, and I applaud your honesty, but does that make your edits, provided that they are based on neural, reputable sources, any less valid? The answer is obviously not. Then why apply it to me, when I have merely made sarcastic remarks about some of the delusions behind the POV pushing by certain editors (not you). Why cast stone from a glass house, even if you are giddy from finding this tenuous, alleged link between me and this other internet character? If you want to play this game, I suggest that you should link me with, say, Osama Bin Laden, or some other very famous sordid character, then maybe the admins will consider my edits completely biased. So again, what ARTICLE EDITS can you think of? By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) By78 - it doesn't matter if you make the EDIT in an article, or on an article talkpage, it's an EDIT. Therefore, using terms like "Slumbai" anywhere on Wikipedia is wholly 100% inappropriate. I'm not even going to respond to the rest, as most fit the same pattern. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as the distinction between an article edit and a discussion edit can be made, at least for the purpose of this discussion. When Vedant accused me of making anti-India edits, he did in fact mean article edits, as evidenced by his assertion that my edits were sloppily researched or based on non-neural sources. If Vedant had meant my heated comments in discussion pages, then it would mean that he believes my heated comments were sloppily culled from questionable sources, which makes no sense, as making off-handed remarks necessarily precludes the possibility of doing research on what specific words best expressed my sentiment at the time, much less providing citations of origin to the said words; also, my grasp of the English language is satisfactory, and I therefore had no need for dictionaries or guidebooks on sarcasm to aid in my remark-making. In fact, Vedant had belately attempted to prove that my article edits were biased based on my discussion comments and this other youtube account, which I do not own. I think it's safe to say that Vedant assumes BAD FAITH, specifically that I am biased and therefore my article edits are invarioubly and immutably so, which is Ad Hominem. As for accusing me of being anti-India in my comments in discussion pages/discussion edits, I do stand accused of being carried away at times, for which I had been warned and blocked. The said disussion comments have been archived and are there for all to see, and thus there was no reason for Vedant (assuming his sanity is intact) to bring them up again in the first place. Moreover, Vedant asserts that I have been "making edits to pages related to India without consulting others", which obviously implies that the edits in question are article edits, as it would be silly to expect me to "consult others" before making the unfortunate remarks in the disussion page, unless Vedant believes it customary for people to seek counsel before making insults (although lawyers and publicists do sometimes recommend this). As for the so-called anti-India article edits (by the way, I take deep offense at being called anti-India, as I have nothing but the utmost respect for its peoples and cultures), I have yet to see any proof, and I am confident that there is none, as I have maitained my neurality (in editing articles) by adhering faithfully to providing information from reputable, verifable, and/or speicalist sources. By78 (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: when you made the "edit" to a talkpage, did it increment your total edits on Wikipedia by 1? Yes? Well, then it's an EDIT. Just like if you had said "I personally think that Joachim Gentry-Smyth is a stupid, moronic, cock-sucker" on your own talkpage, it would be a major violation of WP:BLP I hope there's no such person, by the way. An edit is an edit - being offensive on a talkpage is still offensive and therefor disruptive to the project. I'm "defending" you surrounding the possibility about the off-Wiki account on Youtube, please don't push my goodwill. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for moving this discussion back to the talk page? It seems like you both have a lot to discuss :) I don't think this is the place to do it though :( Jjc16 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Eyes please

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 48 hours by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) for edit warring. Will keep an eye on the article for future edit wars. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you folks be so kind as to have a look at Filipino people, and editors: 122.104.185.81 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and Cali567 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). There seems to be an edit war in progress, and some talk that's getting out of hand. I'm far too tired to research this in an objective and responsible manner to issue blocks or page protections. I'd appreciate a hand here, I responded to a "help desk" thing, but I'm out of energy right now. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The war is ongoing. This is likely Orsahnses (talk · contribs), previously blocked for edit warring under many IPs and other socks. I've filed a report to WP:AN3 and made a request for indefinite semi-protection at WP:RPP. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks, appreciate the helping hand. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

MrAshJam spam accussation

User:MrAshJam has put the following files for WP:CSD as spam: Lukas Hoffmann and Michel Duboille, both slalom canoers. The source that I have for both files were from the International Canoe Federation and are considered legitmate. He also called for the speedy delete of Marius van Amelsvoort, edited by Dr. Blofeld, despite the fact that van Amelsvoort came from the Dutch Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he is disrupting the courses of the regular new content contributors to wikipedia. Miller's new articles are medalists and are referenced and my new articles however stubby are part of the general drive to transfer content form another wikipedia and are so marked constructively, neither are spam. I think our new editor needs to be informed of this and who the regular new content contributors are for future reference. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have either of you tried discussing this with him before bringing this here? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I prodded him with what I was translating but he didn't reply to either of us. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I advised him of the ANI, but no response. Chris (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld's message is fairly ambiguous, but I note that he continued to tag articles for deletion after the message was given with no attempt at communication. I also note he had just over ten edits before starting his little spree - an attempt at getting around autoconfirmation? Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm looks suspicious, how many newbies know exactly about "spam" tags. 99% certain it is a former blocked editor. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a sock puppet investigation on this user? Chris (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clawed lobster

Resolved

Amthernandez (talk · contribs) just moved Lobster to Clawed lobster without consensus and converted Lobster to a disambiguation page when we already have Lobster (disambiguation). We need an administrator to reverse this move. Clawed lobsters are commonly referred to as "Lobster", and the primary topic is not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alecsdaniel

The user started adding a copyright violating link to the article Everybody (Madonna song) using an IP. When I reverted the addition by the IP, this user suddently reverted back with edit summary as then add a reference, smarty pants!. First of all this is sockpuppetry. Well I wouldnot have been bothered by this, but after I left a warnign template at the user's talkpage, he came back shouting at my page and being uncivil regarding the change. I have explained issues of WP:RS a number of times before, but since the user refuses to listen to reason, I have raised this ANI. Admins please look into the matter. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a few days to stop the edit war over the link and I'll have a word with the user. Neither party comes out smelling of roses here ("Try to develop an article for GA and then come and display your drama" was unhelpful, Legolas), but Alecsdaniel (talk · contribs) really didn't help matters at all so it's them that I'm dinging. ➲ redvers ^{Buy war bonds} 10:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

is this weird and if so what should I do about it?

I dont understand what this is about User:Kevin Wahlberg User:Chace Watson User:Omoak Fendia and these edits [73] and [74]. Another user has offered an opinion here [75] Cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The titles they were moved to are for users who don't exist locally, so I moved them back. I'm asking the user exactly what's up, and exactly why he's moving the pages. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes newer users try to rename their accounts by moving userpages... not sure if that's what's going on, here, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Chace Watson is problematic, but so long as there are no article space categories on that page, I guess there isn't much we can do about it. But User:Omoak Fendia has barnstars on it that were not awarded by the people that the page claims awarded them. Should those be removed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruptive behaviour of User:Valkyrie Red

User shows a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour:

• NPA: [76] , [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]
• Attacks on other unspecified editors: [84]
• 3RR / Edit warring: See open case at WP:AN3#User:Valkyrie Red reported by User:MuZemike (Result: ).

User is constantly dancing around the limits, however the net sum of all activities combined with the multiple instances of edit warring constitute clearly disruptive behaviour dating back as far as June 16th and continuing as recently as today, despite multiple warnings and cautions (see User talk:Valkyrie Red but also here. MLauba (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user has tried to delete this ANI post [85] as well as the AN3 post [86]. MuZemike 00:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see comment made on my talk page by a new user who says he's the user in question's brother [87] (whom I have tried to point over here to make himself heard here). MuZemike 00:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hrs for removing the ANI and 3RR board notices. Please try to continue to engage civilly with him on his talk page and provide guidance going forwards. I think they're young and overenthusiastic, not malign, please remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. I'm hoping that the message reached its destination this time. As far as I'm concerned, I have no objections if this gets closed and archived - pending Mike's word. MLauba (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though I have some slight suspicions of that new account I mentioned above (who now hasn't edited since before the block), this can be brought up at another time if this situation comes up again. I don't object to any closure at this time. MuZemike 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued tag-team insertion of defamatory content in BLP

Resolved

 – Semi-protected the article for a week. (X! · talk)  · @263  ·  05:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

204.2.209.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fight the bias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:204.2.209.2 and SPA account (and possible sock?) User:Fight the bias have spent the last couple hours repeatedly re-inserting defamatory content and personal commentary into the Susan Roesgen BLP. As instructed by WP:BLP, I am reverting those additions (even beyond 3RR). I've explained the BLP violations on the article talk page, edit summary and IP's talk page, but it continues -- and frankly, I'd rather not waste any more time taking out the garbage. Is there an alternative course of action to take here? It's gone beyond simple BLP violations to outright tendentious edit-warring. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation should be changed to reflect the fact that it was the columnist's opinion that she was anti-Bush in her reporting (although the Hitler claim seems to be a bit of a stretch) but the article that it refers to seems well-sourced and credible on the surface. Also, it seems to me that the editor was making a legitimate attempt at content insertion, although the quote he inserted needs to be revised.

On another note, I really wish that people would refrain from posting on the administrator board just because they disagree with someone's post. These things should be resolved on the talk page; that's what it's there for. I can't see how the editor exercised any more bad faith in this revert war than you did, to be honest. Cheers. Jjc16 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jjc16: You should probably read the post just before your comment. It contains ... information. It contains no mention of my having a disagreement with anyone's post. As for the citation to which you refer, it lacks a reliable source. If you can't see the violation in citing a doctored YouTube video from an unknown source in a Biography of a Living Person, then this conversation is long past over. To be honest. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic,

Why attack me? I said that the source appeared to be reliable on the surface. I don't know if it's reliable or not. That's for you and the other editor to decide. However, it doesn't appear to cite someone's personal blog page or a website put up by Neo-Nazis, so it seemed okay on the surface.

As for reading the post, that's what I really thought that I was doing. I went to the history of the page and read the last changes to the page posted by the user and compared them to the current version. If I got something wrong, I'm sorry. I'm still learning how to use the Wikipedia interface. At least in the version that I read, the change posted by the user was as follows.

"It was also pointed out that Roesgen had, in the past, covered anti-Bush protests and voiced support for the protesters who compared Bush to Hitler."

Is this the same change you're talking about?

Finally, I'm not here to fight with you about the validity of the comment insertion. You need to fight that out with the other user. I'm just pointing out that your contentions of bad faith on the part of the other editor seem unfounded. I think she or he was trying to improve the article with the insertion. The fact that you both engaged in edit warring is not a reason to complain on the administrator page. Jjc16 (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jjc16: Why attack you? I haven't. It was you that attacked me, and I defended myself. You indicated I made a frivolous WP:AN/I request over a simple "disagreement", when I didn't; that is an attack. You indicated that I showed bad faith, when I didn't; that is an attack. Now you further claim that I have edit-warred, which is false; that, too, is an attack.

It's time for you to stop, Jjc16. As for the content issue you keep mentioning above, I have nothing to do with that -- that content was rightly reverted by other editors for other reasons. This post is about repeated BLP violations, and my repeated removal of them as required by WP:BLP. This request is marked resolved; the article has been semi-protected, and the editors blocked. Please keep any future comments or attacks on our talk pages, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate

Resolved

 – User indef blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs)

GedUK  14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I request appropriate action be taken against User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate for his behaviour at Robert Garside (which he is almost certainly the subject of). The history shows that he is unwilling to engage in debate, and insists that all those who disagree with him are the same person (probably, judging by his edits, Jesper Olsen (runner), which makes sense at least). He seems to have no interest in editing anything else and shows no signs of being willing/able to either collaborate or debate... but I'll leave another admin to take appropriate action since, despite having zero interest in the topic (I believe it was a WP:BLPN post that brought me there), I've edited it enough to seem "involved" now. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this is getting out of hand (Garside history). Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrongful accusation of 3RR by Anon IP User:60.48.190.190

Resolved

 – IP Accuser has decided not to login and to keep a low profile!

On the page of Singapore Changi Airport, the above-mentioned anon IP kept making a minor omission:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303370827&oldid=302825337
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303483271&oldid=303474172
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303539088&oldid=303516404

of which 2 of them I had reverted due to obvious geographical separation, there is a difference between taking off from/landing at Kuala Lumpur International Airport and Kuala Lumpur Subang Airport; just like the location difference between LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport and John F. Kennedy Memorial Airport. And when I reminded him of a possible 3RR scenario by him, the anon IP turned the table around and instead accused me of violating it by posting the 3RR notice on my discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&curid=16067495&diff=303547896&oldid=303545194). My question now is, is there a better way to get messages through to these ignorant IP editors? --Dave1185 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A) Don't call other editors ignorant.

B) Don't threaten other editors with BANs on their third edit -- especially when you characterize it in this message as a "minor omission".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) I am very curious about the so called 'stubborn' editor. This editor is confusing everyone that there is no-one or official name call Kuala Lumpur Subang Airport. As the official name is Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport or Subang Airport. The situation about KLIA and Subang Airport is same like the location different between John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport. The KLIA been stated as it's the only airport and served for Kuala Lumpur (city). Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport or Subang Airport is located at Subang, state of Selangor in Malaysia. It's the same case with the Newark Liberty International Airport which located at both Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey, United States.

2) Is there anyone in United States will name the Newark Liberty International Airport as New York-Newark? This is definitely NO! Same as Subang Airport too where everyone know it is no longer serve Kuala Lumpur (city).

3) I did show the official website link in wikipedia which is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303370827&oldid=302825337 The editor just ignored it or act blind. http://www.changiairport.com/changi/en/flight_information/arrival_departure/?__locale=en#_test The official website of Changi Airport stated very clear that it is Subang and not Kuala Lumpur-Subang. The editor is doing something EXTRA to confusing people. The official website also stated very clear like Tokyo-Narita or Shanghai(Pudong) but not Kuala Lumpur-Subang! I have no idea why the editor is not following the true but according to personal favorite.

Lastly, I do wish the editor can understand and stop it. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.190.190 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read your own talk page for my reply, since you didn't want to talk about it... this was my only way of getting you to talk. And, knock it off with your nonsensical posting on my talk page, it's consider very rude and disruptive. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have 'finally' reply ur questionzzz. I'm just a low profile's editor. If the true thing that i proved was neglected. Then I will just leave here as it is meaning less. I do have an account but I don't wish to login it because I don't like to quarrel with anyone. That all for my words. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.190.190 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Site ban of User:Bruno P. Dori

I propose adding Bruno P. Dori (talk · contribs · block log) to WP: List of banned users. This user has, over the last nine months, used at least 4 usernames and 60+ IP accounts to evade blocks and edit war on dozens of South American football articles. For more information, see:

• User talk:Bruno P. Dori
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruninho/Archive
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bruno P. Dori
• User talk:Satori Son#Request by Bruno P. Dori

Community review and confirmation of this site ban is requested. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued spamming of click game nonsense by User:Pinkgirl34

Resolved

 – Editor agreed not to create further subpages while the MFD runs its course. –xeno^talk 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinkgirl34 (talk · contribs) is trying to import the click game nonsense from Uncyclopedia. He/she has created over 40 pages and continues to spam despite an MfD of her pages. This is a blatant violation of WP:NOT. This user has already been blocked indef for vandalism and continues to be unproductive. Triplestop x3 19:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But the WP:MFD discussion had the majority of people saying to keep those pages. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, we should give Pinkgirl34 a month or so, and if s/he still hasn't done anything constructive, then an indefinite block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done plenty of constructive contributions to several articles, if that counts. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, would you agree to stop creating these pages until the debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Pinkgirl34's Click pages is complete? — Satori Son 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, then. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The MfD hasn't completed, so saying that there is a "majority" doesn't mean anything till the MfD is closed. However, when even User:DGG says something should be deleted ... Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing your "contributions", it does not seem that you have done many useful things. (eg [88]). Triplestop x3 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very useful contribution. It's definitely not vandalism. It's even been cited. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous editor

see also message at Wikipedia:Editor assistance

I left a message at User talk:Joyson Noel about suspicious edits being made by a number of usernames/IPs. Joyson Noel agreed that these edits were similar to a banned user known as User:Mynameisstanley and, while unable to deal with the matter himself, it was suggested by him that I forward this to either User:Mafia Expert or User:William M. Connolley. It was at this point that the IP in question began accusing me of being a sockpuppet and spammed two talk pages ([89]/[90]) besides my own with this information. He also began following me and reverting my edits, specifically to List of Jewish-American mobsters, but also reverting my talk page with harrassing messages. ([91]/[92]/[93])

I reported the incident at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and one of the IPs was blocked, but the editor has returned under a different IP and has continued reverting my edits at List of Jewish-American mobsters and my talk page. I've left messages on several talk pages, two of them administrators, but I haven't gotten a responce from anyone. Its been kind of frustrating because no one seems to want to get involved or at least point me in the right direction where I can get help. 72.74.219.143 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have archived the forum-shopping WP:EAR discussion so that the discussion can continue here. – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor insists on including personal messages that are beyond the scope of a noticeboard

Resolved

 – All drama, no action --Smashville^talk 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it valid to put personal messages to editors concerning their editing style on a noticeboard, with an excuse like this:
"YES - it IS beyond the scope of this nb, but after I send that to your talk page, it was removed immediately"?[94]
It's developing into an edit war.
The editor also reputs stuff on my talk page that I've deleted. -- Rico 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The friendly notice about using the "Preview" button was quite wise - you would be well-served by paying attention; look how many separate posts it took you to file this ANI? A think a polite request was better than a template any day ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It may belong on a talk page, but it doesn't belong on the RS noticeboard. Moreover, my editing style is not against the rules, but thank you for your personal opinion. -- Rico 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of talk page content

I would like to ensure that administrators are aware of events that have very recently occurred, and which upset me.

• I had sent a user a request to use Preview a bit more, since I was "getting lost in the watchlist" due to them.
• My (kind) request was removed in what appeared to be a possibly undetected edit conflict.
• Therefore, I sent a similar request to the talk page where the user's behavior was now mostly happening, instead.
• The user removed it from there.
• I re-added it, since at this point I felt the user was purposely denying my attempts to communicate to them.
• They removed it again.
• I added it again a second time, very clearly stating in the edit summary that I desired it not to be removed.
• The user sent me a notice to advise me that I was breaking rules.

Now, I do believe that, under WP:TALKO, the user's twice-removal of my content isn't contemplated, and I think the last message on my talk page demonstrates maliciousness, so I would be grateful if an administrator would keep a watch on the situation. Thanks.

--LjL (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Since my message was sent after Rico's, I would like to make it clear (for what it's worth, and for what it can be believed) that I didn't send it as a response; it simply took me a while to write it down, and I didn't realize Rico was doing the same thing. --LjL (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure edit-warring (almost reaching WP:3RR was the wisest way of doing this. They have the full right to remove a warning from their talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From their own they do, but not from the reliable sources noticeboard...although it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. --Smashville^talk 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But... if I edit warred, that was on the noticeboard (as my content was removed from there). On his talk page, I merely re-added content once, after it had been removed from the noticeboard, while pointing out that I had sent it to the noticeboard in the first place because it was removed in a heartbeat from his talk page (and, for what I knew at that point, it could have simply been due to an unnoticed edit conflict). --LjL (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring it even "once" to my talk page violated Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. -- Rico 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He already explained he thought it was removed due to an edit conflict. There is no reason to keep discussing this. Please assume good faith. It's fairly evident that you are not. Plus, the page you linked is neither a guideline nor a policy. It is an essay. It bears no weight. --Smashville^talk 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. -- Rico 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect one root here is whether the removal from user-talk was an edit-conflict or an intentional removal. The edit summary suggests the former. But I agree this is escallated above where it should have, and there's no use in going further with it at this time. Rico has made it clear he seen the messages. Whether he takes them to heart and improves his style for the benefit of the community remains to be seen. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The question remains whether LjL's personal message to me belongs on the RS noticeboard. -- Rico 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's clear to me that Rico knew about the message I sent him to begin with (it certainly is now!), I am prepared to remove the "personal message" from the noticeboard. But I would like an assurance that Rico understands that removal of my messages from public pages is not in line with guidelines. --LjL (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not removed the personal message from the RS noticeboard, and I'd like to know why article talk page comments can be removed if they have nothing to do with improving the article. LjL's comment had noting to do with reliable sources. -- Rico 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... yes I have?!

In LJL's restoration to my talk page of the comment of LjL's that I deleted, LjL also violated WP:Don't template the regulars. I've been editing here for 5 years. -- Rico 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that a guideline? I wasn't aware of it. Also, you may (or may not) have notice that my initial request wasn't a template at all, but carefully "hand-written". --LjL (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just an essay, not a guideline...and it's beside the point because he didn't send you a template. --Smashville^talk 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could both move on? This is a mountain out of a molehill.

• Rico, do you see now how much easier it would have been to respond to the initial polite, non-template post, instead of deleting it with no comment? That's how a polite person would behave.
• LjL, you wanted to make sure he saw the post. Now you know he has. What possible reason could there be for insisting it remain up on the board? Why not remove it yourself, if it's still there, now that you know he saw it?

Yes, I will remove it now. I believe there was a reason at the time, there is no more reason now. I will remove it now. --LjL (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both of you: Edit warring: bad. Talking: good.

True enough, but I don't consider restoring my posts edit warring, really. --LjL (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Do either one of you actually have an admin action of some kind you need done?

I thought I'd leave that up for admins to decide. --LjL (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'd like a decision -- not based on opinion, or on an outside opinion on which one of us is nicer. Does a personal request to me, concerning the fact that I sometimes edit my own unreplied to posts, belong on the RS Noticeboard -- even if I deleted it from my talk page (because that was the rationale given)? -- Rico 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This has already been resolved...LjL deleted the comment. Seriously. Stop. You're starting to be disruptive. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing this as resolved. LjL asked Rico something in good faith. No need for wikidrama. --Smashville^talk 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Daysoflight

Resolved

 – request removed and perhaps moved to another forum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, did you read the top of this page before you posted? It says Socking issues → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed my post. Someone else can take care of it, some other time. JNW (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user has not filed an SPI, I did so instead. All named accounts from the original post are blocked indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Day old speedy

I added a spam tag to FIVDB yesterday and it still isn't deleted. Can one of you please delete it? Joe Chill (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An admin took care of it by removing the speedy and adding tags. Joe Chill (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy and tagged the article for cleanup. I found at least 3 Google Books hits in the first two pages of the search, so it would appear to be notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sionce when was being notable mutually exclusive with being spam? Reagardless I've retagged it as a copyvio from fivdb.net, which doesn't load at the moment but the google cache shows - shows parts like:

Socieal Vision

A vibrant society based on justice, equity, democracy and environmentally sound principles.

Organisational Mission

To give disadvantaged women, men and children greater voice, reduce their vulnerability, increase use of citizenship rights and help them enhance their quality of life. To that end, FIVDB pursues educational, economic development and social-organisation approaches. It works to strengthen social protection and safety networks and participates in national and international outreach and advocacy. FIVDB works in collaboration with communities, civil society, government and the private sector.

Strategy

FIVDB combines grass-roots service delivery, community mobilisation and advocacy in its strategy.

Our article:

Social Vision

A vibrant society based on justice, equity, democracy and environmentally sound principles.

Organisational Mission

To give disadvantaged women, men and children greater voice, reduce their vulnerability, increase use of citizenship rights and help them enhance their quality of life. To that end, FIVDB pursues educational, economic development and social-organisation approaches. It works to strengthen social protection and safety networks and participates in national and international outreach and advocacy. FIVDB works in collaboration with communities, civil society, government and the private sector.

Strategy

FIVDB combines grass-roots service delivery, community mobilisation and advocacy in its strategy.

--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Since when was being notable mutually exclusive with being spam?" Um, pretty much since always. CSD is not a substitute for cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there clearly seems to be some copyvio stuff in there. I don't think that makes it speediable. Instead we should remove the copyvio material but leave the the other stuff in. T he organisation does merit an article IMO.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This falls under WP:SOFIXIT, not WP:CSD. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The speedy delete tag was removed yesterday so why bring the speedy delete tag up again? It should have been marked as resolved 15 mintutes after I posted it because I replied with "An admin took care of it by removing the speedy and adding tags." Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User is trying to include every B-side

Yesterday evening I received a rather angry message from user:Cindy1000. This user just so happened to add the B-sides to every single by the American country artists, Wayne Massey and Charly McClain. Cindy1000 continually added the B-side song to each of their singles chart and on the McClain discography, she added all of the B-sides in a separate table (after another user was angered when she added them into the singles chart). After I continually reverted her edits, that was when she gave me the message, which basically stated that I was deleting "informative information" and that "there is no reason for it to be deleted." She doesn't seem to listen to me at all, but according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, B-sides are not allowed in a discography. She's very strong-minded on her views and nothing seems to get through to her. Can please do something about this. You can check the messages she sent me at my talk page, and the ones I sent her HERE. Thank you :) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute with a newbie who's still learning the ropes, and no admin intervention is required here. Cut her (gender assumed from username) some slack. Also, I believe you're talking about Cindy10000 (talk · contribs). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats

I assume there is nothing that can be done about this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does include the IP's (or someone's) phone number. Someone may want to get rid of that. Deor (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give psychologal/psychiatric treatment to every angry editor. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin look at the now-deleted band page, which was deleted as a copyvio, to see if the original author creator had it explained to them that the deletion was due to copyvio? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the talkpage comment, so it is only viewable to admins or editors with other extended permissions, and asked if the editor wants to see it. Since it has a personal phone number I will ensure that any reposting will be minus that detail - I think I can fudge my way around it. This was my last action before retiring for the night, so another admin will need to look at the deleted article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The original author was Pikahsso (talk · contribs). From the talk page, it appears he was informed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wizard1911 / User:JBrown13

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So I've got a user, with multiple accounts, spamming builders hardware and personally attacking me. I wasn't sure where to report this because there are multiple issues. Here's the diffs:

• Spamming by 12.160.155.78: [95], [96], [97]
• Spamming by 12.170.211.146: [98]
• Spamming by Jbrown13: [99], [100]
• Spamming by Wizard1911: [101]
• Personal attack by JBrown13: [102]

Please help...thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... I am looking into this, but in the future WP:SPI is the place to make such a report. Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article and blocked the obvious socks. Nakon 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Looks like Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took care of it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP issues

I added this to WP:BLPN but nobody had the time.

• 1. Medical records are private and i have added it to WP:BLPN here.

• 2. Misreported allegations WP:BLPN here `

Better some administrator have a look at it. Removal needs to be enforced. Iqinn (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In my limited experience with WPANI regular readers don't appreciate having issues brought here, when a discussion has been initiated elsewhere. So I am going to respond back at BLPN#Hussein Salem Mohammed. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody had dealt with it there and it is mainly unsolved. Geo Swan is the editor who resist the removal. He should not come in here and disturb things. It is necessary that the wider community has a look at it. Iqinn (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:verbal and associates disrupting articles using wp: tag teaming and wp:canvasing on WP:FTN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We have noticeboards to attract potentially interested editors with new ideas and new sources. Such posts are well within the bounds of WP:CANVASS, though neutral, non-antagonistic language is preferred. Dispute resolution is thataway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

user:verbal is currently attempting to insert a phrase unbacked by [wp:v] into the article [Ian Stevenson][103] [104] and, having failed to make a convincing case or provide a better source, is requesting back up from the WP:FTN [105] in what I believe to be a case of canvassing, since it’s simply a request for more bodies to back him up rather than any kind of policy discussion.

user:verbal has also wp:canvassed on WP:FTN on the related article Jim Tucker[106]. I believe this is a much more clear case of canvassing than the above as it regards a WP:N issue and is completely unrelated to any [WP:UNDUE]] issues which it is the stated purpose of WP:FTN to discuss – it appears to be purely an attempt to recruit friendly editors to back him up.

In appears to represent a pattern where user:verbal is using WP:FTN as a rallying point for turning articles into wp:battlegrounds. Artw (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Ian Stevenson article, the edits being made by Verbal are a major improvement over text that appears to be attempting to promote the subject of the article. I would personally commend Verbal for moving this article close to a neutral point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. At Ian Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I see Noirtist (talk · contribs) well over 3RR despite previous warnings and previous problems with edit-warring. I've accordingly blocked him for 24 hours. That's not an endorsement of any particular edit, nor am I condoning other editors' actions - there's way too much edit-warring on that page, but Noirtist appears to be far and away the most egregious violator.

It's difficult for me to view requests for help on a projectwide noticeboard as "canvassing". These noticeboards are high-visibility, and may be watched by anyone of any viewpoint who has an interest in the topic. They exist specifically for editors to request help with these sorts of issues. The language used here is certainly less than neutral, and if posted to selected editors' talk pages would certainly be problematic, but I don't see a major issue on a project-wide noticeboard. I simply don't see the problem with this post - it looks like a neutral request for additional input on a question within the noticeboard's purview. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Many content disputes are easily solved by providing more sources and attributing the statements in the article to these sources. I'd recommend this approach be followed in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is (of course, as always, etc) right. I have changed my recent post to FTN to something that I hope is more neutral. I included a diff for transparency. Best, Verbal chat 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 Firstly, there has been no "tag teaming" by me - I've only communicated about this issue on article talk and at WP:FTN. There has also been no canvassing, as WP:FTN is an appropriate noticeboard. When posting on FTN I try to give a brief description of the perceived issue, and I usually ask people to review recent edits and the talk page. I am open to dialogue on my talk page, which hasn't been attempted by Artw. In the diff above, the SPA I mention in my notice there to an ongoing thread has recently been blocked and has only edited about three very closely related articles - hence I call them a WP:SPA. The source or the statement Artw is complaining about is an WP:RS, and the recently blocked SPA was misrepresenting the content of WP:V (specifically "Burden") in their arguments - no specific quote is required, the source simply supports the statement. There is also a huge amount of bad faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE going on at the Ian Stevenson/Jim Tucker articles. I welcome more outside opinion, which is why I posted to the FTN. Any constructive criticism, advice, or further discussion about my edits will be welcomed on my talk page - however, as this isn't an emergency, no WP:DR has been attempted, and no canvassing has taken place, I ask for this thread to be closed. Added after ec's: I agree with MastCell about the editing there, and I'm going to back off reverting similar edits for a while. Best, Verbal chat 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that [user:verbal] is simply repeatedly stating that his source meets the requirements of [WP:V]], without actually addressing any of the issues with it that have been raised on the talk page, and seems to be relying on mere force of numbers to carry his argument through. Artw (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an issue for the talk page or an appropriate forum. We shouldn't get into that here. Verbal chat 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Return of TheWave?

A new user, CanItBeMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is picking up where TheWave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left off; removing content I've added to United States order of precedence and un-blanking my talk page. TheWave was indef blocked around the same time for some other reason. Could you see if this is another incarnation or merely another troll? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked the user for Vandalism and Disruption. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please block AceWonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Resolved

 – User indeffed by some admin, didn't see who.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AceWonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly creating attack pages, nonsense, and editing other people's comments on Talk pages. I've listed this at AIV, but I'm hoping this can get resolved quickly. Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Resolved

I need an admin to delete the 13 articles on this page for immediate housekeeping, thank you • S • C • A • R • C • E • 06:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it housekeeping? Do you want to reverse the move? Some of them have incoming links. Amalthea 09:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I moved the random portal components' page's and I do not need the redirects • S • C • A • R • C • E • 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Spammy stylesheet

 Done Nja²⁴⁷ 09:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please delete User:China coal resource/monobook.css? I can't tag it. MER-C 09:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Stalker in Wikipedia

Viriditas (talk · contribs) moved Clawed lobster to Lobster without consensus or discussion. This is because he was stalking me. He wrote biased edits in the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. article taking the Black man's side against the police instead of taking a neutral, Wikipedia stance. He removed my edits. Then he started stalking me and caused trouble in the lobster article even though he had never edited the lobster article before.

Furthermore, he takes the American imperialists' viewpoint promoting the clawed American lobster to be the lobster article. In the world, there are 2 major species, the clawed and the spiny lobster, in addition to less common variants. Both the clawed and spiny lobster should be treated equally, not the American one given priority. Wikipedia is neutral, not the American imperialists' mouthpiece. If the article covered both, then I would have no objection. Either than or the disambiguation page is the wikipedia way.

So administrators, please warn Viriditas or prevent him from further harrassing or disrupting Wikipedia. Thank you.Amthernandez (talk)

*COUGH* HalfShadow 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And now Amthernandez has moved it back to Clawed lobster. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

after leaving a discussion and with good logic on the move Amthernandez (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that User:Viriditas has a good grasp of policy and has been performing admirably. I assume I'm not alone in thinking that User:Amthernandez needs a watchful eye and some gentle pointers? Doc Tropics 03:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Put the page back at the status quo title. Amthernandez, please get consensus before moving the page again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should go unnoticed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like Amthernandez correctly anticipated that I would file a SPI against him, so he decided to file a baseless one against me. Let's hope someone follows this up and actually looks at Amthernandez's contributions. It is beyond obvious that it is not a new account. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, ever a cursory glance at his account history caused the quacking of ducks... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just killed the link, a la some magic. How I love my magic. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rcool35's unstoppable block evasion and vandalism

Okay, despite the fact that he was blocked again under an undesputable case of sockpuppetry, he still continues his reign of vandalism. Now I'm a regular user of Wikipedia and I go on here to look mainly at hip-hop related articles but this user just confuses me, he does a lot of good faith edits that appear to help Wikipedia and then he vandalizes specific pages for reasons which we cannot understand. Mainly he has been editing under IP's starting under 76.XXX.XXX.XXX, examples include 76.189.195.98, 76.17.217.234, and 76.127.25.252. Many of the articles that have been semi-protected have been editied by Coolrey57, a sockpuppet of Rcool35 used to evade what should be preventing vandalism. Now I don't know what to do or how to handle this, I tried talking to him and I've gotten no response whatsoever, I'm getting tired of having to reverting his vandalism. So what do you people think we should do? --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find specific patterns to his vandalism, we may be able to use the edit filter to stop some of his nonsense. Otherwise, the only thing we can do is block his IP addresses (possibly ranges, although we absolutely need such a range to have the same first 2 numbers) and his discovered accounts, and semi-protect the pages he frequently edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that was an option but I did notice many of his "patterns".

• He ups the rating on certain albums by .5"
• He changes the stage names to real names on certain pages (mainly vanity labels.
• He also replaces an image on artist pages with an image from a concert that may be unlicensed and blanks the associated acts.
• And he also replaces ratings with 5 star rating a link to a source which does not contain a review at all.

I don't know if it's possible but it's worth a shot. --Taylor Karras (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Cork Ferries and a possible legal problem

At an AfD it was decided to redirect Swansea Cork Ferries (which was about the company) to Swansea Cork Ferry (an article on the route) were any information on the company could be included (issue is complicated a bit by, I think, some page moves - reading the discussion makes it clear what they meant, i.e. company page redirects to route page).

This decision has now been reverted several times by User:Swans797 who appears to work for the company in question. A couple of this have been reverting this and once I was aware of it I've also tried discussing it with the user. They've now made a rather strange point on their talk page which I quoye below:

Redirecting my page Swansea Cork Ferries to another name Swansea Cork Ferry which are registered trademarks and business names of mine would appear to me to be a breach of company law/trademark law and copyright law. Please stop redirecting. I am happy to let the "Swansea Cork Ferry" page continue but this page should not be interfered with. We are still solvent and have other business.

Although I feel this arguement probably has no merit I feel a little out of my depth to make a defintive decision so I'd appreciate someone with more experience to take a look. I've left the user a message about this thread and also pointed them at various relevant policies. Dpmuk (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple response; we don't tell them how and when to sail their routes, and they don't tell us how to organise the encyclopedia - all is needed is it to be delivered in diplomatic language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep I'd agree if they hadn't made the legal comments about company / trademark / copyright law. I've essentially tried using your arguement on their talk page (although I've put it more tactfully) but what I'm really looking for is some one who knows what they're talking about to say their arguement is wrong as if their point is valid we should do something about it. If someone in the know also tells them they don't have a leg to stand on it would hopefully a) stop them from reverting or b) make me happier asking for a block if they revert in the future. While they are using the above arguement and it's not refuted I'd not feel happy asking for a block as I feel that we should assume good faith and assume that they feel they have a valid reason for their actions. Dpmuk (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it make more sense to redirect the other way around to the company rather than the route? Especially if the company is still involved in other ventures? Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at AfD the company was deemed not notable (so it having other ventures is irrelevant). Redirecting from the route to company makes no sense as another company is planning to take over the route shortly and this is commented on in the route article text. Although I don't believe it's had an AfD my guess would be the route would probably be kept given the number of reliable refences. At the moment that's not the issue however as AfD has decided it the other way and the user has gone about changing it the wrong way and has now come up with a novel reason for doing so. Dpmuk (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's some background to this. The 'Swansea Cork Ferry' article is about the (soon-to-be-reinistated by a new & different co-op company) service linking Swansea & Cork - and not about the company 'Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd' - which ran the service until October 2006. The user involved has only ever posted on these two articles - and only to go on about Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd, trademarks and the like. The current round of redirections and reversions seems to be another attempt to sabotage the efforts of the new company - by suggesting that the service will not be running until 2012 - when in fact, it is planned for the new service to commence in March 2010. There seems to be no independent evidence of Swansea Cork Ferries' Ltd "other business" - and, even if there was, it's irrelevant to the 'Swansea Cork Ferry' article. The company's old website - www.swanseacorkferries.com - has been dormant & the domain parked since early 2008. Nobullman (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article titled "Swansea Cork Ferry" rather than "Swansea Cork ferry"? If it's a generic article about the route, rather than an article about a specific operation, I wouldn't think it should be fully capitalized. And if the fully capitalized form really is a valid trademark (which I don't know enough to decide), the title shouldn't be fully capitalized, since it talks about the route on which the trademarked service operated, not just the trademarked service. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the capitalisation - how would one go about changing the article title - as the article is about the route, rather than about any specific company, (although the contentious user has repeatedly tried to introduce statements about Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd) As far as I can see (www.patentsoffice.ie) the only registered trademark is "Swansea Cork Ferries" - and the following business names are registered (www.cro.ie) Cork Swansea Ferries, Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd and Swansea Cork Ferries. Nobullman (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Been bold and moved it. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic page moves

User Centre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See this contributions list. I've already dropped a note with the user, but most (if not all) of these page moves (>50 of them) need to be reversed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User's gone for another round of these, including the creation of random crud like Boost BAR cADBURY. Cadbury Boost. - I've left a uw3, but there's no indication that he's planning on stopping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is a probable sockpuppet of 86.45.71.28, who was making similar en-masse moves (many Cadbury related, many being moved around multiple times while deciding what to call it, and many against WP:NCDAB) as User:Dylanmckane last month, leaving a lot of double-redirects in their wake. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Gonna be a big cleanup... Tan | 39 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Ireland-related supermarkets and chocolate bars. Quack quack. Do we need a formal SSP case for this? Evidently not, cheers Tan! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd raised one anyway, at the time (it seems useful to keep a record), but feel free to kill it off if it's redundant. --McGeddon (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have everything moved back where it should be. Someone might want to run behind me and make sure there are no double redirects. The multiple moves of Boost (chocolate) lost me - if there was a talk page, I can't seem to locate it. --Smashville^talk 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it, it was at Talk:Cadbury Boost.. --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Moved to WP:BLP/N#Matt Sanchez. –xeno^talk 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno about this -- possible WP:LEGAL issue?

Dolfrog (talk · contribs) has recently made several comments like this one that assert human rights violations, but don't directly threaten legal action. tems listed

I'd summarize the immediate issue as "Dolfrog says that User:Gordonofcartoon is a bad person for deleting original research, misuse of primary sources, and cut-and-paste copyright violations, instead of cheerfully spending many hours fixing Dolfrog's mistakes", but I believe that Dolfrog is honestly trying to share his personal knowledge about dyslexia, based on many off-the-record conversations with researchers, instead of deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia and insult editors.

Would someone please consider whether, and how, this should be addressed? Perhaps it would be helpful just to have some of the key pages (WP:DYSLEXIA, Dyslexia, both users' talk pages, probably more) on more neutral editors' watchlists, so that it's not just the same two editors always having to tell Dolfrog that he's wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any legal threat there; condemning a particular activity as illegal and immoral in the abstract may not be the friendliest thing to do, but it's not specific enough to be a threat or phrased in terms which suggest the editor might intend to take legal action. On the other hand, User:Gordonofcartoon's edit summary here [107], beginning "Wank over these in your own time," is certainly uncivil enough to deserve at the very least a strict warning. And his removal of material from a talk page looks most inappropriate to me; even if the items listed were primary sources, there's no prohibition of discussing primary sources on tak pages, and when editors interested in subjects like this look over primary material, they may easily follow trail to useable secondary or tertiary sources. For example, if one of the primary sources looks interesting/significant enough, googling the title or authors could lead to valuable discussions in books, articles, or news reports. Discussing primary sources on talk pages can easily be a good thing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense: it's an obvious attempt to imply invoking the full force of the Law in order to intimidate an editor or win a dispute. Of COURSE it's an attempt at a legal threat, wikilwayering of apologists aside. --Calton | Talk 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting sock

Requesting an indefinite ban on this apparent sock, used to make bigoted commentary on other editors working for the "powerful lobby" as well as !vote on polls. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking this to WP:SPI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no idea on who this user is socking for (I can guess by looking at the other voters but there's nothing close to solid) so that would be a pointless post. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hirolionheart and San Mateo, Rizal

I don't know if Hirolionheart (talk · contribs) represents the San Mateo, Rizal Chamber of Commerce, or not, but he/she is insisting on inserting 44,000 bites of images and external links to practically every store in the city to the city's article. I just stumbled on the article while doing Recent Changes patrol and seeing the huge amount of data inserted into the article, and discovered that Hirolionheart has repeatedly added this information. When I issued him a 3RR warning and suggested that he insert the information at Wikitravel, in response he used an anonymous editor to revert my removal of the information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. Edits might be made in good faith, but he needs to communicate with the people who are concerned - and not edit war. Tan | 39 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just done a scan through his edit history, he doesn't seem to ever use Talk pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention moderators!

Resolved

 – Not an issue Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this, In the past many new accounts were posting messages at talk pages I was involved in and editing articles I have edited, These accounts were using some of the same language as me, they were trying to make it look like I had created several account. Someone was trying to get me banned from wikipedia.

All accounts have been banned now and you can see them at my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Supreme_Deliciousness

Now someone has tried to hack my account:

I got this mail on 23th July:

"Someone from the IP address 85.230.110.1 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Supreme Deliciousness" is "*******". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org"

I am writing this as a warning to admins! Beware! if profanity or other bad behavior is started, the account is hacked.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can hack your account by requesting a new password. As you saw, the email with the new password is sent directly to you. As you also probably saw, the new password is something randomly generated that people aren't going to be able to guess. If you receive more of these emails, just delete them. You can continue to log in normally with your regular password, and doing so deactivates the new passwords you're being emailed. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as above. The key part of the message is "If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message." TNXMan 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are worried about losing your account, you may want to consider committing your identity. If your account does become compromised, it will be blocked until you can establish yourself as the owner. The template I've linked to helps with that. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already marked resolved, but here is a link to the previous ANI discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#There is a conspiracy against me. Hans Adler 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Obsessive anon IP editor

There's an anon IP editor with what seems to be a monomania for adding links to articles about academia. Basically he's trying to cross-link every article that has the word "Academic" in its title. In a couple of cases he's added links to academic search engines based in Australia, some of which need registration.

Here are some examples:

Special:Contributions/222.67.217.50

Special:Contributions/222.67.218.172

Special:Contributions/222.64.29.96

To be honest I'm not sure if what he's doing is entirely wrong, and in fact some of his edits are perfectly fine - but he often just clutters up an article with tons of see also links. For example here there are 18 including redlinks, mostly irrelevant to the subject of the article.

He's been blocked a couple of times - and I managed to get myself blocked for edit warring with him - but that doesn't slow him down. He just gets another dynamic IP address and carries on. If you revert, he reverts right back with a snarly comment. If you ask to talk about it, he doesn't reply. This makes it impossible to do even minor tidying up.

Any ideas? Am I just being a fussbudget?

andy (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CWii

User:CWii has placed "Leave me the fuck alone" on his user page. Should this be removed? It's very discouraging and offensive at that matter. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, he seems to be acting uncivil. WP:CIVL. Look here to see what I mean: User talk: CWii. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user page won't do at all, and the reason has nothing to do with censorship. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I bring this edit to everyone's attention. He/she has placed a "Touch this and it's a guaranteed shitstorm " - Can somebody please remove the content from the page? I am unsure of whether it should be removed, or left alone, so if anyone else wants to, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cwii's edit summary here ("attn wikifags") is repellently homophobic and completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) On the subject of putatively problematic userpages, I observe that that of Marshall notes that "[he] ha[s] been with the Wikimedia Foundation since July 29th, 2008". Everyone who partakes of any Foundation project can, of course, be said to be "with" the Foundation, but the wording strikes me as misleading to the average reader (unless, that is, MW is other than a volunteer; if I have mistaken his role, I apologize and, of course, withdraw my remarks), and I wonder whether it ought to be changed. (It is inappropriate, I guess, for me to raise the issue here without first addressing the user on his talk page, but I see that the complainant no effort was made to raise the issue with CWii before bringing it here; I recognize that CWii's user page might discourage communication, but MW nevertheless managed to apprise CWii of this listing, and so I fail to understand why this had to come to AN/I straightaway.) 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with this discussion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual spotlight brought to bear on someone who complains at AN/I. I'd also note that "ATTENTION ALL VANDALS: IF YOU CHOOSE TO VANDALIZE, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE PAIN FROM ME." is completely inappropriate (from MW's userpage). → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii userpage blanked, someone else can deal with MW - since he is an active user, I would suggest a note on the talk page requesting removal of the offending part. Viridae^Talk 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) While Roux is probably right about MW here, I did block CWii for a month - and thought about doing it indefinitely. A stroll through his/her talk page, contributions, and edit summaries ("attn wikifags") shows that they are incompetent to participate in the collegial, collaborative atmosphere here. Tan | 39 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is your block for reasons other than the uncivil message on the userpage? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in fact, I wouldn't have blocked solely for the userpage issue. See the block template on his page, and my above statement. Tan | 39 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me a few diff examples? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Tan's block completely given the amt of vitriol I'm seeing. If you can't behave on Wikipedia in a collaborative and congenial manner, then go away. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to this edit (repeated twice) I have locked the talk page so he cannot edit it while blocked. Viridae^Talk 03:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

can somebody please indefinitely block him. This type of pitiful behavior is completely unsettling. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you :-) Marking resolved. Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, got the talk page before I could save :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. I wasn't entirely sure about the original block -- was still thinking it over while looking at other things, trying to see if I might have a useful comment to add -- but those talk page edits are just beyond the pale. Obviously we can't allow that sort of thing. Might be worth unlocking the talk page in a while, see if they may have calmed down by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the user should be banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to express a different point of view. When high school students melt down, they tend to melt down totally, but it doesn't mean they won't become good editors in the future, especially if they've been good editors in the past. A long block and full protect of the talk page are clearly necessary here, but I don't think there is a compelling need for them to go longer than a month. If the pattern repeats after a month, the next step is a year. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The user should be banned simply for this conduct. The user has proven not to be able to be nice to the editors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And another one at CWii2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), abusive unblock request. I've blocked the account. Also blocking John Bot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and John Bot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a preventive measure. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John Bot V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot IX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and John Bot X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked (all created by CWii). Algebraist 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Luna above, I have given back the privilege of being able to edit his talk page while blocked, but protected the page with an expiry time of 1 month. After that he can edit his talk page to request an unblock. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Hope I don't look silly in a month. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Subpages

Since the user will not longer be with us, can someone nuke this gigantic subpage list?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user is indefinitely blocked, the pages are moot, but I can't delete the pages, because I'm not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the further disruption caused by accounts of his, and his promise to continue disruption, shouldn't we get on with deleting the pages? You said before it was premature, what about now?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you replying to Luna Santin? He/she was the one that said "premature", not me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Daedalus, have you considered the possibility that his subpages are not our concern, are doing no one any harm, and that perhaps we'd all be better off finding something else to do besides trying to make sure that the Scarlet A we paint on CWii's forehead is as big and as red as possible? This is not helping anyone or anything. Indeed, it is pouring gasoline on the fire; even when the fire is someone else's fault, it doesn't need gasoline poured on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how deleting the pages of a user that actually promised to be disruptive is pouring gas on the flame. And further, what flame? This user use to be productive, sure, but they're doing all this by choice. They wanted to get blocked in the beginning, but now it goes further when they come back on previous accounts and promise that the fun is only beginning. There is no flame.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if the flames have died down, it's still not wise to pour gasoline on glowing embers either. Per Looie somewhere above, this was a pretty big meltdown, but it's still possible they might calm down and return to productive editing in a month or two. Maybe not, but maybe. Since part of their meltdown seems to be an overreaction to what they perceived as an unfair block, it's reasonable to assume that deleting their subpages would be perceived as even more unfairness, and make it that much less likely that they'll be able to return to productive editing someday.

Now, please answer a question for me in return: how would deleting the subpages help anyone, or anything? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pages like that take of space, in this case, they take up much space. Now, I don't see this user really returning, ever, after they n-bombed their talk page until they were indef blocked, then again using a sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Take up space"? Please explain how they "take up space". You understand that deleting them does not free up any server space or anything like that, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Except they don't, they take up no more space undeleted as deleted because they always remain on the server, they are only flagged so that those people with view deleted permissions can see them ie admins. Viridae^Talk 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

SPI report filed

Because of this edit, please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CWii that I've filed. Since I can't edit CWii's talk page, can an admin notify him/her? I've notified the IP. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMON comes into play here. It might just be quicker to block for 24-72 hours. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, I think this is completely unnecessary. Tan | 39 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a need for it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever; knock yourself out if you want to waste even more time on this guy. The IP account you reported was blocked long before this. Tan | 39 03:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just be waiting for the checkuser results. I won't be surprised if the conclusion is "confirmed", at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize that when the CU results come back positive, as is totally obvious, that nothing else will be done? This is a waste of time for everyone involved, including the CU. Tan | 39 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Clerk declined Given the situation, I'm fairly certain that the IP is a sock, so a check is not necessary. We would only find out what we already know. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please un-decline. A check is necessary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but I did check this one about the same time I reverted that edit, and it looks  Unrelated, with the potentially important caveat I haven't checked if it's a proxy yet. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in general, will let you know if I find anything interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're scrutinizing the details? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii has just declared that IP to be themself on IRC, for what that's worth. Algebraist 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised - Tan made the proper call, the filing was unnecessary and the checkuser request was unnecessary. We can all move on now methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I expected it to be CWii, but I'll be waiting for any potential checkuser evidence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do with any CU evidence? Ask that CWii be blocked longer than... indefinitely? Block the IP... again? Tan | 39 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A need that it be a way to expose the disruption. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

resolved

blocked indef Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is resolution?

Have none of you stepped back from two user page edits (and post-block user talk page sarcasm) to look at the larger picture, here? Here it is for you:

• 2009-07-16 02:11:52: Marshall Williams2 creates Salvo (magazine).
• 2009-07-19 15:35:50: SchmuckyTheCat nominates it for deletion at AFD, with a discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvo (magazine).
• 2009-07-20 01:56:39 Marshall Williams2 removes the AFD notice from the article. The AFD discussion had not been closed.
• 2009-07-20 02:04:21 CWii reinstates the AFD notice on the article.
• 2009-07-20 02:05:07 Marshall Williams2 uses Twinkle to remove the AFD notice a second time.
• 2009-07-20 02:06:06 CWii again reinstates the AFD notice on the article.
• 2009-07-20 02:07:41 Marshall Williams2 comes to AN/I pointing to CWii's user page.
• 2009-07-20 02:08:35 CWii places {{uw-afd3}}, the boilerplate warning for removing AFD notices out of process, on User talk:Marshall Williams2.
• 2009-07-20 02:14:15 Marshall Williams2 removes what xe deems to be an "unrightful notice" from xyr talk page.
• Discussion ensues. 3 administrators and 1 CheckUser are involved.
• 2009-07-20 02:48:49 Tanthalas39 blocks CWii for 1 month.
• 2009-07-20 03:01:09 CWii is sarcastic on xyr user talk page whilst blocked.
• 2009-07-20 03:01:58–03:04:40 CWii makes some silly edits to xyr talk page explicitly trying to provoke an indefinite block.
• 2009-07-20 03:04:57 Viridae prevents CWii from editing xyr talk page.
• 2009-07-20 03:08:20 Tanthalas39 extends the block indefinitely.
• 2009-07-20 03:09:38–03:11:20 CWii2, an account that hasn't otherwise been used since January 2009 and that has only 4 edits in total since July 2008, repeats the silly edits, again to the account's own talk page.
• 2009-07-20 03:26:25 Luna Santin blocks CWii2.
• 2009-07-20 03:28:37–03:34:45 Luna Santin blocks a whole load of approved 'bots, even though they have made no edits since May 2009.
• 2009-07-20 03:43:17 Rjd0060 blocks another 'bot that has made no edits at all, and that was created seventeen months before this kerfuffle started, for supposedly "actively causing disruption with bot accounts".
• 2009-07-20 03:48:22–03:49:23 Tanthalas39 makes further blocks of 'bot accounts for "Abusing multiple accounts" and "Block evasion", seemingly wholly ignoring the facts that the 'bot accounts were created almost a year and a half ago, and have no edits at all.

I've had a look at Special:Contributions/CWii for July and June and to be honest I'm not seeing this purported incompetence and lack of collegiality (given as the blocking rationale above) in an edit history that had a mere 27 edits since the beginning of this month up to the point that this AN/I section was started — including edits such as this and this for which the labels "incompetent" and "uncollegiate" seem highly inappropriate.

Tanthalas39 and Rjd0060, your judgement in using your tools, given the apparent complete lack of any investigation here on your parts before blocking accounts, is not looking particularly sound here. And Luna Santin, as a CheckUser you really should know better than to not even look at an account's contributions history when blocking and to block legitimate alternate accounts (that have even been through the 'bot approval process) willy-nilly when they haven't even been used.

Am I the only one to think that perhaps 4 administrators and 1 CheckUser have blocked a 'bot operator and all of xyr 'bots, who was quietly moving images to Commons and not even abusing one account up to the point that this discussion started let alone multiple ones (and certainly not abusing multiple accounts subsequently except to draw attention, although perhaps not in the wisest manner, to some block decisions that on balance do look rather poor), at the behest of an article creator who didn't like having the AFD notice on xyr article and so looked for any reason to have a pop at the editor unlucky enough to be the one who chose to restore it whilst the AFD discussion was in progress? Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given this abusive unblock request from CWii2 and this offensive posting from John Bot, blocking alternate accounts seemed prudent. Obviously that sort of tripe can't be allowed to run rampant, and obviously it was likely to continue unless the user was blocked, so I'm frankly confused what you think should have been done in those circumstances. I have no comment on the situation leading up to the block, as I was not involved whatsoever until CWii's meltdown. As far as I've checked, the blocks were set with talk page editing disabled, but emailing enabled, which seems to limit the potential for on-wiki disruption and public spectacle while still allowing for reasonable appeal once things have calmed down. If the user is unblocked and the community still trusts them to be running bots, I see no particular reason why the other blocks couldn't be lifted as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you don't get to justify your actions with circular reasoning. The diff that you point to as justification for blocking post-dates your blocks, and was a reaction to it. Can you not see what CWii was saying? It's pretty clear to me. Let me translate what CWii's actions are saying into prose for you. Here's what xe is quite clearly saying:

    "Look, you've foolishly blocked the person who was reverting the out-of-process AFD notice removals, and issuing the warnings, and left the person who was actually doing that entirely alone. If you want to go the whole hog, which will only make you look even more foolish, you might as well extend the blocks to indefinite ones and block all of my other accounts as well. I'll even make it easy for you and put some naughty words on their user talk pages so that you know which ones they are."

    Make no mistake, Luna Santin. You aren't the reaction here. You are the cause, along with the four other administrators who went on a blocking spree. Your actions caused the "spectacle"; they didn't result from it. As a CheckUser, we the community trust you to have even sounder judgement than those other administrators, which includes doing the simple but necessary checks before taking action, like looking at contributions histories before blocking. You, not I, should have been the one saying "Hold on here! Look what you are all doing!" in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "The diff"? You may notice I linked two, in my last comment, so I'm not sure which one you're referring to. The first diff directly precipitated the blocks I set -- I made a judgement call, anticipating that further disruption was likely to follow, and so I blocked a few accounts that had been used recently. CWii then switched accounts again and posted nearly identical nonsense elsewhere (see second diff); does that support or malign my judgement? You ask below if this is what we want the world to see. If the world sees that Wikipedia administrators block people for spamming racist epithets, I'm honestly fine with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is common practice to block known alternate accounts (in this case, bot accounts) of indefinitely blocked users. In this case, the indefinitely blocked user had already switched to another account (one of the bot accounts) and used it for disruption. In addition, CWii's off-wiki "promises" to continue causing more disruption and his warning that the fun was "just beginning" were more than enough reason to block his other accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you don't get to employ circular reasoning, either. You don't get to use user talk page reaction to a block to post-hoc justify the blocks, nor to justify your "actively causing disruption with bot accounts" block rationale by pointing to use of one of those accounts that post-dates the 'bot account blocks. I said it to Luna Santin above, and I repeat to you: CWii was quite clearly giving you an excuse to make yourselves look even more foolish, by pointing to all of the accounts that you all hadn't yet extended your unchecked and ill-judged blocking spree to, and you went and did exactly that. It's fairly clear from other edits that CWii is of the camp that doesn't hold administrators in high regard, and your ill-judged actions here have only served to reinforce that perception, not only in CWii's yes but in the eyes of everyone else in the world happening across this noticeboard.

    What's particularly disappointing is that neither you, nor Luna Santin, nor any other administrator involved here, have even re-considered the initial block in light of the clear evidence that you've been gamed into blocking the wrong person, and you all seem quite willing to have the outcome of this be that the person who issues the warnings for disruption be the person who gets blocked, and the person who mucks around with AFD notices out of process be the one supported by administrators.

    Is this really how you want to have English Wikipedia administrators seen by the world? Because what the world is seeing — make no mistake about it — is that administrators (and CheckUsers) rush to judgement without doing any investigation at all beforehand; effectively not only don't put into practice the notion that disruption of AFD processes results in blocks, but even enact quite the opposite, supporting one another in doing so; and are unwilling to even acknowledge, let alone to re-consider or to rectify, mistakes when they are pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• So are we ever letting CWii back on WP or is it too early to decide? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If I were you, I'd be very quiet right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrative move needed

Resolved

 – no administrative action necessary here. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009 should be moved to Solar eclipse of 22 July 2009 because that date format is used is most of the countries affected by the eclipse. This move requires administrative action to do it. It is urgent because it's on the main page. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it is not an emergency; you click on the main page link, you go to the page. Since it is not an emergency, I think WP:RM might be a better place. From Category:Solar eclipses, I see that the Solar eclipse of Month Date, Year format is used for all solar eclipses. So this isn't really an article-specific decision. Finally, I note that lunar eclipse articles all take the form Month Year lunar eclipse. why the discrepancy I wonder? Anyway, this is not an ANI matter. I'd say it's either a WP:RM matter, or perhaps better yet a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy matter, or (gulp, shudder) a WT:MOS matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see value in having standardization across the eclipses (and in the more naturally readable form that it is now). I've created the redirect in the meantime. –xeno^talk 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For anyone browsing ANI who's interest is piqued by this, I started a thread at WT:AST#Article title date formats on this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"naturally readable" is probably influenced by however a person has been reading dates for all their life; ie the same US vs everyone else shitstorm you get with gas/petrol or -or/-our spelling (or, incorrectly, UK editors suggesting -ize is US and not valid UK spelling). It'd be great if wikisoftware allowed usersettings to change article titles for preferences. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009

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.

---

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Black Kite 01:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2009

User:Factsontheground has recently edited-out almost all terrorist attacks in Israel with claims of "original research" and "no source."

Here are a few examples. FOTG removed 10 incidents and I think all of them were about Israel and Jews.

Revision as of 06:06, 23 July 2009 - Source does not describe the attack as terrorism

Source: Footage of al-Qaida cell in Gaza airs - At least four terrorists and a number of their horses were killed in the ensuing exchange of fire with the IDF. No soldiers were wounded.

Source: Revision as of 06:07, 23 July 2009 - source does not describe attack as terrorism

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting contains several statements and references that consider the event an act of terrorism. Many government officials consider this hate-filled crimes as "domestic extremism" which is categorized as terrorism.

06:16, 23 July 2009 - Source broken

New source:

• terrorist/militants kill people

These deaths aren't a part of a legal conflict (i.e, acts of war) but are consistent with terrorism - suicide bombings, ambushing patrols, IEDs on road-check points and targeting civilians, etc..etc..

He didn't even discuss, he just removed everything with the same excuse.

hist.

I reverted once and then went to talk. He refused to concede and then I promised I would seek an administrator's opinion if he did not self-revert or at least accept that some of his summaries did not coincide with the references.

Anyways, I just found the whole process to be very offensive and would hope people understand. Am I wrong here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would've thought it was fairly obvious that if an event had reliable and non-partisan sources describing it as terrorism, then it should be included in such an article, otherwise it clearly shouldn't. Black Kite 01:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not that obvious. Even if the source is reliable, the terms terrorist and terrorism are deeply POV. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Context is key. The attacks are consistent with a recognized terror campaign against Israel and Jews. FOTG zealously and exclusively edited-out virtually all of the Israel/Jew incidents with dubious summaries. No discussion, no talk, nothing. It is true, terrorism and terrorist are deeply loaded POV words but the references are reliable sources. Fighting over semantics is silly. When an IED kills 4 American's on patrol it is considered terrorism. When an IED kills Jews on patrol it is considered terrorism. According to FOTG, it does not. Any claims that it does is simply "original research." Some of those sources have been in the article for half a year no one said a word. The fact that he removed incidents because a source was broken instead just googling for a new source (yahoo refs tend to die out) demonstrates he simply wanted to remove everything about Israel and had little concern if the incidents constituted terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All of that may or may not be true. However, this is still a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI. Black Kite 01:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still not - at the moment, as far as I can see - something that needs immediate admin intervention. There are dispute resolution areas (WP:DR,WP:3O,WP:WQA), and also WP:RFC for editor behaviour issues that cannot be resolved so easily. Black Kite 01:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For edit-warring, please see WP:AN3. But otherwise, you're right, every single administrator is vetted to ensure they're on the opposite side from your particular point of view on every article. Seriously, please read the above. If any admin thinks there's action to be taken here, please do so. I'm archiving this, though. Black Kite 02:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

USER:Muntuwandi

Although many users have tried to reach a consensus with this user sadly none have been successful. This user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Muntuwandi) has a long history of disruptive editing on many articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=histor y http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)&limit=500&action=history and many other articles he has been accusing of being disruptive before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi He continually removes sourced material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=303132977&oldid=302770031, adds OR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=302853683&oldid=302603277 and does POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history He continually reverts the Edits of users such as The Ogre, Causteau, Small Victory, Dougweller, Jingiby, and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history he has promised to stop http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi But sadly this doesn’t seem to be the case. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see very little independent editing from Monte Cristo, more often than not, he is editing in my footsteps. Nothing that violates policy, just uncreative and frustrating. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In one of the diffs above Muntuwandi has removed refs to National Geographic on the grounds that it is a "commercial site".[108] There's something wrong there. Is this an edit war across WP between Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On the surface it may seem like there is nothing wrong with using National Geographic as a source. However this issue has been discussed numerous times, and the consensus is the Natgeo webpage in question contains outdated information, and Natgeo has not updated their website. The latest discussion is here Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Genographic,

Older discussions can be found

• Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)/Archive_7#The_Genographic_Project
• Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)/Archive_4#The_Near_East_Origins_non-theory

In summary the specific natgeo webpage contains old data, that is no longer used in recent publications. Spencer Wells, the director of the genographic project, that runs this specific website, published a paper last year[109], with the updated findings, but for whatever reasons, they have not updated their own website. SOPHIAN/Monte Cristo, has completely ignored all this information, saying that he doesn't care if Natgeo hasn't updated their website, since it is out there in Cyberspace, he will quote it as a reliable source[110], [111], [112]. All the regular editors are currently using the latest studies and agree the specific Natgeo is obsolete. I don't know what the best approach is with Monte Cristo because he is ignoring everyone

Here is a list of his reverts

• reverts Andrew.
• revert's Yom
• reverts Causteau,
• reverts Jingiby

Wapondaponda (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that Sophian is almost always in the minority on the articles he edit, and is frequently reverted. We shouldn't be using obsolete data in this way. An older version of his talk page at [113] shows a number of editors expressing concerns about his editing. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Sophian hasn't gotten off to a good start with his editing, not just in this article, but in several other articles as well. His pattern of behavior isn't improving. It seems that he has a lot of difficulty collaborating with others. Once he makes an edit, he will insist on it regardless of the opinions of others. It is very frustrating dealing with him on the genetics articles, because he doesn't appear to have made any effort to get up to speed on the relevant scientific literature. Despite this, he is very active with edit reverts. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sophian is going around edit warring by inserting a possible copyvio image of European genetics

• inserts map in Croatia article
• reinserts map in Croatia article
• inserts map in Poles article
• is reverted for inserting blogs such as this blog into the article about Poles
• reinserts genetics map and blogs

Sophian's editing isn't improving. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should keep in mind that numerous attempts to have rational discussion with SOPHIAN about his edits have failed. This is worth noting because he now has a habit of deleting everything on his talkpage. Concerning sources, while there might not be anything wrong with National Geographic's website for many types of information this is about a specific piece of information on a technical subject, and the specific problem has been explain in detail to him many times. He is in fact defending wording which even the person who originally put it there and defended it has given up on. Any overview of SOPIAN's edits will show that he cherry picks with very strong POV themes, and this is also in his case. (He believes he is fighting Afrocentrism.) It should also be noted that even the way SOPHIAN explains the complaints of others is wrong, as are many other aspects of his descriptions including the ones he puts on edit summaries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that indeed Wapondaponda tried to justify removing the contested text mentioning it was a commercial website. I don't know why he chose that description all of a sudden after long having given more accurate descriptions. In any case it is not only Wapondaponda who disagrees with using this source for this information. Wapondaponda's explanation on the E1b1b talk page is a superior explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform admins that User talk:Muntuwandi has also been edit warring at the article Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) with User:Sophian and he is currently under a WP:1RR restriction as a condition of his unblock for going ape with sock puppets and POV Pushing,Yet another revert for the 4th time rv1[114],rv2[115],

rv3[116] rv4[117] --Wikiscribe (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all it should be noted that Muntuwandi is flat out lying I was not reverted for inserted blogs into article about Poles 80.129.170.243 is the one that introduced the blog into the article about the Poles see for evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poles&diff=303668893&oldid=303510344 I actully deleted that blog from the article about the Poles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poles&diff=303766181&oldid=303510344 and if 80.adds it again I will probably delete it because I entirely disagee with it. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Second of all it was a accident when I readded the blog I was only trying to readd the map. Thats why I did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poles&diff=303766181&oldid=303510344 Third of all I only reinserted the map into the Croatia article because someone deleted it without an explaination The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Although many users have tried to reach a consensus with this user sadly none have been successful. This user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Muntuwandi) has a long history of disruptive editing on many articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=histor y http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)&limit=500&action=history and many other articles he has been accusing of being disruptive before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi He continually removes sourced material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=303132977&oldid=302770031, adds OR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=302853683&oldid=302603277 and does POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history He continually reverts the Edits of users such as The Ogre, Causteau, Small Victory, Dougweller, Jingiby, and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history he has promised to stop http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi But sadly this doesn’t seem to be the case.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Speaking of copyvio see what Muntuwandi did with the haplogroup E map which was deleted twice I know people feel sorry for Muntuwandi because he has such a bad record . He is living proof that people who break the rules can still succeed and cause destruction. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User page content

I encountered a user talk page which has content that is probably inappropriate. I suppose I should discuss it with the user but I feel out of my depth regarding what is reasonable. User:Smileyhill says only that the user is an alternate account, and User talk:Smileyhill shows a collapsed section, but if you view the wikitext you find 702 lines of bash script. The particular script happens to be dubious (it attempts to crack WEP wireless networks), but that doesn't bother me. What if it were just a script to display a calendar (or any other totally benign script that is unrelated to Wikipedia)? Is this something I should handle, or should I mind my own business, or should the issue be raised here? Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems User talk:Smileyhill has been at this for a while - I replied to this ref desk question, warning him of potential repercussions with his neighbours, and his reply was less than reassuring, IMHO. Astronaut (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Account has basically no article-space edits. Regardless of if it's an alternate account, it's not doing anything constructive here. I'd suggest warning the user that Wikipedia isn't a place to develop scripts (just doesn't come up often enough to be mentioned in WP:NOT), and see what happens from there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible highjacked account

(Moved from WP:AN)

See [118].

Adamv88 is a long time and seemingly well-behaved wikipedia account who, having not made an edit in a very long time, even longer since regular activity, has suddenly appeared and started adding hateful religious commentary on the BDSM article and a couple of other places. It doesn't smell like the original owner of the account. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[119] User page before being blanked. Almost certainly not the same person. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Above conclusion may be flawed. See Claude Allen. (Allen was a model citizen, lawyer, then federal appeals court clerk, then a Cabinet Officer in a state government, and presidential aide. Working for the president, he earned $160k/year. Then he shoplifted at Target and had to leave his White House job). The smell test isn't guaranteed. Gasp2009 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, if possible, a checkuser to see if the account is being operate by Adamv88 or someone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per above, I put in a CU "quick request." See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Quick_CheckUser_requests --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Block increase

Hi User:Aitias has increased the block of User:Catterick here for venting a little anger and has also blocked editor from editing their own talk page this is wrong as editors are allowed to vent on their own page. BigDunc 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Before posting here and making false claims, you should familiarise yourself with our policies; blocked user are — of course — not allowed to do so. It is considered inappropriate and my actions are in accordance with the relevant policies: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Talk-page_protection and WP:Block policy. — Aitias // discussion 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a false claim the editor gave a parting shot out of frustration of fuck you. BigDunc 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was, however, a blatantly false claim that they are allowed to do so. — Aitias // discussion 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the policy you link to states or continued uncivil or offensive remarks. I cant see any continued attacks as I said a parting shot. BigDunc 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. 1 day block extension and page protection seem appropriate here. Venting is occasionally permitted (but there is no Right to Vent), more so if it's immediately around the time of the block, less so if it's a day later. R. Baley (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) clarified 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support the block extension and the warning to BigDunc for restoring the personal attack. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor gets a 48 hr block for edit warring and a minute later Aitias increases it to 72 hrs citing block conflict so editor who is blocked gets frustrated and lashes out at no particular editor with a fuck you all statement and the block is increased this is wrong. The editor could have been prevented from editing their talk page without an increase in the block for editing while frustrated. BigDunc 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "fuck you" is pretty tame as far as incivility goes. The extra day seems a little excessive, let's just run him right out the door why don't we? I note there's been some post-block poking going on as well, i.e. restoring the block notice the editor blanked (which editors are allowed to remove per WP:BLANKING) –xeno^talk 13:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that block notices for active blocks could not be removed from the talk page? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the block extension. Incivility is never acceptable, including on one's own talk page and including in response to a block.  Sandstein  13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He was baited and took the bait with editors reverting changes they made to their own page it led to frustration and IMO tame outburst. At most if the attacks and I use that loosely continued per policy the page could have been blocked. BigDunc 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with increasing a block length when the user continues acting inappropriately. If someone is being nasty that is the worst time for their block to end, they clearly still have stuff to work through. None of our volunteers deserve to be called idiots and action should be taken to prevent people from doing so. "Baited" is no excuse for being nasty, and I don't see any baiting here anyways. You don't get a special exemption from our personal attacks policy because it is your talk page or because you are blocked. Chillum 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't that blocked users are allowed to be uncivil on their talk pages, it's that a wise admin will often turn a blind eye to it, to de-escalate a situation, especially given the poking that was going on (including by Aitias) immediately before. No one involved comes out looking terribly mature here. At this point, I think the best bet would be to go back to the original expiration time, and protect the talk page from editing by anyone for the duration of the block (no baiting, no response to baiting). Any unblock request can still be done thru the mailing list. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I object to your claim of me “poking” them and respectfully ask you to retract it. Acting in good faith I have done one revert; “poking” was not intended by any means. — Aitias // discussion 13:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quick with the AGF didn't see you doing it with my post. BigDunc 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@BigDunc: Sorry, could you please clarify your above comment? I am not able to understand what you intend to state... Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, pointing out that users are in fact not allowed to vent abusively on their talk page is not a failure to assume good faith. It is simply a correction. Stating your claim was false does not state that you were lying, you could simply have been misinformed. Chillum 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that when someone acts uncivil around here it is the person they happen to be interacting with at the time that is blamed. If you are "baited" by people editing what you put on Wikipedia, then this place is going to drive you nuts because we edit things around here. This is not baiting and it justifies exactly nothing. Chillum 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(re Aitias) I never pointed at anyone and said they were poking, I just said there was poking going on. I don't fault you for not knowing the WP:BLANKING guideline, it's a little counter-intuitive. –xeno^talk 13:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, xeno, if that wasn't clear: My above comment was not directed to you, but Floquenbeam (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Coffee almost finished, I'll be on the ball soon. –xeno^talk 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since original block 48hrs for edit warring it has now been increased by another 48 hrs by Aitias. BigDunc 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think my viewpoint is similar to Floquenbeam. Certainly Catterick did not behave well. A block extension may have been technicaly allowable. But this is where admins need to show judgement. What was the extension more likely to do. Calm the situation down or stoke the fires? There's times where it's best to let it go.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• (reply to Aitias above, don't want it to get lost in the threads) Whether poking was intended or not, it should have been obvious that it was going to have that effect. If de-escalation was an interest of yours, that was not well done. If de-escalation was not an interest of yours, then it's reasonable for me to criticize such a mindset. Understand that I don't think Catterick was behaving like a grownup here, and BigDunc and several others were behaving sub-optimally for that matter, and I too have reservations how Catterick is going to act when the block expires. But you made it worse, not better, regardless of what your intentions were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at anyone here who thinks it's OK in any way at all to tell other editors "fuck you" on a Wikipedia page. Would we speak that way to our colleagues, bosses, teachers, students, children or parents? No we would not, and if we do, we should not. And we should not accept it here. It may be "tame" but it's still uncivil language and runs entirely contrary to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. It's all the more of a problem when it concerns an editor who is already blocked for unconstructive editing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "ok" for that to be typed, but that's not the question. Is extending the block the best way to deal with it? That's where there's a difference of opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This sillyness has apparently been partly caused by the needless edit warring of Aitias, Snowded and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick who insisted on keeping the block message visible on Catterick's talk page, a move that is known to escalate the situation. Everybody except for Catterick could just have stepped back from his talk page instead. (He couldn't). Ignoring what people do on their talk pages is usually a good idea unless what they do there is truly horrible. Removing block notices is not disruptive, edit warring to keep messages on a talk page after the user in question has read them is. Kusma (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second Kusma's wise statement. Ignoring blocked editors is a good course of action; if you must address the situation, then protect the page to prevent misuse of the block template or blatant PAs; but extending the block was silly. Please feel free to click on the "advice" link in my sig for a more detailed view. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So is anyone going to restore the previous block without this additional 24 hrs. BigDunc 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, venting is, at best, 'overlooked' or 'forgiven'. It should not ever be considered 'permitted' or 'allowed', and anybody saying it is need to be corrected immediately. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying it should be permitted but surely there are levels of civility and fuck you is not at the top of my list. I don't condone the actions of Catterick but I also don't endorse the actions by the blocking admin when all the block did IMO is enflame the situation. BigDunc 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I dislike incivility, and strongly prefer people not resort to using profanity, but in this case, I do disagree with the block extention. Yes, Catterick was wrong to swear, but I think edit-warring to restore his block template was equally as wrong, and comes across to me as kicking a user while they're down and deliberately provoking them: there are better things to do than restore a blocked user's blocked template, and Aitias, as an administrator, should have known better, and making threats to block more users isn't helpful to the situation. Catterick was also talking in his post, rather than just swearing mindlessly (note, I am not justifying any incivility here). Please restore the original block length. Acalamari 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Catterick (who used to be Lord Loxley) should be given a 1-week block. If he can't learn to play with others, that's his fault. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The individual behind these user names is a persistent trouble maker. [120] That was two years ago. They still haven't learned a thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be unrelated to the question at hand. If he/she is a persistent troublemaker, he/she should be banned. It may be that annoying people until they say a bad word is a faster way to get them blocked, but that doesn't make it a good idea to treat people that way. Kusma (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Annoying people until they say a bad word"? I don't think you should be bandying around accusations like that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't (and I really don't know enough about the motivations of people involved to say that this happened here). It just pulls one of my triggers when I see completely unnecessary disputes over talk pages when people don't understand WP:BLANKING. Kusma (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to the character assination that editors are attempting above I have had no dealings with Lord Loxley or Catterick and I am not aware of the history of this editor as in fact it is not important, what I see is an editor who is frustrated makes a remark and has his block increased and their ability to edit their own user page taken away. It wasn't constant abuse, which policy says is the reason for protecting pages and was far from as bad as some editors here are making out. Blocks are not punative so whatever happened 2 years ago has nothing to do with anything is a fudge to deflect from the bad block. BigDunc 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means 'unblock' his Userpage (administrators). If he wants to vent, let'er rip. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again GoodDay you are missing the point and as usual you arrive with your flippant comments that are not helping anything. BigDunc 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as an editor who has been here a while and has been invloved in the DR process most of his time here I will state its never ok to lash out at anyone anywhere on the site. I agree the block was justified. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• • My honest opinion is that the blocking administrator and other users should not have repeatedly reposted block notices deleted by this fellow after he was blocked. Please don't do that. It really accomplishes nothing.
  • That being said, I disagree with statements made above that context is unimportant in deciding whether or not to block. It is absolutely important. Catterick has a block log that includes recent 3RRs -- so I agree with Aitias that a 72 hour block for a third 3RR block in 3 months is apt. There is also recent abuse of sockpuppets (which amounted to petty vandalism). Edit summaries in the past have been terribly incivil (albeit somewhat provoked at times) and one of the 3RR blocks made reference to this also. This is even before reviewing the Lord Loxley account (block log, culminating in an indefinite block). I agree that this fellow has behaved poorly on wiki. The incivility in other settings could have been overlooked, but not in this context. I support the current block and duration -- Samir 06:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• I find it quiet interesting that the admin is not averse to a little incivility themselves with an RfC and also an arb case here yet they a highly upset and offended by a flippent remark by a frustrated editor. As I said I am not aware of Catterick or the allegations brought up here and again they are not relevant so is the original block going to get restored? BigDunc 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to note that your remarks about me are unnecessary and irrelevant at its best. — Aitias // discussion 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior is far from irrelevant on this issue you are continuing the type of behavior that led to both the RfC and Arb case you poked the editor and blocked for incivility a concept you are familiar with and you were quick to throw AGF at another editor when you showed none to my post but were hostile to my good faith question. BigDunc 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and edit warring by User:Drawn Some

User:Drawn Some appears to have entered a rather drawn out case of wikistalking and edit warring with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Most recently, this has developed into an edit war over the article Blackwells Mills Canal House on my watchlist, for which DS has removed any and all mention of the canal's last gatekeeper who resided there, going so far as to claim that efforts to restore some of the deleted content are "vandalizing" the article (see here). While this appears to have started over issues regarding bilateral relations articles, DS appears to have escalated this issue to several different areas, such as nominating an article for deletion (here) and then removing content from the disambiguation page (see here) after the AfD was closed as a keep. Creating a series of AfDs for religious leaders (here, here and here) Nominating a series of redirects for deletion (here, here and here). Nominating categories for deletion, as here. Adding citation and/or notability tags for Scan-based trading, Conboy, Frelinghuysen, Charles Frederick Lindauer, Kershaw, Winblad, Reinhold Schlegelmilch, Project Manhigh, Blanche Stuart Scott, Anthony Joseph Drexel I, Katharine Drexel, James Caleb Jackson, Hutschenreuther, Anthony Walton White, Joseph Cassey Bustill, Maria Louisa Bustill and Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer. The only thing these article, categories, redirects, disambiguation pages, edit warring, etc., have in common is that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edited or created this content at some point in the near or distant past. There appears to be no issue too trivial for Drawn Some to jump in and either edit war or push for deletion. I'm not sure what the issue is behind these actions by User:Drawn Some, but the case for wikistalking and harassment seems rather clear. A block combined with a ban on contact with RAN may help stop the problem. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For additional background, see archived discussions at AN and WQA. — Satori Son 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the first article you mention, the first edit seems more than reasonable: [121]. An article on a building having such a long section on an individual, including a long letter, does seem clearly incorrect. In the edit warring that then went on, both Drawn Some and RAN should have stopped and discussed. RAN said 'Bring it to discussion' in an edit summary but made no attempt to start that discussion himself, whereas Drawn Some was at least slightly better at explaining his reasoning (although the only explanations were in edit summaries). In this particular case I think Drawn Some was correct in his intentions, but should have discussed or got other opinions rather than edit warring. On the wider question of stalking (why do we always have to put 'wiki' before stuff?) the thread at WP:AN noted above seems pretty accurate. The AfD, RfD and tagging that Drawn Some has done all seems in accordance with policy, and has generally been backed up by the community at RfD and AfD.

If I notice an editor has been creating bad redirects, then one of my actions would be to check through their other contributions. This is not stalking. If the actions are correct, then where is the problem?

Looking through RAN's recent edit history, Drawn Some has not edited every page RAN is involved in by a long way, but is taking action where he thinks appropriate. Quantpole (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:STALK defines the practice as "singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." About 80 of Drawn Some's last 100 edits are to articles that RAN has edited. It is a sad excuse that Drawn Some's harassment has left out a few of RAN's recent edits or that some of his concerns may be legitimate. I'm sure that Drawn Some has some excellent excuse for why he is "right" in certain cases to have started edit wars or called adding sourced content to be "vandalism". The problem is the pattern of abusively following another editor with which you have had a conflict and intentionally abusing the Wikipedia process in a clear effort to disrupt the work of another editor. If this is not Wikistalking, it's unclear that there is any situation justifies the claim. If anyone is unsure, have Drawn Some put you through the same pattern of harassment for a week or two and see if it's justified. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know Drawn Some's aims are to annoy RAN? If the actions benefit the encyclopaedia then where is the issue? Quantpole (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When someone focuses their entire efforts on wading through the edits of one editor, we have a problem. Drawn Some's nominations have had a rather poor success rate, and he has tried to impose his views on the same articles after his XfDs have failed, as at Fairmount Cemetery, where this AfD failed without any support for Drawn Some's position, yet was followed by edits where Drawn Some removes content that he insists is "vandalism" (see here). No editor should have to put up with this BS. If Drawn Some were creating or adding content, the encyclopedia might benefit. Harassing another editor is purely disruptive. Have Drawn Some put a few hundred of your edits through the same pattern of abuse and tell us there's no issue. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drawn Some appears to have taken a self-enforced wikibreak as a way to avoid falling into further conflicts with RAN and other users. As long as he is not actively harassing other editors, there is no need for immediate action. Should these attacks recur in the future, a brief block and a content ban on editing articles "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" -- as he has already done in violation of WP:STALK -- would be a necessary and appropriate remedy to address further harassment of this or any other editor. Alansohn (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing

There is an edit war brewing on Terror bombing can an uninvolved editor please protect the page. --PBS (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a Picasso painting at the beginning. This is very artistic but hardly suited for an encyclopedia. It would be more suited for an art essay or a op-ed piece. However, I dare not comment because there is already an edit war per User:PBS and I don't want to fan the flames. On the other hand, page protection could be protecting the wrong version. Knowingly protecting the wrong version is administrative malpractice. Comments on what to do? User F203 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed already by another editor. As a fair use image, it couldn't be used in an article using it as a general illustration rather than actually discussing it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the Image is all very well but that has not stopped an edit war taking place. Would someone please protect the page. Oh and of course "page protection could be protecting the wrong version"! --PBS (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

82.178.0.96

Can someone please check the contribs of the IP 82.178.0.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This account is engaged in edit warring, POV pushing and vandalism on Azerbaijan related articles. Just one example: [122] It seems to be another reincarnation of the banned user AzeriTerroru (talk · contribs), blocked for sockpuppetry, [123] and makes reverts identical to those by Shahin Giray (talk · contribs), a sock of AzeriTerroru. 82.178.1.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person. Urgent admin attention is required. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs by Nishkid64. Grandmaster 12:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:TZX Master - sockpuppetry?

There's a template for sockpuppetry being added and removed to this user's page and I can't work out what's going on. I reverted the removal by the user of the template, now I'm usure as to whether this was sensible. What's the situation? Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "blocked" portion sure did not belong, as they have a clean block log. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i figured this but couldn't tell if it meant an inadvertently badly-composed template or an attempt at mischief. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

update - user is claiming that someone is using their password. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that the password has been compromised on that account, so I have blocked it until this can be resolved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Darwinek (admin edit warring)

Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Following this report at the WP:AN3 board, this is a clear example of edit warring by both sides (history of article), but I note that User:Darwinek, an admin, has blocked his "opponent" in the edit war.

Given that this block is clearly invalid, have unblocked and then reblocked the IP for the equivalent time for the 3RR violation, and have blocked User:Darwinek for 24 hours as well.

Obviously the more pressing issue is the use of admin tools; comments are welcome about the blocking of an opponent in a content dispute. Black Kite 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The first step is that Darwinek should get a block for edit-warring. Although the warnings given by the opposing editor were botched and the opposing editor is pretty clearly in the wrong content-wise, as well as being incorrect in referring to Darwinek's edits as vandalism, an admin needs to know better than to engage in a revert war. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have already done that. Black Kite 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy reading on my part. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Darwinek's administrative privileges had been revoked in April 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. He was resysopped in October 2007 per decision on ArbCom mailing list [124]. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They should be revoked again, permanently; this is blatant abuse of sysop tools. Would that take a whole new RFAR, or a motion or what? And I'll take the opportunity to plug my proposal for a community-driven desysopping process. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Roux - given the history and egregiously abusing admin privileges in a content dispute, they should be immediately desysopped. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for discussion. We all agree and know that you mustn't use your admin tools against someone you are in a content dispute with, don't we? Darwinek has abused them and he has been correctly blocked, good decision Black Kite. A quick look over their contributions does not show the similar amount of behavior in recent times that lead to the 2007 desysop but if you found more, please do tell us about it. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The block was for edit warring, not abuse of admin powers. They are completely separate and should be treated as such. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances, but admins should never use the block or protection buttons in a content dispute. The only exceptions would be clear vandalism (where any reasonable person would agree that's what it was), or an unambiguous BLP violation where there's no one else around to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found a year's block of this dynamic IP for this single edit in a dispute with Darwinek, and a long slow edit war between Darwinek and other editors on this article, during which he blocked one of the IPs but this is going back to 2008 - he doesn't use the block button often. Black Kite 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, a content dispute with User:Adam.J.W.C. about the use of Template:Tourism in June 2008 [125] seems to have led to a 24h block [126] two weeks later. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If Darwinek apologizes and promises to be more careful, I think we should let it be, perhaps with a short block in a block record as a reminder. Sure, admins should not abuse admin tools, but a singular exception in the background of years of good work should not be enough to strip one of their adminship. If you disagree, I'd suggest taking this to ArbCom, but this would really be blowing this out of proportions. PS. Please note that I saying that I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize he already did apologize and promised to be more careful in the future. Tan | 39 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007. Or was that what you meant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary noted the year. To me, this makes no difference - an apology and promise made in an ArbCom case shouldn't have an expiration date. Tan | 39 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So is what you're saying that he apologised, promised not to do it again, and then did it again? Or that because he promised not to do it, he didn't do it. (sorry, I'm being a bit thick. I'm supposed to be in bed - I have the flu)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading the above thread, particularly the opening post, prior to getting involved. It's pretty clear. Tan | 39 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just take some more Anadin and go to bed. It seems the safer bet. I'll leave you guys to it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tanthalas39: It is not completely clear what point you're making, sorry. One interpretation is that Darwinek has apologised (back in 2007) and all is well, and another is that Darwinek has violated his promise not to do it again. Could you clarify please? Often, if someone evinces confusion, it's because they are confused and need help understanding. I've read the entire thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwinek recently blocked someone for edit warring with him (an abuse of admin tools). Piotrus said, "...I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promi[s]es to be more careful in the future." In response, I pointed out to Piotrus where Darwinek had already done exactly this, prior to the most recent breach of policy. I thought (and think) I was being pretty clear, but my point was that he already did promise - and broke that promise. Tan | 39 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nod. (that's what I got when I read it but I can see the other interpretation) I think you and Elen are actually agreeing with each other, but at least one of you doesn't realise it, and I think Elen will once they read that restatement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that a new apology is needed. The 2007 one is not enough, since he made a new mistake. One mistake per two year can be understandable (we are all human, and we err), but he has to acknowledge it. If he doesn't, than he is not fit to be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have looked at some details earlier. He was dealing with a disruptive anon - that's should be taken into consideration. I don't think that there are grounds for desysoping anymore, but I'd still like to see his apology here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the disruptive one, together with your POV pushing friend. 158.143.166.124 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this user should not be a sysop. How about somebody explains the circumstances politely and asks them to resign, to avoid all the unnecessary fuss and drama. If ArbCom is asked to look at this, they almost certainly will remove sysop access. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by here to mention my (very positive) impressions of Darwinek before he gets crucified by the mob. Darwinek is a longstanding sysop here (who has done yeoman's work with images and has generated a fantastic amount of content). My interactions with the fellow have been nothing but positive and he is very reasonable when approached on his talk page imo. I am uncertain of the details here but I would engage Darwinek as to the rationale for his block (as Piotrus suggests above) before making any summary decisions to de-sysop him -- Samir 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I’m asking myself, are you guys real? Can’t you see the forest for the trees? What Darwinek did was in fact very reasonable under the circumstances. The offending IP reverted his edits five times in several hours with numbingly repetitious insults in his edit summaries. The anon did it in total impunity which only a no name dynamic IP number can give. Here are the examples of his language: 17:47, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism), 19:25, 19 July 2009 (rv Polish nationalist POV vandalism), 19:40, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism/POV pushing). And than, as User: U158 his insults continued: (rm nationalist POV and foreign language spam). Administrators are there to help others, so they should also be able to defend themselves against attacks when they are being victimized. The anon should have been blocked after his fourth revert at 19:25, 19 July 2009. And, he was, exactly as expected. There are no other rules to deal with here, and so, please stop creating an impression, that there IS a rule Darwinek might have broken by administering a (midly) punitive action against that IP number (24 hour block, not much). I repeat, he did it not against a user and not for a prolonged period of time, but against a nameless number, which Darwinek blocked temporarily for 3RR at 19:45, 19 July 2009, half an hour after the fourth revert. I strongly oppose the idea of an official apology. Darwinek did nothing wrong. --Poeticbent talk 05:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, calm down, everybody understood your argument.

To the issue: I would like to mention that Darwinek likes to engage people, something that stimulates productive, quality editing, but it is also something that can get you into trouble with people which are disruptive, because it creates the impression that you are involved in a content dispute. Darwinek has committed a key mistake: instead of being formal with disruptive editors, he has engaged them. As a result he applied blocks (correctly!) while he was formally already part of the edit process. Given that the disruption was clearly not Darwinek's in any of the cases, and that he/she is an excellent contributor and uses well the mop, I suggest Darwinek to voluntarily renounce to using block button for 1 month, while retaining all other sysop powers. Do not forget that block button is not the main admin tool, but one of many, and while some primarily use this one, Darwinek clearly does not. Dc76\^talk 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw this on Darwinek's user talk page, since he is blocked and unable to edit this page Livewireo (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC):

Firstly I would like to say that a block for me is fully justified in a response to 3RR. As for my blocking of that IP it was premature and wrong. For that reason I apologize for that. I should've inform other admins of that disruptive editor and seek their opinion on that specific case. I shouldn't have block him as a person involved. On the other hand IP's edits to that certain article were disruptive, as all his behaviour around. It doesn't constitute "I love Cindy"-type vandalism but is a clear case of disruptive editing. As for the fear and fuss about my admin tools and blocking abilities. I am not a kind of "blocking spree" admin, who blocks various IPs every day. I am fighting with classic IP vandalism every day (several recent examples [127], [128], [129]) but I don't use blocking tool very often. The reason is that in my experience vandalizing IP stops vandalizing after being reverted and/or warned. I am "janitorial" type of admin doing mostly silent and dirty work and admin opened to help other editors. Since my ArbCom case I really changed my wiki behaviour and more than two years of serenity and silence can prove that. My behaviour leading to ArbCom ruling was utterly inappropriate, punishment was strict and just. My behaviour since that time improved significantly ... this regrettable isolated incident is an exception. Me and my admin tools don't pose any threat to WP community. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone even look at the edits of the IP? I do not see anything disruptive in this and this initial edit. In fact, in my opinion these improved the article; for example Cieszyn is not identical with Teschen, as Teschen was divided between the Czech republic and Poland after WWII. Same with the category Cieszyn Silesia, which is the wrong category given that parts of the Landkreis Teschen were not in what is today Cieszyn Silesia. But the fact that this edit had its merits and was definitely not vandalism did not stop Darwinek to add this warning to the IP's talk page [130]. And then the editing derailed, with reverts and accussations. Guess this is another example of how IP editors are less editors than those that hide behind an anonymous user name. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My response, moved from my talk page:

User:Darwinek is a disruptive editor, who behaved in a highly disruptive way, repeatedly (by revert-warring and abusive use of rollback tool) reinstating spelling errors in articles (Jerzy Buzek: [131][132], Austria-Hungary cannot be referred to as "the Austria-Hungary" in English, "after the 1939 it was..." does not make sense in English - but maybe in Polish?) and inconsistency, despite being told he was in error. He refuses to discuss his edits (Talk:Jerzy Buzek). Furthermore, he is a Polish nationalist POV pusher. This is a fact, and it does not surprise me that other long-time members of the Polish lobby are rushing to his defense now. It's very unfortunate that a lot of Central European topics at this project are largely controlled by disruptive Polish nationalist POV pushers, just have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, Wikipedia would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland. And I was not being more uncivil to him than he was to me - he accused me of "vandalism" despite the fact that he is the vandal, who was messing up grammar and consistency, revert-warring, refusing to discuss, and pushing POV. But I did not block him, that's the whole difference. I don't trust his "apologies" at all, clearly he's only interested in retaining his admin rights in order to continue to abuse other editors and enforce his Polish POV (and odd grammar), as he's done before, and he's broken all his promises before as well. This time, he needs to be permanently desysopped. This project does not need people like him as administrators. I'm fed up by Eastern European nationalist POV pushers (with a poor command of English), and so are a lot of other non-Eastern European users. 158.143.212.147 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.166.124 (talk)

Excuse me, but is this what you have to say: "Wikipedia would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland" ? Are you at least 1% serious? BTW, I was under the impression that Darwinek is Czech, not Polish. Dc76\^talk 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really fascinated that you've tried to criticise another user's neutrality with such statements ... really fascinated. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to say, that ignoring this ips diatribe here the edits in the article space seemed to be very reasonable and factually accurate. But I guessed that doesnt matter, right? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, it's a content dispute. Instead of bitting at your opponent, you should try to resolve it in a civilized tone. Darwinek was wrong in that by not being formal he has entered the content dispute, therefore even if his block was correct from the point of view of lessening the disruption upon WP, it was not correct because it was issued by Darwinek. I repeat: whatever the impact upon Darwinek, that won't solve the content dispute, so please do be calm, civil, assume good faith (when discussing content, at least), and please work kindly in the talk pages. Dc76\^talk 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor

Let's leave aside the issue of Darwinek. They seem to have taken the points raised here. What shall we do about the apparently disruptive IP editor? Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the edits of the ip in the article space? And did you notice that this ip is now willing to discuss changes on article space and has thus apparently learned his or her lesson? Maybe Wikipedia should just stop allowing ip edits, because apparently they are not very welcome here. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits are welcome from everybody. (In principle, even Bin Laden can edit Geography of Pakistan.) Bad temper is not.

A suggestion: punish the IP for exactly what s/he has done, nor more and no less. If after the punishment the tone and attitude have changed, if there is no more disruption, everybody would be happy. If there is more disruption, you know what to do. Dc76\^talk 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest. Many constructive IP editors feel as though they're treated like shit. Certainly it's acceptable to say stuff to a good faith IP editor that woud get you a warning if you said it to a disruptive logged in editor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already received the same "punishment" as User:Darwinek, which I have stated was fair. I'm the only one who behaved non-disruptive in this dispute, while User:Darwinek refused to discuss his edits, abused his admin tools to enforce his POV, harrassed me and blocked his opponent, I have never blocked anyone in this dispute, and I have discussed all the controversial aspects (without receiving an answer). Still, I'm being harrassed by users like User:Jehochman at this page, clearly in retaliation for the fact that I made a report resulting in Darwinek being blocked for his disruptive edit-warring. If anyone deserves more punishment, it's certainly not me. 158.143.212.153 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

The only user who is behaving disruptive is User:Darwinek, who is systematically refusing to discuss his edits. It is indeed very unfortunate that User:Jehochman now is engaged in personal attacks against me in retaliation for my report of User:Darwinek, even after the case is over. If he continues to be engaged in personal attacks, I will report him as well. The last report I made on an abusive admin resulted in that user being blocked for 24 hours. 158.143.212.153 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you either withdraw this comment or show diffs of where you were attacked by Jehochman. There's nothing in his ANI comments here that qualifies as a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go one step further; this is funny. Jhochman making personal attacks. ok, you do realize he's been on the site since dirt was a new idea, right? We know him and we know how he acts. You don't seem to realize its like telling us the guy who sits next to us at the office is actually an alien.

I'm chuckling at this, will be for a while. Thanks for the laugh... KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedian way longer than Jehochman (longer than you as well). Your comments are just silly, personal attacks are personal attacks whether you first encountered the site in 2005 (quite recently in my opinion) or at some other time. I don't care if you know him, I'm not impressed by the way he behaves. Thanks for the laugh. (and just for the record: It's not Wikipedia policy that you can abuse other editors if you registered in 2005). 158.143.213.58 (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sayng he's been here a while, and I've never seen a personal attack by him. Stillhaven't, as you've ignored the request to post a dif. If you've been there that long, then you know your complaints are simply unsupported allegations without a dif. There is no nonsense about being able to abuse editors; there is simply no evidence of abuse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

IP, the pith is, saying without diffs after having been asked for them that Jehochman is making personal attacks is... a personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This constitutes a personal attack because he labels me a "disruptive IP editor" and asks "what to do" about me, despite the fact that 1) this case was already resolved and both I and Darwinek had been blocked for 24 hours, 2) it was proven that it was not me who behaved disruptive. Merely the fact that my complaint against Darwinek resulted in his abusive block of me being overturned and he himself blocked for 24 hours proves this. It was also already proven in the discussion that I had in fact discussed my edits (contrary to my opponent) and that this was a content dispute. Under the circumstances, it is very clear to me that the above comment by User:Jecochman, after the case was resolved, was made in retaliation for my report against Darwinek, which makes it a personal attack. (btw, I've been here since before the "diff hysteria" and seen the Wikipedia culture evolve, which is the reason I place more emphasis on common sense than technicalities, of course more recent editors believe things have always been the way they are now) 158.143.166.124 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This goes nowhere. We should move on. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15

09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The archaic and offensive use of the term 'blacks' over the preferred term 'black people'

 No admin action needed.

I've been trying to tidy up Black people, having noticed that it (and other articles) refer repeatedly to 'blacks' instead of the preferred 'black people'. 'Blacks' is an offensive term to many people, which is probably why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=17072530#Identity states that 'black people' should be used instead of 'blacks'. Unfortunately, more than one editor has felt the need to revert the article back to the offensive version. Little grape (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to discuss it on the article talk page? Good first step. Tan | 39 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness is an ever-evolving process, and sometimes it's hard to keep up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. if it gets to level of constistent abuse of process, then it should go here but you should start on th e talk page and move on from theire. dont assume that anyone is racist until you have tried to talk to them and explain you're oan position User:Smith Jones

Good point. Smith Jones, don't ever go into copy editing. And, learn to correctly sign your posts. Tan | 39 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

His typing is actually much better than it used to be. :) I think this is the first I've heard that "blacks" is considered offensive. However, it's not a term you hear that much anyway, nor is "black people". In the USA, anyway, "African-American" is the preferred term. Some would consider "black people" to be offensive. PC never ends. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why ever would you assume that I think anyone's being intentionally racist?! I think it's a matter of not knowing or understanding the issue, rather than editors having racist views. Although of course that doesn't make the article any less offensive. Fair point re. talk page, have discussed on editors' talk pages, and in edit summaries, but of course the article's talk page should have been the start point. Mea culpa, thank you. Little grape (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to look at a recent similar discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 64#"African American" → "black"?. –xeno^talk 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that was indeed an interesting debate, that appeared to conclude (rightly in my view) that 'African-American' was a) not interchangable with 'Black' and b) couldn't be applied outside the USA to black people. Thus the correct term, if one takes a global rather than a US-centric view, is 'black people'.

However, this issue is between the terms 'blacks' and 'black people'. Perhaps I can illustrate the issue by example - let's say you as a white man were addressing a wholly black congregation as a guest pulpit speaker. You might start by marking the novelty of your presence by stating "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of blacks". Alternatively, you could say "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of black people". Can you feel the chilly difference?! Little grape (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I think either statement would be considered patronizing and offensive. I recall the stir that was created when Ross Perot addressed a black organization and merely referred to them as "your people" or some such. Even that presumably innocent comment was taken as being patronizing, and he was criticized for it. It's best not to even bring it up when talking directly to someone. You can say it indirectly, as in, "I want to thank you for this unique opportunity." That's a positive comment. You don't need to remind the audience that they're dark-skinned. They probably already know it. In fact, it's likely they get reminded of it every day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are any hard and fast rules here, it's all about context. In certain contexts it is offensive to say blacks, in others it isn't. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the next step is - discussion on the black people talk page seems limited to variations of "yes, I know MoS says we shouldn't use it, but we're going to keep reverting any edits that attempt to bring the article inline with policy and consistency". I cannot understand why we can't simply use the preferred term 'black people' when the MoS recommends this and we're aware that it doesn't cause offence. Conversely, we *know* 'blacks' sometimes causes offence thus there should be a *very* good reason for using it. Little grape (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The arguments at the talk page aren't at all as poor as you make them out to be. What's the point of discussing this in 2 different venues? It doesn't belong here at all.--Atlan (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, take it from me, "blacks" is not usually an offensive term. "Blackie" or "spook", yes they are archaically offensive. Heck, "African-American" is often offensive to many. Indeed, many black people in North America are from the Caribbean - although their ancestry may be African from waaaay back, they don't call themselves that. At the same time, many North American blacks are 3rd/4th generation or more removed from Africa. Let's put the discussion back where it is on the associated talkpage, and close this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pzrmd

Despite past warnings and blocks about uncivil behavior (most recently this) and other concerns, Pzrmd continues acting in an inappropriate manner towards fellow editors. [133] At some point, it's just too far. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This was a little over-the-top. There are *many* users here way more uncivil than I am. Pzrmd (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd exhibits a range of odd behaviours. Creating multiple accounts and having his current page redirect to those. Odd references to his original account Then moving them back again. The snippy, pointy comments he makes in various discussion (as linked to by Vicenarian.) Every edit marked as minor. It goes on. WP:AGF aside, it's hard to see what constructive purpose he has here. Crafty (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Vicenarian, for attracting every enemy I have to gang up on me. I don't even know Craftyminion who suddenly pops up and attacks me so vigorously. Pzrmd (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd, the fact that other users on here may or may not be less civil than yourself does not excuse your bad behaviour. Javert ^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I called someone a pipsqueak and another a drone. So what? Pzrmd (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Two points Pzrmd. One, having editors who's civility is worse than yours doesn't give you a free pass on civility yourself - that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and doesn't hold any weight. Two if you're if you're finding lots of "enemies" on wikipedia something is wrong - this is supposed to be a collaborative and collegial project where even editors with serious disagreements should not become "enemies" - if you're finding you are generating lots of "enemies" suggest you look at your editing and behaviour. Exxolon (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin, then you can say "F.U." to another editor, and that's OK, as long as you use a proper signature. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks BB, =) Pzrmd (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs - the issue of hypocrisy/double standards for admins & editors is something I'm actually concerned about myself, but it's not relevant to this thread - please stay on topic. Exxolon (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI threads are not usually started over such minor incivility. Pzrmd (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the OP appears to be suggesting a pattern of behaviour over time. BTW - if you can't see a problem with calling editors "pipsqueak" and "drone" then you seriously need to (re)read our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Exxolon (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I hate ani and am not going to participate in this anymore. Pzrmd (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like an edit or an action that someone takes, that's fine, it happens all the time. However, I believe that I read somewhere that we should comment on the "content, not the contributor". Best, Javert ^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, many of them do get started over incivility. MuZemike 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Pzrmd before too. He needs to start behaving like a reasonable adult, or be shown the door. He was just blocked a few days ago.. if he doesn't shape up, I'd recommend a series of blocks of escalating length, until he either gets a clue, or gets bored and goes away. Friday (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll make a last comment. Friday, you have done a lot of horrible things on Wikipedia to different users, and have said very offensive things, particularly about Docu, and still manage to follow wp:civ. Jeffrey O. Gustafson could be extremely rude and difficult and annoying and obnoxious, but what you said about him was deplorable. I don't want any interaction with you whatsoever in my WikiLife. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Pzrmd (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While he seems to have made some useful edits, Pzrmd seems to have difficulty interacting with other users. So far he's got 3 blocks for disruptive behaviour, a propensity for point-iness, and a habit of incivility and (it appears) trying to bait other users, in addition to some peculiar habits (as noted above). I don't think there's anything actionable here, so this section should probably be closed now, however I hope Pzrmd takes notice that his behaviour is attracting negative attention, and with three blocks already, admins should be far less willing to unblock him early the next time. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It shows either an unwillingness or an inability to edit collaboratively with others, a tendency that was most evident in the Docu RfC. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut & Paste used to move a page

Could someone take a look at the activities of 67.225.38.162 (talk · contribs), who appears to have used cut & paste to move Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate to Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate (plus the talk page), making a right old mess of the page history in the process. Perhaps it needs a history merge, perhaps it needs to be reverted as vandaliasm against consensus (is "Kyiv" really preferred over "Kiev" on the English Wikipedia, I just know I would never think of spelling it "Kyiv" when searching for the capital of Ukraine). Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Prodego just fixinated it. Kiev is the common US english spelling (and in the United Kingdom as far as I can tell), and as such is the correct article title for en.wikipedia. Alternate transliterations or local spellings are perfectly valid as article redirects and as names listed in the introduction to an article, but the article name should be standard most common english name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And I just fixinated it again after the IP, again, copied and pasted content from one into the other. I've left a note on the IP talk page about the problem and directed them here to explain their side. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bandurist has just moved it again[134], and altered every spelling of Kiev to Kyiv.[135]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two spellings in common use in English for the Ukrainian Capital. There are also a number of Orthodox Churches in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate is registered using the Kyiv spelling, (the preferred spelling suggested for use in English by the Ukrainian government) and uses it in all its correspondence and on its web sites. It is a national church and represents the specific interests of ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine and outside having services in the Ukrainian language. Its leadership and administration is in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. All the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches which are and affiliated with this particular Orthodox church in the West, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain use the Kyiv spelling exclusively in the official registration of their name in these Anglophone countries.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) does not have any Ukrainian ethnic affiliations outside of Ukraine. It is not a national (ethnically-based) church but a regional juristiction of the Russian Orthodox Church with its patriarchate in Moscow. It is in "communion" with Moscow. Services are in Church Slavonic or Russian with sermons in some churches in Ukrainian. It uses the spelling Kiev in all its correspondence. Bandurist (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment/Long-term Vandal

An IP editor has run into several frustrating situations trying to report a long-term vandal/sockmaster. I don't know enough about the vandal (User:Mynameisstanley) to help, but would any other admins care to lend this anonymous contributor a hand? The details are in the link provided in the section title. TNXMan 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator

ArnoldZippo (talk · contribs), after repeatedly being warned for copyright violations, was blocked for this in April. Earlier today he created Starburst Ovation, which was speedied as a copyvio, and then ArnoldZippo removed the speedy nom. The article has been edited in the meantime but it is still a blatant copyvio of this web page. It is difficult to assume good faith given these facts. I will notify ArnoldZippo. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this isn't the first incident with this user I've blocked indef. The article (which was still a blatant copyvio even with the changes) has also been deleted. If they get an unblock request up, I'd suggest they need to show they clearly understand what's wrong with copy/pasting material from other websites and perhaps agree to look for adoption to stand any chance of being unblocked. EyeSerene^talk 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stephen Bain

First, the simple version

In the 2008 Homeopathy case:

Me: accidentally links to a non-identifying former user name, not realising that it was any sort of secret, since the rename happened very publicly.

Two other parties, not identified to protect their privacy: Edit-war to keep up a harassment campaign involving outing me to my real name. This was oversighted, though, keeping it from being easily seen. [136]

And now, in the present

Stephen Bain: Repeatedly insists on impling that I am mostly, or, at best, equally at fault in his posts, and that my action was done intentionally. [137][138] Refuses to withdraw accusation despite repeated requests.

This strongly risks damaging my reputation, and is unbecoming to an arbitrator.

Details

Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite repeated requests to withdraw the accusation, continues to insist that I was formerly involved in an outing war because, on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence, I inadvertently linked to what I think was a RfC or suspected sock puppet case regarding a user who had very publicly switched names a couple months before, and whose talk page archives to this day contain the old user name. The other user repeatedly attempted to out me to my real name, without relevance to the case, and was blocked over it, I made a single link, as and apologised when it came out that the user did not want his previous nick known.

I have asked Mr. Bain repeatedly to stop making accusations that the link was retaliatory, he refuses to doso, and indeed, is spreading the accusations further.

This accusation is particularly harmful, because, thanks to oversighting of the very vicious attempts by the user in question to out me, only oversighters are capable of seeing the truth of the matter.

Putting it shortly, for those of you without the oversighter bit - I took a big risk and exposed myself to the full fury of quite a number of edtitors acting in concert to cause trouble on Homeopathy and related pages by opening an Arbcom case.

The Arbcom then... ignored the case for about three months, letting the evidence page turn into a maelstrom of attacks on me. I had to defend myself from every accusation, because, let it not be forgotten that this was post Matthew Hoffman, which the arbcom recently made a statement about:

“ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=297061430#Statement_regarding_the_Matthew_Hoffman_case The Committee has concluded that a series of significant irregularities occurred which, in combination, were prejudicial to Shoemaker's Holiday. These irregularities were that:

• The request for arbitration bypassed preliminary steps in the dispute resolution process, and should not have been accepted as framed;
• A decision in the case was presented for voting prematurely, limiting the ability of the parties to respond;
• Order was not adequately kept on the case pages, allowing them to be used as a platform for attacks;
• The schedule of the proceedings was not clearly communicated to the parties; and
• Correspondence about the case on arbcom-l was handled incorrectly.

This unique confluence of irregularities resulted in a fundamentally flawed process and the present Committee takes this opportunity to apologize to Shoemaker's Holiday and to the community.

”

Note that that statement outs me, but never mind. I had just been exposed to that major fuckup on the Arbcom's part, which even they admit was a gross miscarriage of justice. So, Homeopathy case comes up, I'm terrified - all these accusations being slung at me, the arbcom have not, at that time, even apologised for their behaviour, or admitted any wrongdoing.

I spent about 100 or 200 hours responding to everything. Meticulously documenting every single accusation against me, and showing the truth, in a panic that the Arrbcom were about to fuck me over again. One link accidentally went to an unreformated RfC or SSP page or whatever it is, that contained his old, apparently non-identifying nickname.

Meanwhile, the user in question is edit warring with an oversighter to reveal my real identity to people actively hounding and attacking me.

Mr. Bain thinks that this is irrelevant - that one accidental link to an apparently non-identifying name which the user still has in his talk page archives should be considered equivalent to edit warring with oversighters to get my real name outed on a page full of people actively attacking me in bulk. Mr. Bain is throwing all the blame on me.

Two of the worst people in that case are now back. People deserve access to the evidence I spent about 100 hours assembling. But Mr. Bain would rather attack me, and make it out to be all my fault, rather than do what the arbcom have repeatedly promised to do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps a bit more on-topic, Mr. Bain, despite being told that many of the attempted outings of me were oversighted, evidently did not bother to check before perpetuating his accusation, claiming that only deletion had ever occured on the page.

This is, at the very best, sloppy. I had repeatedly mentioned the posts being oversighted when asking him to withdraw his accusation. He evidently didn't bother even to check whether I was correct, but just said I was wrong.

I linked toWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive406#User_blocked_for_attempted_outing above, and won't quote it again here, but it must be admitted that those who can see the oversighted diffs can see a concerted campaign of harassment by outing, edit-warring to keep the information on the page. He says as much here:

“ :::Three edits were oversighted, two made by Arion 3x3 and one by another uninvolved user whose edit contained the same contents as those two. Your edits, the ones we are talking about, were not oversighted but deleted, and can be viewed by any administrator. --bainer (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) ”

With the harassment campaign completely oversighted, he's risking major damage to my reputation with no regards to the facts. I linked to relevant information under a user's apparently non-identifying account. Others edit-warred as part of a harassment campaign with outing as its goal. His statements cast me as either equally, or even mostly the one at fault, and without being able to see the oversighted diffs, this may appear to be true, when being able to see the oversighted parts will show it to be patently false.

I give the Arbcom permission to quote the oversighted diffs if my real name is deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what exactly you're expecting this noticeboard to do? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm especially confused about that since you've already filed both a case request and a request for clarification (or as you originally had it, a "Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year") on this same matter. This seems very much like trawling for attention to me. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If Mr. Bain is willing to withdraw his accusation, I'm happy, but if not, I'd ask that he be warned or blocked over it. Just because Mr. Bain is arbitrator should not recuse him from the No Personal Attacks and Harassment policies, particularly when his arbcom position gives false claims a patina of respectability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't undertstand why this is posted here and at WP:RFAR. Are you asking administrators for their opinion or for some action? Hersfold already asked you above but you seemed to answer an slightly different question. Nobody is going to block or warn Bain (even were it appropriate) on an issue that you are simultaneously asked to be arbitrated. CIreland (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much - I have a frend trying to advocate for me to get this sorted with rather less drama. I'll explain things further tomorrow or so, if that doesn't work out. Suffice it to say that I have a well-known bad experience with Arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you requesting a community sanction of Stephen Bain? It seems like WP:RFC should be done first. This thread appears to be idle. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Ninthwhen

I just blocked Ninthwhen (talk · contribs) indefinitely and would appreciate another set of eyes to review this. The user has for several months been removing cleanup tags with no explanation; he never leaves edit summaries, and never responds to messages or attempts for discussion (in fact, he has never edited a page outside of mainspace). I gave him two shorter blocks before this (log), and many warnings, so when I saw him continuing to remove {{fact}} tags today I made the next block indefinite because I don't know what length would be appropriate (the last was a month...although given his lack of complaint, I wouldn't be surprised if he just edited from IPs during that time). Personally I think he should remain blocked, but I figured I could at least make it indefinite and then seek input here and it could be adjusted if need be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A complete and utter failure to communicate back, or to even understand the importance of said communication. Although they were given a nice Welcome, a couple of gentle blocks, I unfortunately have to agree with the block until they actually start to communicate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Bwilkins. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

82.41.207.84

Can someone place a block on 82.41.207.84 . They have been vandalising numerous pages on the this site , and no-one seems to take initative to make the vandals stop. Rio de oro (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. However, please note that edits like this are not useful to resolving the situation. If you run across future vandals, please report them to AIV. TNXMan 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It was already been reported at AIV and turned down do to no activity after the "only warning" was issued. --Farix (Talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this edit be removed? It seems uncivil. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just issued him/her an only warning just moments ago because the editor has been blocked 5 times for repeatedly vandalizing the Bayblade article. Give it time and see if the IP returns to vandalizing. --Farix (Talk) 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

History restoration requested for Manarom Hospital.

Resolved

 – ~ mazca ^talk 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Manarom Hospital was first created by User:Siwimol at 10:35, 10 June 2009 (according to AlexNewArtBot). The page was speedily deleted at 00:07, 4 July 2009 by User:Orangemike due to CSD G11 concerns. However, the article was re-created by Siwimol at 05:00, 9 July 2009. I asked Orangemike to restore the prior version of the article, in order to preserve the edit history, which he kindly did so at 16:47, 10 July 2009, however with the unexpected results of the restored history being truncated and showing me as the first contributor, which I was not. Further requests to Orangemike have not as yet been responded to, so I would like to request assistance in correcting the article history. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Couldn't see anything particularly dodgy in the history, so I've restored the lot. Happy editing. ~ mazca ^talk 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears Tower

Resolved

 – status quo restored to facilitate WP:RM discussion. Shereth 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a bit of a controversy regarding the naming of the Sears Tower/Willis Tower. The tower was officially renamed a few days ago, and the page moved to Willis Tower in accordance with that event. The move was made without a discussion or a consensus to do; however, the move has now attracted significant controversy on the talk page. Because the redirect Sears Tower had more than one line in the history, it was not possible for a user without administrator tools to move the page back; however, I am strongly of the opinion that it should not have been moved without discussion in the first place, thus I have moved the page to Sears Tower for now until some sort of consensus on the naming issue can develop. In doing so, I seem to have created a small host of problems related to the move request and such like, and I would very much appreciate it if another administrator could neutrally assess the situation and determine what should be done. It's clear enough that once a consensus is established for one name or the other, the page should be there. The question is merely where it should stay in the meantime for the next few days (which in some sense is really more or less irrelevant). Anyway, I will be going out later this evening, so I figured I would raise this here in case further controversy develops. Cool3 (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to understand why this is controversial. We have about sixty reliable sources that say it was renamed to Willis Tower. Move the page, create a redirect, wipe hands on pants. Tan | 39 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should have been left alone for the duration of the discussion; moving it from Willis Tower -> Sears Tower while there was an outstanding request to do that very thing is at best confusing. At worst, it could be seen as an attempt to preempt the outcome of the discussion. I am positive that was not the intent, but unless the outcome of the discussion was evident (ie. WP:SNOW type closure) it is the sort of thing that just shouldn't happen. I am going to revert the move, where it should stay until the termination of the discussion. I sympathize with your point (the original move probably shouldn't have happened) but adding another move that shouldn't have happeend mid-process only serves to further confuse the situation. Shereth 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What possible justification can there be for failing to keep the article at the official name, and leaving the former and better known name as a redirect? I'm mystified here--reversion is a disruptive action that serves no encyclopedic purpose, and there's simply nothing to be discussed, unless someone is asserting that multiple RSes are wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia naming conventions in the WP:MOS determine what name we should use. It is not the official name, but the one most commonly used. The official name may become the most common one in the future, but is unlikely to be well enough known at first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please submit all further discussion regarding the name of the article to the discussion taking place on Talk:Willis Tower, where it can be taken under consideration by the administrator who closes that discussion. We will not be deciding the fate of the article's name here at ANI. Shereth 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you've got here is certain users abusing the "common names" guideline as a way of having that wikipedia article serve as a "protest" against the name change. This is a blatant form of POV-pushing. It looks like consensus will keep it at its official name, but this shouldn't even be under discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with BB here. Did ANYONE read WP:BURO. We don't force process for process sake. This discussion is a WP:ZOMBIE move and it seems patently obvious that the official name of the building is the one we use here. The desire to force a consensus discussion on a matter such as this is silly. Consensus is fine for deciding policy or for carrying on deletion discussions, but consensus will NOT change the name of the building. It's the Willis Tower as of about 3 days ago. To force a discussion which will simply WP:SNOW-ball into the obvious end result seems beyond silly. --Jayron32 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On WGN-TV news tonight, they called it "Willis Tower" and "Big Willie". No "Sears Tower" in sight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What choo talkin' bout Willis?! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat from User:Scottfoster005

Resolved

Earlier today, I reverted a clear copyright violation on the article Ann Kobayashi [139]. The copy-vio material was placed in the article by a user named User:Scottfoster005. Not long after reverting the copy-vio, the same user readded the same copyrighted material to the page [140], which was immediately reverted by User:C.Fred [141]. The user then replaced the entire article with an angry message that accused me of working for one of Kobayashi's opponents (Kobayashi and others are currently vying for a seat on the Honolulu City Council). I reverted this message back with the following edit summary: "restoring original page. you're free to improve the article; however, wikipedia policies prohibit the use of copyrighted material". I then left a mesage on the user's page, explaining why I made the reversion.

Immediately after that, I received an angry message on my talk page demanding that I call his office immediately, threatening legal action if I didn't.

I'm very flustered by this and I'm not sure what to do. Can someone help me? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, I'm going to recuse myself from editing the article Ann Kobayashi regarding this issue beginning immediately, as I do not want to face any legal actions from the user noted above. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. The article in no way "infringes on [Kobayashi's] First Amendment rights". Where he's drawing that the page was written by a political opponent of Kobayashi is beyond me because with so little content, the article is entirely neutral. If Mr Foster is "far too busy running an election" to read our guidelines, then I suggest he focus on his day job and be banned from the site. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats is quite clear on this point. Scottfoster005 (talk · contribs) an admin should block him until his withdraws his threat. --Triwbe (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, and that's about as much help as admins can provide. I recommend educating him about our copyright policies and that we, as a private website, can't infringe on anyone's right to free speech.  Sandstein  07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please could someone 'adopt' the reporting editor, and give them re-assurance that they are welcome to edit? they appear to have retired. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Aoi acted very well and linked Foster to our policies; Foster declined to read them. It's clear that he doesn't intend to actually edit Wikipedia save for "protecting" his client(s) and will not cooperate with our rules. The block should stay permanently. I rather imagine seeing some site linking to this discussion when Foster attempts to sue us. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the user thought whomever he represents owns the article. MuZemike 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And I see no point even attempting to correct his think-headedness. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they were referring to the editor who received the legal threats User:Aoi and has since retired due to the stress. Don't anybody say a legal threat doesn't have an impact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted a short note hoping to bring Aoi back to Wiki. Sad we lose a user to a empty legal threat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking by a dynamic IP address

I request immediate help with this. An anonymous user with a dynamic IP address (starts with 217.112.178. and 217.112.186.) and is stalking my contributions list and undoing all of my edits. This user didn't get his way on an article, which was semi-protected, thereby preventing him from inserting his unsourced claims into. He has now turned his wrath on me, and as we speak, is destroying large portions of work I have done. Please help me if you can, the user's IP shifts each time he posts. Here are examples: [142][143][144][145] Legitimus (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur he did this on your last report.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the range of IPs be blocked or something? Disagreement with me or not, this is an obvious attempt at harassment.Legitimus (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post the exact same thread on both AN and ANI. Tan | 39 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I realized my mistake and was trying to move it, but he got there first.Legitimus (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge From AN thread:

Even here. Can someone figure out the right range to get? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 217.112.176.0/20. However, there are plenty of contribs to choose from, so it's kind of risky to block it long term. Maybe like a 1 week block? (X! · talk)  · @970  ·  22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the right range, but way too long. I was thinking 1 day, myself. Tan | 39 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was saying 1 week at an absolute max. Forgot to write that. :) (X! · talk)  · @979  ·  22:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's best to start short. This may very easily be a short-term attack by a bored person rather than anything more sinister. ~ mazca ^talk 22:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 12 hoursHell In A Bucket (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Unfortunately, the bastard is still trying to pull stuff. He just created an account User:Treuity and is continuing his rampage: [146]

No doubt the same user, only warning given as matter of procedure. Will actively monitor. Tan | 39 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, George indef blocked. Tan | 39 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Harrassing people like this, with a clear SPA for the purpose after a rangeblock, is not ok. As Bishzilla would put it, STOMP RAWR <flame> Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you made the correct call. Overconservativeness on my part. As I stated below, the entire 217.112.XXX.XXX range has been blocked. Tan | 39 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To shut off the problem, I changed the rangeblock to 217.112.0.0/16 for twelve hours. Tan | 39 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Liberal00Q1

Resolved

• Liberal00Q1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is repeatedly inserting obvious POV statements into many articles after repeated warnings. Examples:

• Communist
• Blanking
• Diatribe
• Marriage POV
• Matt Lauer infobox
• Deleting factual information

A quick browse of his contribution history shows plenty more... Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

user ShondaLear

I'm at a loss of what to do on the Grand_Slam_(tennis) page. I have tried talking to User Talk:ShondaLear and I'm even more confused. There is a common term in Tennis, the 4 Majors, which he keeps deleting. First for no reason, then he asked for a source. The term is common usage, far longer than the term slam. This article has very few sources so I added what he asked and put on terms I wanted sourced from him. He reverted them again. It looked like he said I proved my point. I removed the and he reverted the article again. I also removed a ref that didn't do what the article said it did. he reverted that too. My last revert I said he does not Own this article and that I would bring it to administration attention. And here it is. Could someone tell him to leave this line in? I mean really... if Tennis Major needs sourcing than Tennis slam needs sourcing. Maybe he's not up on tennis terms and I didn't want this to go off the deep end. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated creation of approximately 3,000 unreferenced sub-stub BLPs

Resolved

 – Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, thanks Lara.  Sandstein  07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AlbertHerring (talk · contribs) has created approximately three thousand unreferenced sub-stub biographies of living people in the past few days, many of which are not categorized as such, using AWB. I'm sort of blown away. Considering we are not able to maintain what we have now, and those of us working with BLPs are already breaking under the load, I don't even know what to do with this. Mass semi-automated creation of unreferenced BLPs is utterly inappropriate. I need some help here. Lara 20:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They were referenced to de.wiki with {{iw-ref}}. –xeno^talk 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that count? Even AlbertHerring apparently doesn't think so considering he created the articles with the BLPunreferenced template. Lara 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert used the BLP tag Lara not because he thought the reference was not good enough, somebody complained to him. All people do is complain! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better than nothing I guess... It was likely done in the hopes some Deutsche speakers will import the information from de.wiki. I don't think the re-vamp templates should be on there though, there's no guarantee a major revamping will be forthcoming. –xeno^talk 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually added the BLP template per request from User:Who then was a gentleman? - if you'd prefer it to be left off, I can do that as well. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They ARE ALL referenced to German wikipedia and is utterly appropriate given that these articles are to be transwikied and differ in respect to other articles because the content is intended to be transferred directly. German wikipedia has the relative external links. If you think Lara that they are utterly inappropriate you seriously need to consider what our goals are on here. You cannot ignore 99% of the notable politicians in German history to achieve the "sum of all knowledge" whether you feel stressed out with the number of article we have already or not. Sure they are very stubby but we SERIOUSLY need to do something about the transwiki article system on here as few people seme to giv e adamn that we could be massively better off with content from other wikipedias in english. I would ask you to kindly explore the articles on German wikipedia and to reconsider your thoughts that wikipedia wouldn't benefit from these articles. Also note that the BLP tag is redundant for half of them as the politicians are deceased. It is a mixed bag. Note also I am considering a new wikiproject dedicated to the generation of missing content from other wikipedias but hopefully in a more coordinated fahsion that won't raise any concerns in regards to referencing and content. We could benefit massively with articles translated from other wikis. I have asked for a bot but got no reply!!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While some people think it's appropriate or even beneficial to boost edit counts by created thousands of sub-stubs, others disagree. Especially when they are BLPs. As far as adding the BLP template, it's been put on the BDPs, too. So, explain to me Blofeld, how it's A GOOD THING that we now have at least, I estimate, 2500 more BLPs to improve and maintain? Lara 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well why did you think wikipedia would be better off with a new front page? Because you believed it was the right thing to do towards the progression of wikipedia. I aslo believe that blue linking clearly notablke articles from other wikipedias allows other editors to develop them. Sure to expand them all may take some time but several have bene translated by visitors already. You;d be amazed how many articles we've created have bene expanded and have developed properly. You should be grateful at least that editors like us care about missing notable content that can be transferred by anybody, We merely build the bridges across to build content upon. Sure I'd love every new stub to be wonderfully developed and referenced but we have a lot to do and these articles should be english whether it seems stressful or not. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some assistance from someone who can focus on the topic at hand? Lara 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) Dr. Blofeld, with all due respect, I'm not sure you're truly objective here. Creating content-less (which is essentially what these are) generic stubs is one thing; mass-creating content-less biographies of living people is an entirely different matter. This needs to be appropriately addressed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be that most (or all) of these sub-stubs become full-fledged articles someday; on the other hand, it may be that very few of them do. Therein lies the problem. Human-created articles come along at a manageable pace and allow other parties to read, review, comment and ultimately help guide the editorial process along for each individual article. The mass creation of over 3000 at one time is an enormous strain on that system, as it will take a long time for people to actually review these articles, improve when possible and take other actions where appropriate. Any kind of mass-editing on this kind of scale really, really needs to have had discussion on how to handle it happen before the fact and not after. Shereth 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This task differs from independent article creations in that the content is there is already there in a different language to put in our pages. What you arne't seeing is that the content is really there so be added, they will all become full articles someday. It is time the different language wikipedia became more interconnected and coordinates and work together at translating each others articles in a much more efficient way. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest challenges for people working on BLP is dealing with articles that have no or few English language sources available. I raised this as an issue several days ago to put to the Foundation because I saw that a large back log was developing. This will make it much worse. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's a more efficient way than creating thousands of one-sentence articles in a matter of a couple days. Lara 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree that we should have articles on notable German politicians in english wikipedia? I think you would probably like to see the content transferred but would like to see every article perfectly done first. Given that I don't speak German myself and nobody else is bothering other than us to at least start them somebody has to take the iniative. As the saying goes If you build it they will come.

Trust me I have made a big effort to get people like Jimbo Wales and the bureacrats to transferring information between wikis more efficicent. Each wikipedia could beneift MASSIVELY by transalting referenced information betwene wikipedians but I see no coordinated approach to link wikipedias together with an effective translation scheme, It is incredibly disappointing that in a project of this scale the masses of good articles on other wikis are largely ignored by the community and the moment somebody like Albert or me makes an attempt to do something muc much less efficiently by hands, slogging our guts out in the process me get conflicting tell tales reports about us. I'd love more than anything to have a more coordinated efficient process in which content is transferred upon creation and these problems are tackled but I really wish more people would support what we are trying to achieve in the long run. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if some more information was automatically translated or transferred such as birth and death dates, and the references! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you, Blofeld, and Albert plan to watch and maintain these articles? If not, then I stand firm in my opinion that it's utterly inappropriate. While you think there is value in one-sentence sub-stubs, others think they are completely pointless; serving only to open living people up to potential libel. Lara 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I did start creating them that way but I found I really didn't have the patience to get through what needed to be started by ensuring every article was full each time. To share the workload would have been nice but few editors seem to work together on here and support each other. I had a wikipedia tell me they ar eleaving wiki early precisely because of this lack of support between editors. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My concerns were with the fact that they were unsourced, I certainly don't disagree with their creation. The English Wikipedia needs to expand its horizons above English-language subjects and I thought the creation of German politician stubs was quite appropriate. BLP or not. I was very happy to see Albert add the BLPsources tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, staring articles about living people that do not have references is not alright no matter how short of long the articles is. We need for all of our content about living people to be sourced!! I want to expand our content, but only if it is well sourced. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that your lack of patience is by no means a valid excuse for creating articles - BLP articles, no less - that lack reliable sourcing. It is not sensible for you to expect other editors to pick up the slack created by your lack of patience. Shereth 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They do have references!! Over half the articles are not living people! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely not the way to go about creating BLP articles. This only adds to the massive backlog that there is and creates a headache for cleanup-minded editors. If AlbertHerring wants to create these articles he should adequately cite them in accordance with our BLP and verifiability policies. ThemFromSpace 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Creating thousands of poorly referenced stubs because "I found I really didn't have the patience to get through what needed to be started by ensuring every article was full each time" seems a poor way to build an encyclopedia. Please take the time to correctly write them one at a time. — Satori Son 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Living people is a good place for people who support the mass-creation of BLPs to help out. In about four hours, a list of around 2,000 BLPs is going to be generated for us to clear. That's in addition to the ~3,000 we now have to go through and verify the absence of a death date because Blofeld didn't have the patience to create an informative article, and it was at some point decided that slapping a BLP template on BDPs was a good idea, and categorize any living subjects not in the living people category. Any estimate on how much time this will take? You want teamwork, Blofeld? How about organizing a group beforehand, instead of dumping hundreds of hours of work on unsuspecting volunteers, especially when it's work that you yourself don't have the patience for? Lara 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you completely ignorant of the amount of traffic wikipedia gets? Why shouldn't I share the workload with other editors? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain to us how dumping an unsourced sub-stub on people, expecting them to log the hours of work researching and sourcing the information (if possible) that you "don't have the patience for" is sharing? Shereth 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer is obvious. It is the first step to make towards the spreading of knowledge which I, maybe not you are here for. The articles are started. Somebody visits it, adds a little and so forth. Wikipedia is used by millions of people everyday, it is incredibly narrow minded of you if you think there will not be more than one editor who will ever expand any of the stubs. I do a huge amount of work on here, why should I be expected to do all the work? I have expanded thousands of such stubs and have spent many hours of my time referencing and improving existing articles. Why shouldn't anybody else come across an article and have to write it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The creator of an article has a duty to ensure that it at least meets the bare minimum inclusion standards. To do otherwise is irresponsible and inconsiderate at best. Shereth 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has been mentioned yet that the articles are/were all created with the underconstruction template (which reads "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). I consider that highly inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot will remove that in a few day anyway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, were you aware of the problem that is already in place with articles about living people? Did you know that there is already a growing backlog of articles that are written about people from non-English speaking countries because we have less ability to source the articles since the language is not spoken by many people that edit Wikipedia English? We need to find a solution to the problem before that we dump thousands more articles into Wikipedia English with out good sources. There are other issues are well. Some of the articles look stale already. And all will grow stale soon since they are living people unless they are maintained. So as it stands now, we have a massive number unsourced articles, that may or may not be current. And later will grow stale. I think that adding individual articles about living people from these broad categories with no plan to maintain them is not good for Wikipedia as it tries to raise the quality of our articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are enough German speakers on here to make it possible. This is Germany not Kreblakistan. There may evne be sources in english but as I said the content is referenced on German wikipedia and should be immediately transferred. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy mackerel, the last thing this place needs is thousands more poorly-watched BLPs! There should be a blanket prohibition against creating BLPs by automated means. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Half the people are DEAD Boris. Why shouldn't anybody else come across an article and have to write it? The way that wikipedia has developed so far has proved to me that enough people care about building an encyclopedia of the highest quality that these articles will develop in due course. Many thousands of my articles have been expanded into fuller articles by people visiting and the end result? I have very productively improved wikipedia in the long term and have had made a major contribution to knowledge on here. I plant seeds to sow as does Albert and I will continue doing so whether you dislike what I do or not. Many people support what I do on wikipedia and see what my long term goals are even if you people don;'t Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead or not, they're all (at least those from today) categorized as living people, which means others have to go through and check every German version for a death date. Maybe you want to get to work? Lara 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The BLP tag had nothing to do with me. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine w/ these articles being created. I don't think it is necessary to hassle people or create a rule that prevents the mass creation of like articles. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we form a consensus

I think we're stuck with these biographies now, so a small group of editors have just had a giant pile of work dumped on their desks, because Blofeld thinks we should be sharing. He gets a bot script to semi-automate the creation of thousands of articles in a matter of days, gets someone else to run it, and now that's created hundreds of work hours, which will take weeks, if not months, for others to clean up... and, somehow, that's sharing the workload.

Can we get a consensus that this doesn't happen again? Can we prohibt the mass-creation of these sort of biographies? Lara 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(after uncountable ECs) I think the thing which Lara is trying to express here, but that people are missing, is the ethical problem with freely editable articles about living persons. The deal is, a person has certain rights, and among them are the right not to have lies and misinformation printed about them, unchallenged, in the public forum. A highly visible site like Wikipedia can host material which is substantively damaging to real people. Given that, the Foundation has established stricter rules for biographies of living people. No one is argueing that German politicians are not notable, so to use that as a way of dismissing Lara's very real concern is a red herring, and entirely misses the point of her concern. Her concern is that 3000 unwatched articles about real, public, living people can be a liability to the project in the sense that, should someone print libelous or slanderous material in those articles, and no one notices, real harm can come to those people. It is not that the articles currently have anything objectionable in them, its that the rate at which they are being created does not show that care has been taken to ensure that they are properly watched and patrolled to see that potentially damaging material is not sureptitiosly added to the articles. Its not that Wikipedia should not have these articles on notability arguements; its that it is irresponsible to create such an open target for slander and libel and to not have a mechanism in place to defend against the very real threat of that. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what I you mean Jayron, but really that argument opposes the expansion of wikipedia because the number of articles becomes too much to monitor. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. Insofar as 3000 articles can be created by people who spend the time to research, craft the wording of, and spend labor in working on them, 3000 articles will then be watched by editors that have a real interest in seeing those articles well taken care of. Insofar as 3000 sub-stubs are rapidly created by a semi-automated process by a single person, it seems highly unlikely that THOSE 3000 articles could be watched as well as 3000 articles managed by involved editors. The deal is, if the 3000 sub-stubs were French Communes or Billboard top 100 Singles or species of beetles, then it would be a "no-harm-no-foul" situation; no one is writing slanderous material about a beetle (maybe a Beatle, but I digress), and no one here would have batted an eyelash. When the 3000 sub-stub articles are created about real living people there becomes a whole new level of responsibility for the article creators; I fail to see how one person (or even 2 or 3) could manage 3000 such articles in an effective manner. It is neither the number of articles, or the manner of their creation, that are the sole problems. It is the intersection of the number, the way they were created, AND the fact that they are all BLPs that creates the problem here. --Jayron32 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, all the AWB mass created articles should probably be mass deleted as they have no real content. Since they presumably all meet inclusion guidelines, a better way to get them into the English encyclopedia is to write a bot that can parse certain basic information out of the German articles for use here. It should be feasible to pull birth/death dates, political party, and probably some other basic info using a bot. It could also transfer the references, obviously. If there is interest in this idea I'd be willing to help with the coding, but I don't speak German so I'd need some assistance figuring out what to look for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I proposed before Thaddeus (see the bottom of my talk page) and would love to see happen to extarct basic data and start articles from other wikipedias but nobody listens to what I have to say or propose. Jimbo and the people who authorise such tasks are about as helpful as a goldfish. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, creating and maintaining bots is a lot of work and requires technical skill that most people don't have. As such, bot requests often go unfulfilled. (The best place to ask is at WP:BOTREQ for future reference). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also the original creation possibly violated BOT policies since no approval for these actions was sought. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't created by bot. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely automated editing can fall under bot policies, so it is best to seek approval. It isn't clear cut, which is why I said "possibly". --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a bunch of articles with no content, expecting others to fill the content, and then leaving them unwatchlisted so they can be malformed is intellectually lazy at best. With the BLP policy it's even worse. Agree with Jayron. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Intellectually lazy"? What does that make an editor who spends his time hanging around ANI and FACs and does nothing to actively contribute information to wikipedia then and pretends to be a professional critic? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behavior absolutely needs to be prohibited. As ThaddeusB states above, this is essentially running a bot without going through the proper approval (granted a human may have been running an AWB script under their own account but lets call a spade a spade - this is bot-like behavior). The user(s) involved need to be sternly warned not to repeat this kind of behavior and prohibited from causing a repeat of this scene. Shereth 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support deleting all these articles. Mass production of almost-contentless substub BLPs without references does not provide any useful information to the reader, and merely results in a large potential for libel in the future. If someone creates decent little articles on these politicians, then great - that person is likely to keep an eye on them. If someone creates three thousand terrible articles automatically and expects other people to do all the niggly work and all the monitoring, then I think we have a problem - one that can be readily solved by getting rid of them until someone's willing to make them properly. ~ mazca ^talk 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is way off base, but has anyone checked whether Blofeld is the same editor as Betacommand? The behavior seems very similar. Maybe he's evading his ban. Friday (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld's been around for a lot longer than Betacommand's been banned, and I've never noted any similarities in their styles apart from large-scale use of automation. I very much doubt it. ~ mazca ^talk 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never used automation in my life.What did Betacommand ever do to expand wikipedia?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is my fault. I was creating them; someone asked for the BLP tag; I didn't realize it would create such a headache; I went and included it in when I was working on the stubs. I will say that I had some concerns about using AWB to do articles like these - however, I did a few test runs earlier in the week, and everything seemed to go fine. So I didn't think there would be any problems with it. Evidently there are, and I apologize. I'm going to stop for now.

Although for what it's worth, I have been operating under the understanding that someone was going to come and fill things in, once the articles had been created; I would not have created them otherwise, so that they be left in their current state. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who? I honestly have no problem with these actions at all if that was intended; it just looks like you were creating abandoned unreferenced sub-stubs. If there's a plan to fill them out, great - if not, I rather think they shouldn't be here. ~ mazca ^talk 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjwilmsi. I hadn't spoken to him about it, but Blofeld had, and he had in fact begun adding dates, constituencies, and such for some of the politicians in another list. (List of German Christian Democratic Union politicians). He actually did start...I don't know if he continued or not. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just confused about why it was thought a good idea to create so many at once. The massive backlog this has created is just overwhelming, and working with BLPs is already overwhelming. I really think it would be best to mass-delete what was mass-created and go with the idea Blofeld has above about creating a bot to transfer complete articles with references. Three thousand is just too much for us to take on at once, and we don't need them sitting there like sitting ducks. Lara 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously to delete them now would be a huge waste of time, We need to be working forwards not backwards. ANy of these articles can instantly be translated and referenced. I really think a bot would be best to autogenerate content properly though in the future extracting basic facts and referecning them and create more solid starter articles to build upon. Both ALbert and I did not think we were violating any policy and I really hate the way we get treated around here. Comparing me to BetaCommand and calling me "intellectually lazy" is very hurtful and unnecessary. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I believe your & Albert's actions to have been entirely done in good faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As do I, as I told Albert on my talk page. Lara 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All I want is to organise a scheme where we can root out the missing articles from other wikipedias and do something to work together not with conflict like this so transfer content in a much more efficient and organised way. I apologise if I sometimes think too much in the future on wikipedia rather than any problems geenrating a lot of stubs in the meantime may create but that is only because I care about developing in the long term. Without a doubt every one of the articles started can instantly be translated and referenced and is much needed and useful content, the main problem is finding enough editors to expand them all. Quality is more important to the community on here it seems but we really need to find a better way to not ignore the mass of good referenced content which exists on other wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The great majority of the equivalent German articles are unreferenced or stubs themselves, ie random picks [147][148][149]. If there's no one on the German side improving them, I find it unlikely there's going to be tons of people wanting to improve them and punt them across the wikis. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The larger issue of creating thousands of unreferenced articles at a time should be given an RfC, as it is out of this board's scope. The issue at the moment is this specific batch of articles. Is there any current effort to categorize and/or clean these up? I don't see this mentioned at WikiProject Living People yet, although the project has been brought up during this discussion. Since a problem has been identified it would be nice to begin fixing these in a timely and coordinated manner. ThemFromSpace 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We were waiting for the report of newly created BLPs to generate, which it now has. This report usually yields just a handful of articles to be checked each day. Generally five to ten. However, today's report is an overwhelming 1095. There's really just one editor who normally clears this list. I used to do it, then he took over; because it's tedious, boring and thankless work. Clearing this list will take at least a few days, depending on how many people I can get to go through it. Lara 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cull and re-introduce using a better mapping?

Even if this was done in good faith, it was ill-advised to do it in this way, and it would make sense to cull all the unchanged versions and try again using smarter sort of automation. For example:

1. There could be a filter on which articles to being across in the first tranche, based on the size, or number of sections, or existence of a WebLInks and/or Einzelnachweise (=References) section. This approach would reduce the volume for translation and checking. As David Fuchs points out, a lot of the source articles are poorly referenced and will be hard to QA here. In any case, there is a significant problem when articles are created that no-one will ever have on their watchlist, because they are potential magnets for vandalism.
2. Some content mapping could be automated. For example, where there is a lifespan like "de:Ludwig Marum (* 5. November 1882 in Frankenthal (Pfalz); † 29. März 1934 im KZ Kislau bei Bruchsal)" this mean "Ludwig Marum was a German politician", not "is"; ideally at least the dates would be automatically translated into English. Another example in the same article is the image on Commons: surely automation could bring this across too?
3. When linking to the original article, it might also be helpful to link to a machine-assisted translation (e.g. Babelfish's translation of Ludwig Marum. This would at least ensure that a non-German reader could be some rough idea of the original article, pending work by language-skilled editors.

I was very concerned to see the discussion at User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#Beyond_Germany and I hope that the parties will refrain from creating any further articles in this way until they have helped resolve the existing situation. - Pointillist (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the {{Expand German}} tag at the top of the article does automatically link to a machine translation (Google, which tends to be best). Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

May I just say that I have noted, repeatedly, that I am not going to continue, for the moment at least? The discussion began before I knew about this; once I found out about it, I decided to put the brakes on the whole business. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

O tempora o dramatis!

Someone creates many articles on German people. One complains that we're "stuck" with them. Another complains that (god forbid) they aren't watchlisted by anyone. Someone makes the claim that the created used an unapproved bot. First, creation of articles is not disruptive. If someone thinks that any (all) of them merit deletion, we have a nice process for that (WP:DELETE), but don't be WP:POINTy. We're not "stuck" with them, we are glad to have them - as we are with all good faith contributions - unless they fall afoul of WP:DELETE. Second, no one owns articles here; even if they are on someone's watchlist that editor has not more or less responsibility for the article's content and care and feeding than anyone else. Remember, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. While we remain that way, and allow that for BLPs without any oversight or control may be something to decide the wisdom of, but not at drama central. Third, a claim is made about the creator's use of an unapproved bot. Is there any proof of this? Dr Blofeld denies it and no one has shown any evidence of it - anyone can appear to create articles at great speed - if they compose the articles' content off line, say in MS Word - and cut and paste it into the blank pages that appear when you hit a redlink here. That is behavior that is fundamentally good rather than being forced to use the editor here which seems to have no shortage of bugs reported at bugzilla much less a spellchecker and undo function. So, let's cut the drama, welcome the new articles and move the discussion whether BLPs should be permitted to be edited by anyone and the results show up for immediate view to another forum as I know that conversation has been had before and seems utterly incapable of resolution. I don't see that any admin action is needed here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You have no grasp whatsoever of the BLP problem. If you're "glad to have them", maybe you can help clean up the mess. Lara 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What BLP issue is presented here that is not the same as the overall BLP problem, which I said is something that we have had no end of jawing over? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lara. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of this problem. Unsourced biographies of living people are the single most critical issue facing Wikipedia. A batch-creation like this is pouring salt directly on an open wound. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos, while I understand that you don't have a problem with unreferenced, unwatched BLPs; it is, in fact, a huge problem for the project. The BLP issue presented here that is "not the same" is that it's adding to an already overwhelming problem, as I explained above. Lara 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when endorsing the creation of thousands of unwatched BLPs, I would like to also remind you, as you reminded me, that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Lara 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more blunt than Lara... This is the encyclopedia that anyone can add malicious, slanderous lies to an article which no one else is watching, and which could therefore survive a very long time, opening up real potential damages to the subject of the article. Again, as I stated above, if someone had created 3000 stub articles about species of beetles, no one would bat an eye, or even care. The distinction is that articles about real living people must be held to a different standard because real living people can be slandered and libeled. --Jayron32 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that people consider new articles as a "mess" to be "cleaned up" as Lara states bluntly. If we have a problem with BLPs being edited by the hoi polloi, that's an inherent problem with having BLPs AT ALL or allowing anyone to edit AT ALL. If these 3000 articles came in from 3000 contributors we would have the same problem. Wikipedia should probably not permit edits to BLPs by new or unregistered users - but that's a policy choice and I am probably in the minority in that opinion. If you are worried about vandalism on these articles, since that what seems bluntly clear from Jayron's post, why hasn't someone protected them all rather than all the lamentation and drama? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• What an utter shambles - the encyclopedia could deal with the creation of many thousands of contentless sub-stubs about settlements etc. (even though not ideal), but articles about people? Simple answer here is to delete every single one on the spot, unless the creator is prepared to check every single one for BLP issues. Black Kite 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you assume the creater has done so? I WP:AGF. I also notice that among the thousands of new BLPs yesterday (WP time) are dozens created by others unless there is some vast conspiracy to add Russian football managers, Canoers of various nationalities, other sportspeople fashion designers etc., also added in droves. Indeed few after #944 seem to be German politicians - I haven't checked them all, however, before which number most are in alphabetical order with Germanic looking names and are probably part of the ensemble. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course they haven't done so. Now, I'm also fairly sure that few if any of these articles are BLP violations, but did anyone check? No. Who is going to check them? Someone else. That's the problem, just assuming that someone else will sort out the issues for the sake of X thousand articles which in their current state are pretty much worthless anyway, because they've no content. Black Kite 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If they have no content, speedy them. WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 is fine. Fundamentally, I think that all unsourced articles should be deleted on the spot, it sounds like you may soon become a convert. Why we allow unsourced stuff here is beyond me, but we need the policy before we have a mass deletion where (next time) content exists. And as much as people have said this is BLP and if it were places or beetles it would be a non-issue. I beg to differ for being hauled to the his drama page for creation of articles on places months after I created them and people expanded them, hence my sensitivity that people will play this for more than it is. Anyway, someone will likely delete them all, which if they have no content is no loss, and the creator seems not inclined to re-do anything so we have drama and seems to be dying out, just as I go to dinner. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree actually, I'm just astonished that anyone could believe that creating thousands of unsourced BLPs was somehow OK. But since it's 3am here, someone else will have to speedy those thousands of articles. Just like someone else was expected to fix the problems of someone creating the articles in the first place. There's only one person who should be expected to do this, and that's the author. Black Kite 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Clearly they don't fall under the speedy criteria, else I would have speedied them all to begin with. The fact that they don't is why I brought it here. Just because a policy does not exist for the matter at hand does not mean it is inappropriate or dramamongering for me to bring it here. We need a policy or whatever prohibiting this. As far as AGF that the creator is going to watchlist and maintain these approximately three thousand articles, indeed I don't believe that is the case, merely because it's just too much to maintain for one person. Add to that the political climate in Germany and it just further exasperates the situation. The worry is not about what libel may be present in the articles now, rather what may be added to them later and be left unnoticed for any amount of time. As they're German politicians, they're not going to get the same volume of views as politicians from English speaking countries, thus it is less likely that targeted vandalism will be seen and reverted in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the suggestion of protection shows a lack of understanding of the protection policy. The proposal to protect all BLPs was shot down, so there's no way protecting all these articles would lead to anything other than more drama. Lara 03:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Good Christ, what a mess. Mass deletion is really the only option here; these articles are all pretty much borderline worthless from an informational perspective, and are now jumbled and mistagged all to hell and back from the good-faith efforts of Misters Blofeld and AlbertHerring. Piecemeal verification of the references and BLP status of 3,000 articles...all of which are in German? YGBSM. You two guys broke it, either figure out how to fix it quick, or let us squash them all quickly and you can recreate the salvageable ones at your leisure. Oh, and here's your trout. Bullzeye ^contribs 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're all forgetting that German Wikipedia has Flagged Revisions technology, so every one of these articles will be free of any flaws. As long as somebody has all these on a watch list, and nobody ever adds anything to the English versions without a ref, or without proving they are a fluent german speaker, we should be Golden. On with the perma-stub revolution I say. At least there is an outside chance an actual real life reader might be looking for information about these people, well, more chance than someone looking for confirmation that a small town in Uzbejistan does exist according to Wikipedia as well as the atlas/geodatabase makers. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm fully with Bullzeye on this - unless Blofeld or others are prepared to put their money where their mouths are and "adopt" the things they should be deleted. Most of them are too stubby to be useful as a standalone article to begin with, and slightly muddled from translation. If you advocates for keeping them and shouting that there isn't a problem can watchlist, maintain and reference 3,000 articles then be my guest, but if you can't (which, assuming you aren't User:God, you can't) then lets smack them. They can be recreated in time by people who honestly care about the subject matter and therefore have an interest in writing a decent sized, well-referenced biography and then maintaining it. Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wiht Lara/Jenna, Bullzeye, Ironholds (no, really) and others who support immediate deletion, under the basic premises Lara/Jenna set out - that 29xx articles created by automated process by a single editor would overwhelm that one editors' watchlist, meaning that there's little hope that he could keep up with changes. He knew this and apparently didn't watchlist them, as someone noted above. This means no one's watching them, unless someone commits to making ever burgermeister in Germany their one and onle area of study for Wikipedia, which seems unlikely. Delete every one that's had no significant edits by editors other than the creator (i phrase it this way because there's apparently some futzing with tags that occurred on a number of them.) They can be individually recreated by interested editors at a later date with citations included, to protect the living subjects of the articles. ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

2798 articles

As listed here. Lara 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodness my. So now we have 3,000 articles in the vein of "Hans-Ulrich Pfaffmann is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party"? Unlike settlements, people die occasionally, and without any biographical information it is likely that the English Wikipedia will continue to record Hans-Ulrich Pfaffmann as a serving German politician by the year 2109. A good idea, very poorly executed. I'd support a mass AfD on all of these with a view to starting over properly - with sources and biographical data.  Sandstein  06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked on Talk:AFD how to pull off such a mass nomination. I'm not sure how to tag the pages, but I suppose at this point, it's not really that necessary. I'm about to go to bed, but I'll get the AFD in motion. Lara 06:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe. Lara 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those with no other editor than User:AlbertHerring could be speedily deleted per this. Kusma (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be great, but individually checking the history of nearly 3,000 articles? Good luck finding someone to do that. This is what batch delete was made for. I'm inclined to let the AFD ride out, give Blofeld and whoever else a chance to remove any that have been expanded (and maybe the BPDs) from the list, and then batch delete them. Lara 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This is one reason I hate automatic edits. I tried to rescue a few of these, & ended up having my work deleted. (FWIW, one person wasn't even an SDP member -- he was a deceased member of the Communist party of the DDR.) So I was forced to ignore the rules & restored them. One of them twice due to different Admins misusing AWB. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • May I ask if I'm one of the admins misusing AWB? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • No one was misusing AWB. The article she accused me of wheelwarring on was deleted using TW, not AWB, but it was only deleted once. So I don't know what she's talking about. Lara 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of ops by Llywrch

Resolved

 – article contents moved to user's subpage and articles redeleted. User will recreate when refs are available per the AFD.

According to admittance in the logs and right above at 18:49, 24 July 2009, Llywrch has abused his authority as an administrator and restored pages that he worked on that were deleted after a consensus based determination. He did not participate in a DRV. Instead, he went around the community's authority and directly broke the CoI standards on using ops. This is completely unacceptable and proves that he have violated the community's trust to use ops appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any prohibition on individual re-creation of the articles so long as they had more information added to them than just the one original sentence. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about if a page is allowed or not. This is about using ops to restore revisions on a page that were deleted when you made edits to that page. Standard procedure in such a case is to ask for it to be placed in subspace first so it can be worked on if at all. Not to use ops, undeleted 6 pages, one twice, and then harass the deleting admin and make inappropriate accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair the closure of the AfD left a little wiggle room in that it stated articles that had been "improved" would be spared. It is somewhat questionable as to whether the addition of a date of birth/death is the kind of "improvement" that was alluded to - personally I would think that the intent behind the statement was to ensure articles that had been sourced were not deleted - but there is no sense in wikilawyering or getting too worked up. Have you brought up this concern with Llywrch? Unless someone has done so and they have continued to restore articles in spite of that, I don't think this warrants any kind of further action. It's a bit of a stretch to start fretting about violations of the community's trust. Shereth 19:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only see one stretch here, and that's stretching to breaking point the fiction that administators are held to at least the same standards as regular editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I've been ignoring the ones that have had any appreciable additions since creation, to allow for review at a later time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x however many times. I don't believe anyone considered that sort of expansion (another unreferenced sentence) to be "improved". I don't really care if she restores articles herself if they were inappropriately deleted, but it would be more appropriate to request an undelete from the deleting admin rather than just restore and ask them not to delete the articles you'd edited. Also, she claimed wheelwarring where there was none, which seems unnecessary. I recommend recreating the articles in user space and expanding them one at a time. Lara 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If anything is to be done about this (or to determine whether anything needs to be done), then links need to be provided. I gather there was some kind of AFD discussion regarding these articles? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe. Shereth 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is at User:Juliancolton/List. All this is above. Lara 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note: Did anyone even tell Llywrch about this thread? Personally I think we're getting way to excited about things. Maybe if we just talk to one another we can accomplish more. I think we're all wanting to get positive things done here, rather than calling people out on things - "discussion" can work wonders. I know everybody is running into edit-conflicts, and doing their best - it's just a thought. — Ched :  ?  20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[EC] Am I correct in thinking that the articles "Werner Pidde," ‎ "Hans Pohl," ‎ "Walter Pilger," ‎ "Bruno Plache," ‎ "Philipp Pless," ‎ "Hans Carl Podeyn," ‎ and "Hans Pohl," ‎all restored by Llywrch, were covered in the AFD linked, the result of which was "Delete any unreferenced biographies"? Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden, however these undeletions do not seem to meet the requirements for restoration, and have no references. It seems fairly clear that per the AFD they should be re-deleted until such time as they can be recreated with appropriate refs. Perhaps Llywrch could work on them in their user space in the meantime. I've notified them about this thread. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

She was already active in this thread. And yes, she restored the articles, and I just saw she did so with poor edit summaries. She seems to be confused about the reason for deletion, which is G6 for AFD, not G7 for user request. It doesn't matter if she added to them or not. Someone needs to go back and redelete these articles. They should not have been restored per AFD. Lara 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh Lara, I'm a he, not a she. Very much a he. -- llywrch (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Llywrch, can you actually think of many female Wikipedians? I know, there must be some out there, but few and far between.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting totally off the subject here, but I could say the same thing about male Wikipedians - they are few and far between. The fact is most Wikipedians don't make a huge point of identifying their gender (or race, age, or most other things that have little or nothing to do with editing.) Many times assumptions are made about gender, many times they aren't corrected if it's not important. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone told me Llywrch is female. Apologies. As far as female Wikipedians, \o. ohai! Lara 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are a female Lara.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If the name, the pink sig, and chick pic on my userpage didn't give it away; yes, I'm a female Wikipedian! XD Lara 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you actually are an overweight 30-something guy with no friends living in your parents' basement, who gets your jollies from fooling other overweight 30-something guys with no friends living in their parents' basement that you're an attractive woman. Waitasec: IIRC, you once said you're married with children. So you are just an attractive woman. <emily litella>Nevermind.</emily littela> -- llywrch (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Exploding boy for letting me know I was the subject of a thread. I learned about these articles in the AN/I thread above, & after reading it I believed that the best solution to this problem was to try to salvage articles, not delete them. (I've always believed this, & I still do.) There was no indication above that these 3,000 would be quickly submitted to Articles for Deletion (which I only read occasionally), nor that the discussion would be rushed thru to a decision to delete them all (opened & closed within 24 hours), nor did anyone bother to inform me of this before deleting the articles I attempted to bring up to what I felt was the bare minimum standards for a stub as I was working on them. But when I belatedly learned about this rushed AfD, I noticed that both discussions exempted expanded articles from deletion. So I started to restore the ones I had been working on, to bring them up to the minimum I would expect a stub should contain -- all the while no one bothered to contact me. (I was the one who contacted Jennavecia, & then posted a notice above explaining what I had done.) Nor did anyone bother to notify me about this thread until Exploding boy did. Either I must have a reputation for sending to the cornfield other editors who annoy me, or the obliteration of these sub-stubs was the undeniably most important task any Wikipedian could do today.

As for "abuse of Admin powers" -- I doubt you can find any Admin who uses his elevated privileges less than me. I used them here because people appeared to be more eager to delete these sub-stubs first & ask questions later than to try to salvage any of them. (To repeat, I only discovered the thread in WP:AfD after four of the six I worked on had been deleted, & only because no one had bothered to inform me. I might have been on Wikipedia longer than any of the rest of you, but I still haven't learned to read minds.) Maybe Ottava Rima can conform to a consensus she/he has never been properly informed about, but I cannot. Lastly, when it was clear that I would encounter resistance to improving these articles, I stopped well short of my intended goal of salvaging a total of one dozen of these. I do have other articles which I have been working on, & only so much time to work on them. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is listed as "per AFD", which should have been an indication of the AFD with your first restoration, which can be seen here where you restored with the edit summary of "WTF???". As far as people appeared to be more eager to delete these sub-stubs first & ask questions later, the question was asked first. The overwhelming consensus was to delete. You, sir, are the one that acted first and asked questions later. Restoring articles outside of accepted use of administrative privileges for articles in which you had been working, and ignoring completely the deletion summaries of the deleting admins. Your restorations ignore the stipulations of the AFD, as simply adding years or another unreferenced sentence does not qualify as improvement, expansion or referencing. Lara 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't the thread below enough over-reaction for one day? Everyone here is acting in good faith, and there is no emergency, so why not hold off on lynching any more people until Monday? It's happy hour; let's save the unnecessary recriminations until after the weekend (those of you not in EDT will have to stay up late, or cut out early). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So if it's happy hour what do you want us to do? Go to the pub and drink for an hour and come back on Monday to continue this discussion drunk? ;)--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all explained in the link. And we wouldn't come back Monday drunk, just hung over. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith abuse of tools is still an abuse of tools. This was a willful act under a misinterpretation of IAR with knowledge enough to know that the act would be inappropriate. The rerestoring of an article alone is evidence that this user misstepped in an egregious manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, it was done in good faith. Remember, rules are not strictly laws in their own right, merely guidelines to maintain a form of order and well-being on Wikipedia. Abuse or not, if it was done in good faith, it was done in good faith, simple as that!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what good faith means. It means not to accuse people of being horrible people in real life. It has nothing to do with not taking appropriate measures to limit people from abusing power. They can have the best attentions and still deserve to be desysopped. Robin Hood, for all the good he may have wanted to do, was still a thief. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. For starters, It means not to accuse people of being horrible people in real life. is wrong. How people are in real life and how they are on Wikipedia can be two completely different matters. Someone can be a bad person in real life, but a good person here. It happens. On the other hand, someone can be a good person in real life, but horrible here. See the difference?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides, we can't judge someone as a person in real-life here anyway. That is called "off-wiki" and doesn't apply here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to reread WP:AGF before speaking based on your response above. "Good faith" deals with a thought process. There is no split self or two minds. There is only one mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's what I was trying to tell you. Why did you need to bring "real life" into this?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because AGF is connected to NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep contradicting yourself. Before you said There is no split self or two minds. There is only one mind. What have I been trying to tell you? On Wikipedia, of course there is only one mind. The split is "off-wiki" and, like I said, does not apply here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. So, according to you - my identity, Ottava Rima, has a different brain than the person who is currently typing? This isn't some roleplay game. There are no alter identities, hidden personas, separate minds. There is words, and there is a person creating the words. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point completely. You brought the words "real life" into this discussion and I'm merely reminding you that what someone does "off-wiki" is of no concern to anyone when "on wiki". It cannot be related to good faith here. Once again, it does not apply here. Simple as that!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA deals with real life identities. So, you are wrong here. AGF and NPA both deal with the real person typing, and say that we should not judge their internal processes or make attacks on attributes of their real life self. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, not my point. But why don't you just let this discussion go. The main point of this thread has been resolved, so no more, yes? Also, I know Wikipedia isn't some roleplay game. Because if it was, it would have millions of roles but no main character.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was that egregious. The only reason for deleting these particular articles was that they were among the large number of sub-stub articles dealt with in that AFD. They were covered by the AFD however; this is why I suggested the temporary redeletion of those articles while Llywrch works on them in his user space. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't ask the deleters to undelete. He undeleted himself and then attacked the deleters. That is the egregious aspect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, restoring deleted pages is not specifically disallowed although there are additional considerations in this case. So what you're objecting to is a civility issue? If this is to go anywhere, perhaps you could provide diffs. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The information from those pages has been moved to a subpage in Llyrwch's user space, and I've deleted the articles in question. I trust this ends the matter. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to block AlbertHerring

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.

---

No way would we ever block for this. It would serve no purpose. It was good faith actions followed immediately by a promise to stop. Lara 15:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose that AlbertHerring be subjected to an indefinete user block with immediate effect. There is a clear duty of care on editors using automative tools, such as Bots, to ensure that their work stictly complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before they are let loose on mainspace. It is a clear breach of good faith create or contribute to Wikipedia on an industrial scale if there is no quality control. The creator of these articles should be blocked indefinately - its clear that this mass creation of articles is just a stunt to attract attention. Childish pranks like this may be forgiven on a smaller scale, but on a large scale is hard to defend that this premeditated act of vandalism on a grand scale. This is an extreme example of WP:POINT and the administrators need to deal with this now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's already being discussed in massive scale above. I don't think we need another thread for this. Tan | 39 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(RE to GC) A block would be the worst sort of violation of the preventative not punative concept of blocking. Further it's far from clear that it's a "stunt", "prank" or "vandalism".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are failing to see this stunt for what it is - it is an inappropriate use of automative tools. Basically you are arguing that articles created in this way are exempt from Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, and the editors who operate these tools cannot be held accountable for their actions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles are not exempt. There is a huge discussion above on whether or not they should be deleted. And you could very well be correct that this is an inappropriate use of automated tools. However, not every policy violation results in a block. In fact, the vast majority of policy violations do not result in blocks. I think AlbertHerring has participated in the above discussions enough that a block is certainly not warranted at this time. Tan | 39 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody go and lock Gavin in the safe and thow away the key. What a banker. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut it out, Blofeld. Tan | 39 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I can find my own way out, and shall do so. Thank you kindly. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for this. It was an action done in good faith, and it doesn't look like AlbertHerring is gonna do something like this again. --Conti|✉ 15:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This sub-thread is, frankly, likely to be more disruptive than creating the articles. Blocking for good-faith efforts - when the author has realised his "error"? I think not. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree with sprinkles. It was clearly good faith, he's stopped doing it. Aside from whatever headaches may or may not happen from trying to sort things out, blocking / banning would have no positive effect on things. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is whether editors should be allowed to use automated tools without being held accountable for their actions. Lets say I am the editor of Yellow Pages, and I decide that every company listed for 2009 should have its own listing on Wikipedia, which is just a valid argument for article creation as those employed in this case. What is there to stop me? I am not saying this outrage is the thin end of the wedge, the real point is that the administrators have to take swift action to counter the impulses to spam articles on an industrial scale. The reason is that individual articles can be adminstrated in accordance with Wikipedia content and behavioural policies by individuals, but large numbers of articles can't be dealt with in this way. By allowing this outrage to go unchallenged is to permit size or scale to over rule policy, and I think Albert and friends know this. The creation of thousands of articles is not a technical issue about stubs, it is about automated tools being used without duty of care. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Duty of care is not Wikipedia policy, no matter how many times you link to it. Also, one can be held accountable without being blocked. The editor realized his mistake, as Pedro pointed out above. You have no support for this block, and four or five editors immediately saying "no". Recommend re-archival of thread. Tan | 39 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• No no no. Blocking now would purely be punitive, as AH has clearly realised (too late, unfortunately) the problem that he has created. It wouldn't solve anything. Let's try to fix this mess without too much drama, aye? Black Kite 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. If Gavin.collins would like to propose a new policy or guideline that explicitly limits automated article creation in future, why not start a thread at the village pump? It would certainly be topical! - Pointillist (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking? that's if the editor concerned feels like returning to this nasty place now you've forced him to leave. Few people here assume good faith over things like this, whether they claim otherwise. I'm appalled by the way others are regarded on here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He has not left, and if he has, it is probably another stunt.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm archiving this, again. We are not blocking. That's absurd. If you want to keep this discussion going be removing the archive again, perhaps someone will be inclined to block you for disruption. Unlike your proposal, that would be completely appropriate. Lara 16:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are blind to the disruption this incident has caused and enourmous cleanup operation that must follow, I would be inclinded to agree with you. But this is just not plausible, and in hindsight, it would have been better if you had acted decisively from the onset. Happy editing. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Ongoing Harassment from User:Amadscientist

Would someone please look into the behavior of User:Amadscientist. He has broken numerous guidelines and policies, including attempting outing, and appears to be carrying on a vendetta against me, User:smatprt. In addition, he has attacked many other editors who have tried to intervene (see examples below). The original dispute stems from an edit war over image use, for which I was blocked. During my block period, User:Amadscientist proceeded to escalate the situation, and violated wp:hound and wp:forum shopping, adding negative comments and duplicate accusations on several other articles I regularly edit. He has been warned about this continuing behavior from numerous editors [[150]], [[151]], [[152]].

Unfortunately, he has chosen to disregard any intervention and has vowed to continue editing however he likes and no matter how many editors disagree with him, [[153]], a threat he has carried through, often attacking other editors along the way (see below)

User:Amadscientist has violated numerous editing guidelines including wp:game and WP:EW, as well as the spirit of wp:3RR [[154]], [[155]], and [[156]]. Regarding this series of edits, after seeking a 3rd opinion on the image, rendered here [[157]], User:Amadscientist extended the quarrel to the new editor, defied the consensus, and reinstated his revert here [[158]].

By spreading his dispute over several pages he is WP:Forum shopping, as was noted by an intervening editor [[159]].

He also violated wp:outing [[160]] and [[161]], in spite of being warned by 2 other editors [[162]] [[163]]

After the first attempted outing he ultimately found my name linked to an old image upload record and has used that as an excuse for spreading my name all over the pages in question. He then escalated further and filed an AFD, first, the Wikipedia article on me [[164]] and then, escalating further, the lead photo [[165]].

Violation of wp:civ and wp:harass and wp:attack include quoting non-existant guidelines in an attempt to intimidate: [[166]] for which he was warned: [[167]],

Attacking other editors who tried to intervene: [[168]] [[169]]

Accusing me of copyright violation on multiple pages [[170]],[[171]] which he was warned about by an intervening editor [[172]].

Name calling, including “creepy” [[173]],

After filing the AFD, he has proceeded to argue with or berate every single editor who voted to “keep” the article [[174]] [[175]] [[176]], especially after being called out for voting twice, in addition to being the nominator. [[177]]

Many long-time editors have jumped in to try to smooth the waters and warn User:Amadscientist about misquoting guidelines, as well as numerous violations:

[[178]] [[179]] [[180]]

only to be rebuffed further:

[[181]] [[182]]

This is an unfortunate and awful situation. I am appealing to any interested administrator for a permanent solution. Smatprt (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment (non-admin): In addition to whatever disagreement triggered this editor (and which appears to be ongoing on Carmel-by-the-Sea's mainspace and Talk page and elsewhere), the period from July 19 forward (especially July 19 through July 23) reveals an alarming series of focussed harrassment centered around anything connected with Smatprt. I note in his edit history during that period: A block request [183]; an AfD nom [184]; an autobiography tag [185], replaced again [186]; an 11,000-byte deletion [187]; a second autobiography tag [188], reposted again [189]; a third autobiography tag [190]; a fourth autobiography tag [191]; and a fair use tag [192]; among other things. In the words of an editor on the AfD discussion page, "It looks to me like you're trying to punish smatprt through every avenue available." User history since the initial Carmel debacle denotes an intense negative focus on these articles and the editors involved in them [193]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. Please be patient - there's a lot here to go through. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this complaint. Almost all of the diffs I would have posted in this are contained in the original post. Amadscientist posted a query at WT:BIOG about the validity of the creation of the Stephen Moorer article that also contained extraneous information about Smatprt, including allegations that he was using the Carmel-by-the-Sea article to "market his theatre and push self serving information", and including Smatprt had been blocked for 3RR. I responded, stating that while there were guidelines discouraging creating an article about oneself, that there is no policy against it, noting that I had seen issues with some of the edits involved by Amadscientist as well and stated that those issues didn't belong at WP:BIOG. The response was hostile, including comments such as "You have nearly no idea what you are talking about" and "You are defending the very thing that the Guidline and several others were created to avoid." I'm not aware I was defending anything. I also responded at Talk:Stephen Moorer, after I noted that Amadscientist had made a series of posts there about the article, none of which had a response from anyone, [194] [195], one

[196] wherein he identifies the editor by name and explicitly telling him he could not edit the article, and another which identifies the creator of the article as the subject [197]. I responded and again noted that there was no policy prohibiting the creation [198]. His response explicitly accused me of assuming bad faith ("I suppose this is litle more than assuming bad faith on you part"), claimed that Smatprt had been dishonest about his identity when asked about it ("the user was dishonest") and defending his having outed the editor. The behavior just continued. Smatprt, whose username was never an attempt to hide who he was, but did not use his exact name, has outlined the rest of this in much greater detail. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. A couple of hours of my life I now sorely miss...

I AGF about all parties in this dispute. That said, I agree that Amadscientist is pushing very hard (perhaps borderline wikistalking behavior but nothing I want to enforcement-sense act on at the moment), too hard for constructive collegial behavior at the moment.

I have asked that he take a week or two break from edits on the Stephen Moorer, Forest Theater, Pacific Repertory Theater and Carmel-by-the-Sea, and try to avoid being confrontational with User:Smatprt.

Other editors can continue to review the specific issues he has raised on talk pages and with the AFD. I see potentially valid issues, though I believe that there's no supporting consensus on any of those at this time. Let's let those run their courses with uninvolved parties reviewing and weighing in.

Once things cool down hopefully everyone can cooperate moving forwards. Both editors seem to be involved in those topics and interested in Wikipedia articles on them, and I don't think any forceful topic ban or such is necessary or appropriate for the Encyclopedia at this time.

If Amadscientist choses to disregard the disengagement request but doesn't do anything else which is provocative or potentially harrasing, then I recommend leaving it alone. I hope he disengages for a short while to let things cool down but I don't want to make it mandatory unless the situation gets worse.

Smatprt, on your side, please avoid edits in the hot-button issues that Amadscientist identified while they are staying away from the articles, and please do what you can to disengage as well for that informal cool down period.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

Last week I brought this user's good faith, but unhelpful edits up. He's continued making such edits, but they are not involved in making new articles on speculative content. Instead he is modifying other pages to include speculative content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of giving block warnings on his talk page, try talking to him. Also, have you notified him of this thread?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this user ignores all messages on his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

tangential stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Ryulong has not notified the user of this thread, I've just done that. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Not to be rude, Mythdon, but you probably shouldn't participate in this thread. Javert I knit sweaters, yo! 03:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Unless I feel a need too, I won't participate any further. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New editor Bogglevit messing up layout of lots of articles

A new editor, Bogglevit (talk · contribs), has appeared today, who has made about 60 edits, mostly with edit summaries saying just "Wikify", in which all that is being done, as far as I can see, is to add a bunch of paragraph breaks, usually in places that mess up the flow of exposition. Long paragraphs are not good but this is not the way to fix them. I believe that all of these edits should be rolled back en masse. I have come here instead of first attempting discussion because the large number of edits by a brand new editor indicates that this is a matter that needs to be handled with some urgency: if a rollback is needed, it should be done before the articles go stale. I will notify Bogglevit of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the big problem. From the edits I've looked at, they appear to be perfectly regular copyedits. Was it necessary to take this to the dramaboard right away? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to that, WP:ROLLBACK is only to be used against vandalism, which this is not. Undo the edits if you like, but there isn't any admin intervention needed here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably should have just started by asking the editor what was up. If that failed, ANI would be the next option. Tan | 39 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I've overreacted. There's something about misuse of automation that pushes me in that direction -- the damage accumulates so rapidly that it feels to me like the balance between being nice and preventing further damage should shift. Anyway, I've fixed the six damaged articles that are in WikiProject Neuroscience -- other people will have to fix the other 40 or so. I'll take a shot at explaining to Bogglevit why paragraph-breaking is not something that can be done at the speed of light. (Re rollback: my understanding is that the "bulk" feature is sometimes used for non-vandal damage that would take too long to fix one article at a time.) Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting weirder. We now have another account, Swerqitamin (talk · contribs), created an hour after Bogglevit's last edit, who seems to be doing exactly the same sort of edits. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Looie. Bogglevit virtually vandalized the health psychology page under the guise of wikifying it. What Bogglevit did is not editing. It was destructive. Iss246 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I support this ANI report – the two users need attention. Swerqitamin's eighth edit was "quick add using HotCat" with a misguided category (the article was already in Category:Psychology which is in Category:Human behavior that was added in the edit). There are lots of other category changes and I would bet that most of them should be reverted. The user puts a few random paragraph breaks or adds categories with no helpful edit summary (just "wikify" or "quick add..."). Other editors should spend twice as long checking each edit, then undoing it with a meaningful edit summary – a lot of unnecessary work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A few accounts (User:Wickelyby, User:Beteltreuse and User:Julippia) have made similar edits recently. Possibly sockpuppets of User:Hatherington. snigbrook (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's totally and absolutely obvious that these are all the same indef-blocked editor. I would file an RFCU, but past experience says it would be declined as a duck and nothing will happen. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bewildered

Hi there. I don't know why this section exists on the Administrator's notice board. Every edit I have made to wikipedia has been a good faith, constructive one.

There are three main building tasks I like to do:

One, to link together interconnected articles that are not yet linked - basically, to build the knowledge web. This includes putting articles into categories, and linking categories together.

Two, I like to find orphaned articles, and link them to appropriate others. This can be a lot of work.

Three, I seek to improve the readability of articles. Many articles contain wonderful information, yet are not easy to read. There is little copy editing, with large amounts of text clumped together. There are no paragraph breaks. Simply putting paragraph breaks into a mass of text allows that text to be more easily read & comprehended by a reader.

Anyway, that's what I like to do. I'm very proud of my work, because I feel it increases people's accessibility to education.

Bogglevit (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez part 2

I'd like to point out that Matt Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs), is still under a community ban yet is editing articles and user talk pages, including my own. I request an admin block him immediately until a consensus on lifting the community ban is in effect. He has asked at Wikipedia talk:Project namespace#Appeal a Community Ban how to go about doing that. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, his ban was partially lifted in December 2008 to allow him to edit "related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions." It was supposed to be under the mentorship of user:Durova. It says he may be reblocked for an appropriate period if he violates those limits. It doesn't appear that he's many edits about accessibility. The only mainspace he's made is to Matt Drudge, and it concerned political affiliationon.[199] It appears he's in violation and the account should be blocked for some period.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week in enforcement of the ban. For future reference, the dedicated noticeboard for arbitration enforcement is WP:AE.  Sandstein  07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved

Sad to see this develop while I was sleeping. Allstarecho does not give a full presentation of the facts. Matt Sanchez's current editing status is in limbo. He was originally community banned, then arbitration banned, then the Committee modified both bans in order to allow limited editing, and then the arbitration ban expired, leaving his account unblocked. So to people that a community ban is a block that no administrator will lift, he isn't banned.

Sandstein has blocked in the mistaken belief that Matt's arbitration ban remains in place. Was Matt's edit disruptive? Meanwhile a complaint has gone unexamined for two days, that a different person (possibly indefinitely blocked and article banned Eleemosynary) has been damaging Matt's biography. Could we have evenhanded attention here, please? Durova²⁸² 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking with the utmost respect for those involved, I concur with Durova's comments and concerns. There is a strong appearance of inconsistency in the way these two seperate, but related, matters have been handled. Speaking only for myself, this leads to feelings of frustration and is a bit demoralizing. From what I can see, the only editor not acting in good faith is the one who hasn't been blocked, banned, or even acknowledged. Doc Tropics 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. All I see at the arbitration page is If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted. Was a modification of the ban accepted without a record being left? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom was willing to modify his ban further upon request. He made no additional request and ArbCom's ban expired. Durova²⁸² 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

His Arbcom ban expired, his community ban did not. Call it a technicality, but that's the fact. That's a full presentation of the facts. Anything else is trivial. Also, to say that "Arbcom was willing to modify his ban further" is a bit putting the cart before the horse. You have no proof that they would have done so, even if he had followed through and submitted such a request after Arbcom's 60 day "you can upload images for the sake of handicap folk" probation. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not well-versed enough in the details of applicable policy to comment on such a technicality, it seems to an outside observer that the editor's intent should be taken into account. Whether or not one actually agrees with the specifics of his edit, it was explained on the talkpage in advance, and accompanied by an appropraite Edit Summary. Certainly such actions are subject to the normal course of debate on the talkpage, or even reversion, but a 1 week block? Again, speaking with the utmost respect for those more knowledgable than I am, things seem out of balance in this situation. Doc Tropics 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As the enforcing admin, all I know is the following. The relevant arbitral decision of December 2008 reads:

"This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova. Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." (emphasis mine)

Since no request for further modification of the (indefinite, community-enacted) ban appears to have been submitted, the ban remained in effect except as provided for in the motion, underlined above. By editing in violation of the restrictions of that motion, Bluemarine triggered its enforcement provision, also underlined above. Durova, are there any relevant community or ArbCom decisions since that motions that need to be taken into account?  Sandstein  17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent explanation; I don't mean to challenge your interpretation of facts, or your decision, as based upon that interpretation. My issue is more that the editor appeared to have been acting in good faith and was perhaps unaware of this technicality. In such event it seems that the block might be reconsidered and either reduced or lifted. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast; I do mean to challenge Sandstein's interpretation of the facts. More than one interpretation of policy is feasible. A significant portion of the community defines a community ban as a block that no administrator is willing to unblock; Bluemarine has been unblocked and the arbitration-enacted restriction has expired. Since Bluemarine's status has remained undefined, a warning would have been more appropriate. One week is punitive; it discourages editors from reforming to come down that hard for a constructive edit in an ambiguous situation. Given that a weeklong block resulted over a single edit while I (the editor's mentor) was asleep, Sandstein acted with precipitous haste. It is also worth noting that Sandstein refused to weigh a socking/ban evasion complaint in a different but related instance, which has languished for days. It is hardly worth encouraging difficult editors to reform, when site administration acts this way. Durova²⁸² 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the fact that this happened while you were asleep. Wikipedia does not revolve around your sleeping schedule. His community ban was never removed by the community. He violated the ban by editing (on a controversial article at that). He is blocked. If you want to discuss lifting the community ban, feel free to start that conversation. But as it stands now, he's in violation of that ban - and has violated the ban by socking via verifiable IP addresses for over year. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no urgency to action over a single undisruptive edit. Mentorship is hardly possible when people act precipitously in non-urgent situations without giving the mentor a chance to participate. Allstarecho did not even notify me that this thread existed, his representations were partisan and incomplete, and his tone is uncollegial. I do not wish to initiate a formal complaint against Allstarecho, but he seems to be attempting to personalize this discussion. Durova²⁸² 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I think Durova's correct. The ArbCom sanctions expired, which means the addendum to the sanctions (the terms restricting the lifting of the ArbCom one-year ban) also expired with them, so blocking on those grounds is improper. He's still in breach of the community ban, but that's a different issue, not subject to arbitration enforcement. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since he was never warned (and the situation has been murky), would you consider unblocking with a warning? I advised him to refrain from editing until his status was cleared up; there have been delays due to his work/travel schedule. Durova²⁸² 20:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon, you raise an interesting technicality, but Bluemarine should remain blocked either way. If one considers, as you do, the ArbCom motion's effects to expire after the 60 days, then Bluemarine should have been indefinitely reblocked as the community ban reenters into force (because the motion expressly preserves the effects of that ban). If, on the other hand, one considers the ban to be suspended by the motion, as I do, then I properly blocked Bluemarine as provided for by the motion. We could probably find out by means of a request for clarification, but an unblock would mean either the lifting of a community ban (if one follows the first interpretation) or an undoing of an arbitration enforcement action (if one follows the second interpretation). Either action would require clear and sustained community consensus, which is not currently in evidence.

Durova, I did thoroughly evaluate your (still open) request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#StephenLaurie and I am sorry if the result of that evaluation is not to your liking, but so far no administrator colleague has disagreed with me. (Or indeed offered an opinion, unfortunately. AE needs more admin contributors.)  Sandstein  20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think you're wrong about the '60 days'. Nothing expired after sixty days; sixty days was the shortest, not the longest, time that could elapse before an appeal of the editing restrictions would be considered. ArbCom unblocked him and limited him to editing specific areas. The fuzzy part is whether ArbCom's restriction to specific areas carries past the end of the original ArbCom one-year ban; a simple request for clarification to ArbCom should take care of that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the shortest time, but there's no indication that an appeal of the editing restrictions was either submitted or considered, so the restrictions remain in force. Moreover, nothing in the motion obviates the community ban. I am now submitting Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine to clarify this.  Sandstein  04:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you said above, I advised him to refrain from editing until his status was cleared up. I offer that you also advised him back in May as well not to edit anywhere until the issue was resolved - or at least that's what you told us. He was fully aware of this as per this diff. He has not been informed since then that the ban was lifted yet he suddenly started editing again once on July 11 and severl times yesterday. You can't possibly believe that someone with such an intellect that he is a "journalist" for FOX News, can not understand that "don't edit anywhere except your own talk page until this is resolved!" means exactly that (granted it can be argued that anyone associate with FOX News lacks any intellect but I'm erring on the side of decency here). You and I even had discussions back in May about the best way to go about dealing with getting him un-community banned. I agreed to it with what I thought was agreed upon stipulations. So no, don't try and turn this around on me by saying it's becoming personal for me. Then our discussion went stale. Nothing happened, including Sanchez not being told "all is well, you can edit now!". So what made him think suddenly all was well when he hadn't been informed of such? Other discussions since regarding Sanchez have ended with you telling us "I'm working on finding him a new mentor". Stale again. Yes, Arbcom placed him under a ban, while a community ban was already in place. Arbcom's ban expired. The community ban didn't/wasn't removed by the community. All of this of course could have been avoided if Arbcom would have left well enough alone and let the community ban handle the matter instead of placing a ban on top of it with an expiration date. I'd suffice to say that if this would have happened, Sanchez would have been un-community banned long ago by the community. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho and Durova, I believe that it is not necessary or useful for this matter to become personal on either side. I think we could use more input by other people, here.  Sandstein  21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a sock puppet of Eleemosynary contributing to the ruckus. I left comments at WP:AE. Please check my three diffs and the early contributions of the sock account and see if you agree with my conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See now also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary. Comments should be left there or at AE, since that's not really the subject of this thread.  Sandstein  21:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As this has now been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine, I assume we can mark this thread closed but left here for reference since it's been linked to there? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)