Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576

Axmann8 returns

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here [1] asks for an unblock. He admits to block evasion since his block, and claims his block was "politically motivated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this sums it up nicely. TNXMan 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ja! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

It would probably be worth it just to sort out which edits belong to which editor. I'm also curious to see these "constructive contributions" that Axmann claims to have made. TNXMan 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I think it only fair to point out that most of the conservative/rightist editors in Wikipedia have little if any more tolerance for Naziism than the liberal/leftist ones (who I see no signs of constituting a majority, unless you measure liberal/left with an AnnCoultermeter). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Edit war over courtesy blanking

Resolved

All that's left is for someone to record this edit war for WP:LAME Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

In July 2008, Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) ran for adminship. It did not go well, owing in large part to his acknowledged history of abusive sockpuppetry and vandalism. Because of the unpleasantness of the whole thing, it was courtesy blanked at its close. It remained so-blanked until yesterday, when Altenmann (talk · contribs) (previously SemBubenny, previously Mikkalai) unblanked it with the edit summary "no courtesy for abusive accounts". This struck me as vindictive and not a little POINTy, so I reverted him; a brief edit war ensued. I raised the matter with Altenmann on his talk page, and it rapidly became clear that we're not going to come to agreement on this, so I'm reluctantly bringing it to the drama boards. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is going to one way or another find themselves in trouble with ArbCom again if they don't allow it to remain courtesy blanked. Any suspicions regarding sockpuppetry are dealt with via SSP and confirmed sock tags; RFA content is not part of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please write clearly, who is "this user"? - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment is quite clear if you made the effort to read it in full. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is uncivil. Dodging a question is disrespect. - Altenmann >t 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of dodging questions when the answer is perfectly obvious to everyone else reading is uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is obvious, spell it. No, you prefer to have fun of bickering. FUI "Obvious to everyone else" implies that if it is not obvious to me then I am a freaking moron who can be safely beaten on his head without bothering to answer. - Altenmann >t 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My position was explained in my talk page and edit summaries. Instead of countering my argument in a civil way in a talk page, mr Smith engaged in a revert war and escalated to ANI. I am wondering whether he has ulterior motives here in protecting an abusive account, whose dubious actions do not limit to sockpuppetting. I am repeating it again: activities of an abusive account must be searchable. People who abuse wikipedia go lengths to cover their tracks. This is a discourtesy to wikipedia to help them with courtesies. Sockpuppetry is not a mewbie mistake or a heated political or personql discussions a person can just say "sorry" afterwards. Sockpuppetry is a premeditated disruption, and I cannot believe such a person can be reformed and rehabilitated without solid proof. - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I "escalated" to ANI only when it became apparent that, owing to our very differing perspectives on the importance of punishing Enemies of Wikipedia, we were not going to come to agreement ourselves. Your suggestion of "ulterior motives" on my part is bizarre and not worth a response. Steve Smith (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "ulterior motives" was a logical consequence of your apparent lack of desire to carry out a civilized discussion between two colleague wikipedians. It seems that you base your actions on reading other's mind, rathren than on an open and honest discussion. I am ready to talk to you about guilt and punishment in wikipedia. However it is irrelevant to my clearly stated reason: it was not punishment, it was accountability. More details of my position are in this section. And I don't see anybody really countering my arguments. - Altenmann >t 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You talk about Steve Smith's ulterior motives, then accuse him of basing his actions on reading others mind? The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from your responses is that you are making chronic assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not making assumptions: I am making conclusions: the person refused to engage in an exchange of arguments, of kind what is going on here. Are you saying he did it of good faith? It is "apparent" to him that we cannot come to common conclusions, without a single exchange "argument-counterargument". Call it "reading my mind" or "jumping to conclusions", whatever; you seem to know English way better than me. - Altenmann >t 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) courtesy blanked the RFA on 18 July 2009. Over the last 48hrs, you have unilaterally attempted to unblank the RFA without discussing it (or "exchanging arguments") with Bibliomaniac15 or anyone else. In doing so, your edit appeared pointy, and was reverted. Instead of correcting your approach and starting a discussion with Bibliomaniac15, Steve Smith, or a general one on the RFA talk page, you reverted again demanding that Steve Smith ask you what you were attempting to do. Steve Smith once again reverted as it was considered sensitive enough to be blanked when it was. He also formally asked you on your talk page for an explanation. Instead of discussing this with him and coming to a consensus, you provided one reply, and chose to continue reverting - that method of communication is neither appropriate, nor acceptable in Wikipedia, especially for administrators. Steve Smith was left with no alternative but to bring it here when your communication was so exceptionally problematic that no consensus could emerge. It appears that you were making assumptions that Steve Smith would automatically agree with your reply - the fact is he did not, and you exercised poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

(edit conflict) Indeed, they are searchable. The entire history of the RfA is available to anyone who clicks on the "history" tab. TNXMan 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

If I understand the discussion at User talk:Altenmann correctly; the reason you want to unblank this after so many months is because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now? Can you give some more details about that? If he is, direct action will probably be more useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the issue. - Altenmann >t 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think that the question of whether you're resurrecting the blanked RfA of a long-gone, inactive user who wishes only to disappear, or a currently disruptive user, is kind of important to this issue. Plus, if there is disruption happening now, I think we'd all like to stop it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really. If I had more to say, I'd have done this in an appropriate place. I stated my reasons several times. - Altenmann >t 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, many important arbitration cases are courtesy blanked, despite some of the most problematic users extreme socking. So the argument that "searches in histories are extremely tedious" really isn't going to justify edit-warring to resurrect a courtesy blanked RFA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The last known SY citing was as User:Larry Sanger must be heard at 16:57, 8 April 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This confirms my suspicions that this "disappeared" user is alive and roaming wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you would've expected a user to be dead merely because they thought they were invoking their right to vanish from Wikipedia. The account Hipocrite refers to has not edited Wikipedia for the last 7 months; FisherQueen's question remains unanswered by you despite being relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with expectations. It is about testing a hypothesis, whether the vanished person did it for good or just hiding their tracks. - Altenmann >t 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The last edit made by the account associated with the RFA candidate was in April. You have repeatedly unblanked the RFA after so many months because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now. Can you explain why you think so - that is, what other accounts do you think are associated with the RFA candidate? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the issue. See above. I gave my reasons. In addition to the above, given the amount of wikilawyering, I don't want face accusations of personal attacks if I start venting my suspicions without solid proofs. - Altenmann >t 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good faith concerns are unlikely to be passed off as personal attacks unless no reasonable person would find your suspicions justifiable or understandable. WP:SSP explains that "solid proofs" is not what is required. Answers to my (and FisherQueen's) question remains very relevant to the incident you've created here - your refusal to answer it further highlights problems with the community's ability to communicate with you. If you are unable to answer my question, then you need to self-revert this edit that you made to avoid escalating this further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My ability to communicate with aggressive and biased wikilawyers is limited. Your behavior further convinces me that posting any suspicions about existing accounts will bring me only more grievance. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to being called an "agressive and biased wikilawyer" for asking what I believe to be a very reasonable question. I object, on a less personal level, to your continuing to refuse to answer the question in any way, or even to give a hint of why you don't want to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to notice that it was not you who was addressed as wikilawyer. Please also care to notice that the sidetracking activities of this person prevented you from seeing my further answer to your question. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see an answer to the question of which user you think is a sockpuppet of the person in question; the only thing even a little relevant to the question that I see is the information that he was active seven months ago, before the RfA was blanked, but that didn't come from you and doesn't indicate how the person is disrupting now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to give any arguments as to why this particular RfA deserves to be courtesy blanked? I have no reason to be on Altenmann's side here, but it seems like a silly argument - beating around the periphery on searchable pages or past Arbcom cases - when there's really no good reason for this to have happened in the first place. Tan | 39 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

By that reasoning, we would blank ANI on a regular basis. Even the policy itself does not say that we do it solely as a "courtesy"; it needs to be fair. I don't see any reason why it is "unfair" to leave this RfA unblanked. Tan | 39 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't overly happy with the results of my RfA, can we courtesy blank it too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, mine too while were at it. --SKATER ^Speak. 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some insight from the admin who courtesy blanked the RFA may be of value, here. Was there discussion at the time? Also, I'm still unclear on the purpose served by un-blanking it - is there evidence of current or recent shenanigans that evidence at an old RFA would support? The evidence remains in the history, if it is necessary for some ongoing project (like filing an RFAR, for example), and blanking or unblanking the page does not change that. The candidate's issues are well-documented indeed, it seems unlikely that someone inclined to research them would not find the RFA. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. History search is not as easy as it seems. It took me quite some time to find this particular blanked page when I was researching this account. (May be it was because I am that stupid...) - Altenmann >t 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question. Does blanking hide the page in some way or does it just mean that one has to click on the history to see the content? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It does hide the page from web-based search tools, unless one writes a smart bot to search page histories, but this would place a big burden on wikipedia servers. - Altenmann >t 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know that. In which case I would support unblanking the page (unless there are other undisclosed reasons for blanking) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA pages are not indexed anyway, so blanking/unblanking doesn't make a difference as far as search engines are concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the same goes for arbitration pages, even though they are routinely courtesy blanked. Perhaps requesting clarification from arbs on why they do so will help clarify the content issue here. In the meantime, there are conduct issues which the user is not acknowledging, and appears unlikely to address them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest ignoring the conduct issue. Altenmann unblanked the page and was reverted with the summary "I have no idea what you're trying to do here." He/she got miffed, reverted, and suggested asking first. Steve Smith asked and immediately reverted. The entire situation was less than optimal but totally understandable since the two editors were approaching the unblanking with entirely different world views. Best to let it pass. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The conduct issue goes beyond mere edit-warring and it is within this very discussion. It is the admin-corps refusal to consistently enforce civility policy at these noticeboard discussions that has led to the perception that ANI and dispute resolution needs to be restructured, and the other perception that admins are incapable of enforcing much of anything. I guess it would be entirely understandable if someone criticised you for actions you (didn't) take, and you turned around and called them an aggressive and biassed self-appointed wikilawyer - not just once either. And let's just imagine you were admonished by ArbCom "to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding your actions"; that should be ignored because it doesn't bring the project into disrepute? Nevertheless, I will follow your suggestion - for the record, that means I am washing my hands of this thread completely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think the point is that most people are not inclined to do the research so it should be easy for them to see the history of the user. That said, almost anyone who sees a 'courtesy blanked' will know to look at the history (and that blanking ==> messy!). I don't see the big deal in blanking but I can see the point that obviously disruptive editors should not be automatically entitled to 'courtesy'.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Is Shalom Yechiel the editors real name ? If so I am all in favor of courtesy blanking. If not, and especially if the user hasn't truly vanished, why are arguing over this ? Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

...Don't mean to be blunt, but I would much rather not waste time with this quibbling. Quite frankly it's not my concern whether it stays blanked or if it doesn't, it would be Shalom's concern. As he has not edited in seven months, and there is no evidence so far that he has returned, don't see what the fuss is all about. Everything is still in the history, as long as nothing is deleted there really isn't a difference. Do what you will, but leave me out of this. bibliomaniac15 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Concern regarding the use of admin powers by Protonk

Resolved

There is no need for any admin action at this time, if further discussion of Chil of Midnight's actions are needed, an RFC is the place for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted my edits with insulting edit comment, rather than discussing the issue. Immediately after that he protected the page. This act is an abuse of admin privileges. I request Protonk reprimanded and his actions undone. - Altenmann >t 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• that was fast. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I think it would be best to unprotect so we can all avoid another drama? Or not. Anyway, it doesn't look great that you reverted and then protected. But maybe there is a good explanation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clean and simple abuse of admin powers, according to an unambiguous wikipedia policy. Do you want me to cite it or you know where it sits yourself? A "good explanation" in such cases must be imminent threat of disruption of wikipedia, no less. You call it derisively "drama". I call it blatant disregard of a fellow wikipedian. - Altenmann >t 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Protonk was not an involved/intersted party, no admin abuse to be seen here. He performed an administrative action (reverting to status quo ante and protecting the page) to end a silly revert war. Shereth 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

There was no edit warring when protonk jumped in; moreover, talks were started in a section above. - Altenmann >t 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was no edit warring why was the page protected? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the above thread. This should probably be combined with that one as they are related. It doesn't look like any answer is going to be forthcoming from you or Protonk on why he deemed it appropriate to revert to his preferred version of a dispute page and then to protect it. I think some acknowledgment from Protonk that unilateral reverting and protecting of disputed pages is improper, otherwise he needs to be blocked for the prevention of any further damage or disruptiong of the encyclopedia. I suggested an acknowlegment of the mistake here right off the bat, but unfortunately he's stuck to his guns so far. That's distressing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Shereth here. I don't think Protonk's action here was problematic. He was uninvolved in the dispute. He returned the page to its pre-existing state (status quo ante) and then protected it, presumably to prevent a similar edit war from occurring over the page in the future. If his protection after reversion is that big of a deal (although I don't think it is), it is easily remedied. I have undid his protection and reimposed it. Now I'm the one who has protected the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about here:

1. Bibliomaniac (admin) decides to courtesy-blank it.
2. Altenmann decides Bibliomaniac had no right to do so, and rather than discussing it, unilaterally overrides (incredibly disrespectful).
3. Steve Smith tries to fix it, returning to how it had rested for over a year, and Altenmann wars.
4. Protonk restores it to the previous admin-set status, and protects it against further inappropriate edits.

How is bookkeeping a 'content dispute'? Are you saying I can open up old arbcom cases and try adding more evidence or arguments after they're closed? Point is, this isn't an article, or even a discussion page. It's a closed RfA. Just because someone got it into his head that he can screw around with it a year after the fact doesn't suddenly mean that all admins are somehow barred from correcting its status and protecting. Yeesh, lighten up. :)
(On a side note: the edit summary is not insulting. WP:LAME is a classic wikipedia commentary on when people are squabbling over something of little to no importance. I think the precise mechanism for treating a year-old RfA certainly qualifies. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that when there is a dispute editors are expected to use dispute resolution. Admins are not above the rules. If they want to engage in the discussion great. If they want to mediate, fantastic. But they are expected to refrain from imposing their preference and then using their tools. Doing so is abuse, plain as it comes, whether we agree or disagree with the version they choose to enforce or their logic for doing so. Process needs to be respected otherwise the common editor gets shat on as we've seen repeatedly recently. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• As noted last night, this is CoM's new and self-appointed role; AN/I gadfly, with these insipid calls for blocks of admins who do things he doesn't like. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly constructive, Tarc. I still assume CoM is acting entirely in good faith; I'm just not sure I agree with the point here is all.

CoM: Seriously, if I decide to go to old Arbcom cases and start adding more evidence to old cases, just because I think it's better that way, should I really be allowed to do that? Because I don't personally see this as a content dispute. An admin decided how to leave the RfA. A year later, after there was nothing of value to be gained, altenmann gave a figurative "screw you" to bibliomaniac and unilaterally changed it. All protonk did is enforce the clerical decision of bibliomaniac (at least, in my view).

So maybe it'd help if you do tell me what should be done if I start editing old (long-closed) arbcom cases? Let me do it until absolutely all possible discussion has been exhausted? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; and ChildofMidnight, I suggest that you do make an effort to be a little bit more reasonable in your demands. Protonk did not protect the version "he preferred", he protected the status quo ante version, which is really the fairest thing for an admin to do in the circumstances. Otherwise it rewards the user who was edit warring who performed the last edit and punishes the user who "gave up" on the edit war. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Since you are giving an admin a choice, it rewards admin's tastes. "WRONG VERSION" rule was introduced for a reason. What is more, nobody "gave up", but rather initiated a discussion with broader participation, which is in fact a commendable act, and by the way, recommended in wikipedia guidelines. Good Ol’factory's reprotection is an instructive example of "admin cabal" buddy-buddy in action. - Altenmann >t 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am out of here, disgusted. - Altenmann >t 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann is absolutely correct. We, mere peon editors, have all had the "WRONG VERSION" mantra lectured at us, yet when an admin wants the "status quo ante" version they can just revert and protect. Could someone please point to the policy page that suggests it's okay for admins to revert to "status quo ante" in a dispute? If there isn't one then it's clear abuse. And Admins abusing their tools in this way is not appropriate and neither is making up rules and excuses as you go along to support one another. The fact is that was a dispute over which page of the version should be maintained (see above thread for arguments on both sides) so Protonk had no business imposing his preferred version and then protecting. I'm sorry, but it's indefensible (unless of course there is in fact a "status quo ante" policy, is that latin for Admins get to decide how they want things because they're the ones with tools?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I really was asking seriously earlier. (I know I sometimes come across as hostile or 'troll-y', but it's really not intentional) Would you still be having this conversation if I wanted to start adding evidence to an old (long-closed) arbcom case? or a closed poll that had already finished? Or would you concede that there's such a thing as bookeeping, that I don't get to interfere with? 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your question is that it doesn't have anything to do with propriety of the admin action that took place in this instance. The page was not archived, it was a courtesy blanked RfA. And the dispute was over whether it should be blanked or not. So Protonk acted improperly by deciding that it should be blanked, making it so, and then protecting it. He is welcome to use dispute resolution, to mediate, or to protect the "wrong" version. But it's not okay for him to impose his will because he happens to have tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

How about this? I'll take responsibility for protecting it. I didn't participate in that RFA, I didn't participate in the courtesy blanking, I didn't participate in this dramabomb, but I am bloody well sick and tired of you, CoM, creating strife and discontent on AN/I every single day. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban proposed

I would like to propose a topic ban on ChildofMidnight; CoM is prohibited from posting to any administrator noticeboards or their talk pages for a period of six months. Input requested. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I may have slightly overstated the severity (stupid mistake confession: I read "or their talk pages" as referring to the talk pages of all admins, rather than the noticeboards). But I still think this is a very dangerous idea.

Even though I think CoM has been 'calling out' far too many people lately, I still believe there lies great value in accountability. Even accountability to the somewhat paranoid. Banning anyone who criticizes the 'higher-ups' here sends a very bad message.

I guess I can sum it up this way: If CoM is being so disruptive and is interfering so much with the ability to get things done, there must be specific actionable... uh... actions. If not, that suggests that you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. :) I just don't see such a drastic action being in the best interests of the project as a whole. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Like CoM, you fail to understand the enormous diversity of opinions even within the admin corps, let alone the wider community. If something is wrong, you can be pretty sure you'll be called out on it rationally, and you should have to justify yourself to that. But right now CoM's commentary is, as you note, extremely paranoid and factually sloppy. His wildly OTT cries of "INAPPROPRIATE DESYSOP OMG" are simply disrupting the smooth functioning of process ,and are actually hindering normal review processes: I know I'd be much less likely to voice an opinion critical of an admin's action if CoM had earlier posted one of his rants, not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as such silliness. Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would request that you be a bit more cordial with your replies. You've already referred to Soxwon as "doing a CoM", and now you're lumping me in with him/her as well, in addition to telling me what I 'fail to understand'. I fully sympathize that you are dealing with very different personalities at the moment, and it's hard to keep matching your tone to the particular person you're addressing, but I'm taking great pains to be fair and respectful to all parties (whether I agree with them or not), and I'd ask you to do the same. That includes not painting myself and Soxwon with the same brush as CoM.

Back on topic, I'm not claiming that CoM is currently making very good assertions, but I feel the ability to do so is very important. So what if CoM cries,"DESYSOP! DESYSOP!"? If the cry is absurd, then it will be recognized as such. That small act is a small price to pay for the knowledge that anyone, however misguided, can always call for accountability, even when everything's pretty much fine.

Let's use this original thread as an example. Protonk makes a good decision. Two editors find fault with it. The rest applaud it. No harm done.

New version to consider: Protonk makes the same decision. The moment CoM criticizes it, he/she is banned from ever expressing dissent again. How would that make Protonk's action look? So long as I'm allowed to say that Protonk abused his(her?) power, it's easy for his actions to stand up to the highest scrutiny. But the instant you discourage scrutiny, you surrender credibility.

Sorry, but when I look at what would be gained, an what would be lost, it seems like an easy decision to me. That said, a RfC may very well be in order. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for causing offence. I think it is a good illustration of how memes CoM spreads can easily catch on, like the "admin hivemind" meme: it might seem superficially attractive, but 5 minutes investigated reveals it to be very silly. Nevertheless, I am sorry.

The problem here is time-wasting. If we endorse a culture whereby all admin actions are automatically suspect until proven otherwise, then we also endorse a culture whereby each admin has to defend their actions at enormous length in the face of even the most implausible allegations, which leads to enormous loss of time and significant brain drain from the encyclopedia. As we can see at a recent thread here, CoM's repeated refusal to understand a very basic point (how nationalist POV-pushers are dealt with, and more basically the fundamental nature of consensus) led to an enormous drain of time from multiple admins who would far rather be doing something else. There comes a point when scrutiny so ill-directed is not scrutiny, but simply time-wasting, and hence disruptive. Moreschi (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize greatly, I really do. (I'll concede that I didn't even read it all. I got down as far as FPaS making it clear that the comments were unwelcome, and the next couple of responses, and felt pretty confident that I got the gist of it) At the very least, I don't think this is the best venue for deciding what to do about it. I know it's been said before, so I'll say it again: RfC. You really may have a very good argument here, but I'd feel more comfortable with it being handled formally, rather than an admin 'laying the smackdown' on the admin noticeboard in response to criticism of admins. (I don't doubt that you can probably get the result you're looking for, so couldn't you give RfC a try? Or am I still a bit too naive as to how effective RfCs actually are?) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

No, I don't think so. Please take a look at the discussions currently appearing on the AN/I page, and note how many of them CoM has been at the center of. His behavior is disruptive, and topic bans are an appropriate method of dealing with disruption. He is a good content contributor, but his participation on AN/I (in particular) is a huge time-sink. Horologium (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

CoM has accused Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) of admin abuse (has nothing to do with Malleus), accused Protonk (talk · contribs) of admin abuse (has nothing to do with Malleus), has called for the desysop of Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) (repeatedly in the same thread, which is only tangentially related to Malleus), and participated in three separate threads about Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs); those are just the threads in which he has multiple contributions. (I note now that the FPAS thread has been archived, as it's more than 12 hours since the last post.) Horologium (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

You're being nonsensical, this discussion is taking place. There has been no warning for the behaviour, no RFC/U, nothing. This is absolute horse waste Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The only reason I have not turned the RFC into a blue link is because I have an extremely limited history with CoM, and am unable to certify an RFC, one of the requirements to file. An RFC is not a prerequisite for a topic ban, although it would be if I was proposing a siteban. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One rule for Prof. R. Brews another rule for ChildofMidnight here on Wikipedia. Was RickK right after all? Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

May I suggest that we read WP:WRONG prior to making sweeping judgments about what is/isn't a content dispute and what does or does not constitute a "preferred revision"? Protonk (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just as we don't jump straight to arbitration, we also should not jump to a community sanction without attempting dispute resolution first. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight would be a good place to start. If the user gets feedback, perhaps they will agree to improve their style and no sanctions will be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit early even for that. The situation is unique in that two of CoM's have been blocked and/or brought under extremely close scrutiny almost simoultaneously. How about letting the situation blow over before starting yet another ill-planned and rather drama-ridden RFC/U.

Also as a side note, since BaseballBugs has been sanctioned from discussing CoM, I think it a good idea to mention that he strongly opposes this block, or anyone being topic-banned from AN/I. Soxwon (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this thread is being used by those with vendettas against me. Moreschi is upset because I objected to him calling a good faith editor's work "lunacy" and then blocking them indefinitely when there was an arbitration under way (which they can no longer participate in directly). I am not a party to that dispute, but blocking those we disagree with is not appropriate. Admins need to use dispute resolution just like the rest of us. Bigtimepeace is a long time liberal POV pusher who has repeatedly come after me and other editors whose opinions he disagrees with. He doesn't like that I insist we abide by our core NPOV policy. Bigtimepeace doesn't agree with it and has bragged about being to the left of Obama politically, and attempted to impose his will with intimidation and bullying tactics.

Thanks to everyone who has stood up for the principle that editors need to be allowed to voice opinions and concerns. I'm certainly not perfect. I will try to limit my comments here for a while. But I think my take on Protonk's protecting a page that he just reverted, indefinite blocks and month-long blocks of editors (who haven't engaged in major policy violation policies) and whose work is attacked as lunacy, is inappropriate. These improper actions are being carried out by a small number of highly disruptive admins, and I think it is important and worth bringing these problems to the community's attention. Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions. My talk page is always open to courteous and collegial contributor interested in improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that CoM is correct as a matter of policy, such a ban seems like a really bad idea. I don't think that CoM's comments above exactly help his case but that's a separate issue... JoshuaZ (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out, for the record as it were, that ChildofMidnight's description of my actions is utter and complete fantasy. Literally everything he said is incorrect, but I won't respond in any detail (interested parties with questions can feel free to ask at my talk page) because as always C of M prefers to carelessly fling accusations without providing any evidence (Moreschi's note above that C of M has been "lazily firing off blanks" provides only the latest example in a very long line of vague, unsupported, utterly over the top harangues which ChildofMidnight tosses in the direction of most anyone with whom he disagrees—a fairly large WikiProject could be set up composed solely of editors who have been on the receiving end of this stuff). The behavior has gone well past being merely tiresome and is at the core of the problem here, which has been ongoing for many months and apparently shows no sign of stopping. My offer to sign off on a user conduct RFC still stands (though it's been awhile since I've had direct interaction with C of M, which might be an issue), however I'm not going to initiate anything unless others who have tried and failed to resolve the issues with C of M are also willing to do so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 6 November 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.

Fort Hood Shootings

Resolved

Could I get some extra admins to watchlist Fort Hood shooting? Obviously, dramatic and horrific and appalling, and definitely a high traffic page as facts come out. Some extra eyes would help to head off problems (particularly BLP) before they become severe. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected in response to IP vandalism, but, I agree. *watchlists*--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is engaging in edit warring at this article, and also is making edits with no edit summaries. Talk page consensus is against the odd and awkward style of reference formatting he is using, and yet he is seemingly ignoring this and instead reverting, edit warring to remove {{reflist}} style formatting, and reverting the addition of a {{cleanup}} tag for this same issue. I'm taking a break for a while, but really this is not the most appropriate way for an editor to conduct oneself, especially one that also protected the same article they are now editing and engaging in disruption on. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty whirlwind over there for the time being as it just happened, fyi. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stricken, he appears to be willing to discuss on the talk page now. :) Cirt (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not it is 2-2 at the moment. And you should AGF rather than post to my talk page accusing me of edit warring. And rather than posting here while I am still writing a reply on the article talk page. The solution I am using is manifest good sense for the article at the moment - the {{Reflist}} I put earlier was repeatedly being broken by the pace of editing on the article. See the article talk page and my talk and Cirt's talk for more if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

You kept editing and reverting without edit summaries, after I had posted to your talk page multiple times asking you to stop and instead discuss on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not blow this out of proportion. I've been there the whole time, and it's a simple misunderstanding. Everyone is discussing now, so let it go. Certainly no need for an ANI thread on either the reverts or the (relatively low) level of vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. :) Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GetJar

Resolved

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

Deleted again by Orangemike. TNXMan 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Salted. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wick vandalism - possible Barney Bunch activity

Resolved

Extended content

Someone has severely vandalized the Characters section of The Drew Carey Show. I think it may be yet another Barney Bunch target, because it was only targeted at Mr. Wick and most of it is very vulgar. However, some of it was very random (something about him going to an Avenged Sevenfold concert) or sexual (his "ability to make teenagera splooge with his accent"). This leads me to think there may have been more than one person at work there. I'm putting the article on my Watch List under my username (I'm not logged in, but I will). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.48.210 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and warned for blatant vandalism.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of a September indef block of User: Redking7

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

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

Considering that they've been evading their block within the last week (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7/Archive)? Unlikely, I would have thought. Block log is fairly impressive too. Black Kite 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

If I'd know about the September blocking, my 'first' advice would've been don't evade the block (i.e. socking). GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for Redking7's September block is given over at User talk:Redking7#Status as of November 6. I'm aware of his case since I blocked him once due to 3RR violation over the status of consulates in Taiwan. He kept fighting this issue for an entire year, and declined to follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a long length of time has gone by and he still declines to follow the steps of WP:DR as you put it, it would be amazing to see him change his tune now. Unfortunatley, that is how it ususally goes, although one would never know in this crazy world that is Wikipedia...--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 and the British and Irish motorway drama again

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:AE.

Last month there was considerable drama surrounding the naming of articles about motorways and major roads in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. See for example Talk:N11 road (Ireland), Talk:M1 motorway, Talk:M3 motorway, Talk:M18 motorway, Talk:M50 motorway. There was a lot of heat and drama, and accusations of racism and bias, especially from user:Sarah777. Sarah was subject to an arbitration ruling in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted) that stated "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.".

Today, after several weeks of relative quiet, Sarah posted a new section on talk:N11 road (Ireland) entitled "Anglo bias proven beyond any reasonable doubt" [2]. The aim of this section appears to be to try and get the article moved to the primary topic, despite a requested move discussion closing as "no consensus to move" less than a month ago. The drama first time involved several controversial page moves and requests move discussions.

It might or might not be coincidental that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2 was closed earlier today.

Please could a admin who was not involved in the earlier drama take a look and try to prevent another flare up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You're one of the people who brought that RFC against Sarah777, correct? You didn't notify Sarah777 of this thread, did you? And you're in a content disagreement with her, correct? If there is an arbitration ruling in effect, why did't you request enforcement at WP:AE? Your post raises doubts that should be answered before any action is considered. If the editor is on edge because she was the subject of an RFC, I think we should give her a chance to calm down and think about the feedback, rather than adding more pressure. I think this thread is much more likely to create drama than to avoid it. I recommend you drop the matter, and we'll see if she is willing to drop it as well. Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochmann. --John (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah777

I went to the N11 to make a change and saw the tag and wondered why it was still there. Then I saw the "move request" box and scanned through, realised (anew) that the case for N11 primacy was at least as clear-cut as the British roads articles whose move was opposed (by many of the same editors). So this move, like the blocking of British road moves, is simply down to the national perspective of the bigger group of editors. The "quality" of the arguments was obviously completely ignored by the closing editor. He saw a sea of "oppose" and said "no consensus". This episode was a stunningly clear demonstration of British bias imposed on Irish articles on Wiki - and of how it works by simple force of numbers. I pointed that out. In the greater debate about WP:NPOV these examples will one day be necessary evidence. I had (and have) no intention of attempting to move the article again. And could someone please tell me how pointing out British bias, where it clearly exists, is an "anti-British remark"? If I said Jack the Ripper was British is that anti-British remark? As for dropping it; I wasn't intending to move any Irish roads articles to primacy, simply because the attempt will fail. There is a coalition of people who support universal dabbing (such as BHG) and there are the editors who insist on primacy for major English roads. The combined effect is that major Irish roads must be dabbed and major English roads cannot be dabbed. I think it was important that this situation was highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this will put new light into this discussion. And the answer to your question, no, saying that Jack the Ripper was British is not an anti-British remark at all. Heck, I don't even think that saying George W. Bush is an American would be considered an Anti-American remark (let's hope not anyway). Pointing out a possible bias issue on Wikipedia is good. There is WP:NPOV to follow after all. You just need to be careful that it doesn't look like you are pushing bias into the other direction, if you know what I mean. Not that I am saying you are doing so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Major British roads are dabbed. The A1 is a major road linking London and Edinburgh, It is not at A1 road, but at A1 road (Great Britain). This is quite correct as it is found in two countries, England and Scotland. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Found in Edinburgh, Scotland to be exact, as you said. Two countries. Yes...The link that you provided to A1 Road (Great Britain) does in fact say so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting another admin to take ownership of my block

Resolved

 – Graeme Bartlett has done this. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Fred1296 (talk · contribs) for 3rr on George Carlin (the diffs should be obvious in the page history) and then started tracing his editing history to see about a sockpuppetry claim made in this AFD (sockpuppetry almost certain). In the process of doing so, I checked Lexis for other sources for Chris Rush, the current version of which Fred1296 wrote. I expected to bring the article to AFD. Instead I found enough reliable sources establishing notability, so I added them to the article. Some of them make the article more negative than as originally written. As such, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I'd like another admin to take ownership of the 3rr block (just edit block settings and stick your name in the log). Alternatively, if for some reason you don't think a block was warranted, please unblock the editor with my blessing. I'm perhaps being overly cautious, but this was a simple 3rr block, so I don't think it'll take you long to review it either way. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for being respectful and considerate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have re blocked, a bit shorter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hosiery

Resolved

195.138.71.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) admits to being CSOWind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading a block for purposes of disruption and promotion. Please do the needful. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. TNXMan 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of violation of outing policy

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

 – Nothing to see here, folks. HalfShadow (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I request that you look at Talk:Charles Karel Bouley (section "Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring"). The user Joy Diamond has for the third time in a month outed me and posted personal information as a way to garner sympathy for her case. She is, in my opinion, obsessed with one article (Charles Karel Bouley and is, in her latest comments at the above talk page, using personal information about my involvement in Usenet to prejudice administrators against my continued participation in editing the above named article. In the past, she has revealed my full, legal name to others in Wikipedia and this is the second occasion where she has named me as a participant in Usenet. I have informed her each time that she has violated Wikipedia's outing policy. I'd appreciate a sincere effort to look into this and respond appropriately. I have informed the user on her talk page that I am reporting this here. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific diffs of the alleged outings would be useful here. Tan | 39 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your username: Kelly A. Siebecke. It seems to me you have no problem with divulging your real name. You appear to accuse User:JoyDiamond of calling you Kelly Siebecke on talk pages. I really can't see how any outing has occurred since no non-public information has been revealed.--Atlan (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

She divulged my full legal name (middle name was included) in addition to revealing that I contribute to Usenet and to what groups I contribute. She has revealed that I used to contribute to a chat room (albeit four years ago) and was banned. This is all personal information not related to my participation in Wikipedia. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Below is the list of violations (of which I have found one more, raising the number to four incidents) -

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting off-wiki behavior is not covered by WP:OUTING. Your username is a volunteering of your name. I see no violation of Wikipedia policy. Tan | 39 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I feel compelled to point out that the only reason it 'raised to four incidents' is that she chose to list one of the links twice (the first and the third are the same). I don't think that really counts. 209.90.135.222 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? My legal name is not my user name. My legal name includes my middle name. Off-wiki activities - whether virtual/internet or not - is covered in the policy under "or other contact information" (especially since that contact in Usenet is through my email address). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking from the perspective of an oversighter, none of the diffs listed above would qualify in any shape or form for oversighting, as they are information revealed by the editor both on-wiki and in other forums. There is no outing here. Risker (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have NEVER posted my full, legal name in Wikipedia (the 'A' could stand for many other names beginning with 'A' other than what my middle name actually is). Middle names get outsiders access to all kinds of things in this computer age, after all. Revealing my middle name has the potential of subjecting me to harassment off of Wikipedia. I have NEVER discussed or revealed my participation in Usenet in Wikipedia. Revealing that I am a participant in Usenet has the potential of revealing my email address(es) and further harassment off of Wikipedia. I have NEVER mentioned in Wikipedia that I have taken part in a particular chat room and been banned. That was personal information. These things are all *personal* information that should never have been revealed and these things were revealed by the user I have reported for outing - I don't get why you keep insisting otherwise...? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm... if you think your middle name is that valuable, you probably shouldn't include the initial. That said, a google of your name (without even bothering with the initial at all) yields wikipedia, and then a page stating your middle name. Since you've also chosen to include where you live on your username, it makes it easier to verify on that other page.

In other words, you've already voluntarily revealed your name, as well as, in essence, your entire middle name. (at least, within the realm of people who know what 'google' is) Also, don't you want to retract your claim that you have four examples? Leaving it up there doesn't look very good. 209.90.135.222 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The OUTING policy, which you link above, specifically lists contact information as being covered. Hence, "Usenet participant" is not a violation, and being banned on an external chat room is not a violation, just as it wasn't a violation of the policy for Steve Black to mention in my RFA that I had been briefly banned from his wiki for vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I can accept that. However, that does not change the fact that this user did violate the outing policy by using my full, legal name in the past. Whether or not that is dealt with at this time...? Whatever. But being told repeatedly that I have given my full legal name here when I have not and that there was no violation is ridiculous at best. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how someone else can 'out' you when you've already outed yourself. If you want your real identity to be a secret at Wikipedia, you should probably request a change of username. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the policy clearly states "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." I have NEVER posted the info that was revealed about me in Wikipedia. Your personal interpretation of what I should have done or shouldn't have done in regard to my personal information in Wikipedia doesn't matter. The policy is clear and my privacy was violated. Further, it would seem to me that as an administrator, you would be more prudent about observing Wikipedia's policy of assume good faith and no personal attacks (which you completely ignored with your snarky comments above). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you sure you aren't confusing Sarek with me? Because 'snarky' sounds a lot more like me than him. (I don't try to be snarky, mind you. But I definitely hear it a lot) 209.90.135.222 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this at all. You are all supposed to be administrators, but your behavior and the manner in which you have conducted yourselves here along with you dismissal of my valid complaint is beyond childish. Aren't administrators supposed to model appropriate behavior in dealing with issues? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the point is that you can not reasonably expect to use Kelly A. Siebecke as a username with no one curious about who you are not looking up your name on Google. Also, I'd like to point out that by bringing this issue to ANI, you are in fact ensuring that this outing is known to an even larger audience. Which makes me wonder whether you're after getting the outing corrected, or just out to get the outer punished?--Ramdrake (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I don't care if the person who made the violation is "punished". I care that everyone here has summarily dismissed my complaint as valid (which it is - you can't interpret the rules to suit you as you please based on something you assume I did or didn't do) and that you have all essentially banded together to mock me. At this point, the title "Administrator" in my opinion is a joke. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my response certainly was not mocking you. However, posts like the preceding one would seem not to be WP:BEANS-compliant... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, we are not "all supposed to be administrators" here - the IP is certainly not. But I agree - your complaint is legalistic. Given your user name and sig, the "outing" did not reveal significant information. We don't work by the letters of our rules, but by the spirit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What??? You don't work by the established rules but by whatever mood strikes you all? Give a break. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is obviously exactly what I wrote. We also have Sigmund Freud's ghost roll dice every 20 minutes to determine our collective mood, which is then distributed to all contributors via telepathy. Furrfu! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget about the Death-Ray Unicorns. HalfShadow (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think we're done here. HalfShadow (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The two users in question routinely battle over the content of Charles Karel Bouley. Each has accused the other of bias, and each has lodged complaints of harassment against the other. These arguments are likely the reason Black Kite has left the article locked as long as he has.[7]

Per the current complaint, JoyDiamond has questioned Kelly A. Siebecke's POV by commenting on Kelly bashing the subject of the article in Internet discussion groups. Similarly, Joy's POV has been in question due to a personal friendship with the subject of the article.

Joy did, at one point, mention Kelly's middle name on her talk page. Joy later removed it, and apologized to Kelly, who accepted said apology.[8] At the time, no complaint of Outing was filed.

Kelly has similarly revealed personal information about Joy (specifically, Joy's education), commenting on how it can be easily found on the Internet. And yes, Kelly has commented on having been banned from a particular chat room.[9]

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

(ec) I do se a potential violation, but it has nothing to do with WP:OUTING. Kelly, you have already given us your full name (except the middle - which could be easily guessed/assumed). Outing cannot ever happen if you have provided the information yourself However, using personal information against you in an argument as an attempt to dissuade you from editing, or to undermine your edits may violate WP:CIVILITY guidelines. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 6 November 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.

Thank you. Finally some helpful and real administrative behavior and assistance. I will take your advice, BWilkins (and shall I assume your first name is Bernard? ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet; advice needed

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

You could file a report at WP:SPI. --Jayron32 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I think they pretty much satisfy the duck test. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth an SPI then? GiantSnowman 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, unless you are concerned that other undiscovered users are them and are disrupting the afd. Both are blocked, and its clear enough that they are the same user in my opinion Syrthiss (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll leave it for now then. If other users/IPs start editing in a similar fashion, I'll take it to SPI. Thanks for your help! Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 ANI resolve abuse and User:Dbachmann semi-protection abuse

Resolved

 – This is non-issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion of the previous ANI, that I filed exclusively against Dbachmann: discussion

Toddst1 resolved the issue with quote "no abuse found"

WP:SEMI states: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.

I challenge the decision made by Toddst1 and want to know a detailed explanation of his action in light of wikipedia semi-protection policies and the previous mentioned discussion. I still request sufficient action against Dbachmann, who accused me in the discussion of edit warring, lawyering etc. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Speak with them individually. This is not the place to discuss this.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If you're right, you'll be able to discuss it on the article talk page, get consensus, and the change will still get made. You ought to do that anyway, before repeatedly reverting to changes when you can see that others disagree with you. I'm an administrator, but I don't know anything about Telegu, so I don't know who's right in this content disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The big deal is, that I already made my point in a summary and Dbachmann ignored it and semi-protected the article.--91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribution history, and I can't see any posts from you at Talk:Telugu language at all. If your goal is to get your desired changes made, that's the place to discuss why they are correct and get consensus for them. I don't think that a conversation about semiprotection rules at WP:ANI will help you get your desired changes into Telegu language as effectively. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused of a lot of shit, but abusing {{resolved}} tags - that takes the cake. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Especially from somebody who claims not to be wikilawyering...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be abusing a {{resolved}} tag here in just a minute. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more of this, and I am not going to agree this is "resolved" unless measures are taken to impress basic wikiquette on 91.130.188.8 (talk · contribs), if necessary using blunt instruments. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It just gets better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And forum shopping at RFPP. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) FWIW, the IP address, in classic forum-shopping mode, asked for unprotection at RFPP. I declined it, and suspect that a block may become necessary, since two AN/I threads and a thread at Talk:Jimbo Wales is not enough drama. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • <facepalm> Yes, that was what I meant. (This is what happens when one is attempting to do several things at once; none of them turn out very well.) Horologium (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I held off commenting on the original thread until DBachman had had a chance to respond. I must now say that I feel that a group of admins seem not to be willing to pay attention to what the OP was complaining about. Yes, plonking a level 3 warning on DB's talk page was not a good idea, nor was the "forum shopping". However, please bear in mind that this is an inexperienced editor (their account has existed for about 3 weeks, with just over 70 edits). Looking at the page in question, I feel that if someone had come to RFPP asking for it to be protected, any of the admins here would have declined, saying that there was insufficient vandalism/edit-warring at this time. Does WP:BITE not apply to editors after their first couple of days? I would count this editor as a newcomer. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Although not an admin, I looked carefully at the contribs and situation. I'm a firm believer in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. An IP editor was bold - inserting information that clearly did not match the sources being used (yes, he did some other edits too). Those edits were harmful to the overall article. Those edits were reverted (which may have reverted some ok edits too as collateral). Without any discussion, the IP reverted that reversion as vandalism - the BRD cycle broken, and no attempts to discuss. At this point (incorrect material, no discussion, calling valid revert "vandalism"), 1+1+1=3 ... time to protect from an editor who clearly was not participating in the cycle. I would highly doubt that the admin was protecting a favoured version, they were protecting from the insertion of bad data that was promoting a specific language. Now, if this were me, and I semi'd an article that I was involved in, I likely would have brought it up here myself to explain and achieve validation of my action. The admin prevented disruption to an article - unfortunately, it was an article they had some involvement in. For the IP to say that they discussed in an edit summary is BS; we discuss on the article talkpage. The additional disruption actions by the IP (opening a new ANI notice against the closer and running to Jimbo because community consensus was against him) merely emphasizes the non-understanding of policy, process, and makes me think we have a WP:SPA who is trying to promote a certain language (as per the article edits), no matter what. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • • WP:BRD is an essay, and not one we can reasonably expect a newbie to have even heard of. WP:SPA from a handful of edits, and then a complaint (with various followups due to poor handling of it) is a ludicrous leap. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • I acknowledge that it's an essay. However, in the IP's first ANI entry, one of my first responses was to read the BRD essay, and re-gauge his anger, and it would have certainly alleviated much of the additional drama that has occurred. They appear to have steadfastly refused to so, although I will AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for your response, Bwilkins. I agree that the protection was to prevent 'bad data' being entered into the article rather than any other motive, and I understand what you are saying - but I still feel that if this had gone to RFPP, the request for protection would have been declined - and I still feel that a newcomer has been harshly treated. I personally wouldn't have semi'd the page (yes, I know I'm not an admin, but I'm talking theoretically!) - I would have given the IP editor a 3RR warning - if they reverted again, then the IP could be blocked for a day (or however long), rather than semi-protecting the page. Just my take on the situation. YMMV -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I notice that Bwilkins said the IP made mistakes and promoted bad data, while the admin was trying to prevent bad data. I looked at the edit as well and see the exact opposite. The edit changed the article to say that Telegu is the third-most spoken language in India rather than the second. The cited source which the IP added, an Indian census page, says that Hindi is the most spoken (257 million), Bengali has 83 million, and Telegu has 74 million speakers. So on that point the IP appears to be correct unless I'm missing something? On the other factual point is ambiguous because no sources are provided. II | (t - c) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • After a futile discussion on dbachmann's user talk page I have unilaterally unprotected the page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

May need mass rollback.

An ip user, 68.193.133.203 has been making over an edit a minute, as can be seen here, adding X danced a Y with Z on Dancing with the Stars to many song pages. I took a random sampling and checked, and could find no sources for any of it. They appear good faith, but no sources, and not being able to find a single source for a random half-dozen sample has me worried. IRC admins directed me here. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What do ya'll think, it's rather fast. [10]. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they're adding references to Dancing with the Stars to every song that was used on that show. Maybe unnecessary, but not vandalism. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did a quick refactor of this, JoeSmack is one of the IRC ops that told me come here, while I was typing, their conflicting edit made me retype. Appended it to what should have been the original notice. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rolled back regardless. The rate is disconcerting, among other things. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought there was an abuse filter to throttle IP edits...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe block him? He seems bot-like, he's not replying to talk pages. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare went ahead and rolled them all back. Tim1357 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Well, it should be fixed soon, since the deletion discussion is pretty much SNOWing to keep... Until the discussion has closed, I've fixed the problem by wrapping the TFD template with noinclude tags on the template itself. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User Softvision on talk pages

(section retrieved from most recent archive - added comment)

User Softvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing talk pages with unsourced original research of the the-article-and-relativity-is-wrong type. He has been warned about this repeatedly by myself and by others ( [11], [12], [13] ). He then goes away, and after a while, returns. Today, after someone else removed his talk page sections, I left some 3rd and 4th level warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removed, toghether with similar warnings by others. A bit later I got this 10-edits string on my talk page. Assuming good faith, I have no other option than to assume wp:NOCLUE. Can someone effectively take some kind of administrative action? DVdm (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to back off on the original research and flooding your talk page. Not sure what good it will do, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks already, but I just got another one. This seems to be a copy of his reply on his talk page. You got another copy on yours, so it seems. DVdm (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit more clear about the likelihood of blocking this time, and reminded him that we both told him to stay off your page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As if nothing happened, Softvision continues with more of the same. DVdm (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what he's saying there; I don't think English is his native language. Maybe we should give the folks on WP:FTN a crack at it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I just posted there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As Softvision seems to mistrust me, I will refrain from commenting there. DVdm (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not suitable for me to play any role in this way. Softvision (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics might be better for similar future incidents, but those are highly watched pages and enough editors seem to be aware of the problem for now. The recent Speed of light arbitration included a WP:NOTFORUM provision but no special enforcement. Would you like to initiate a community ban discussion, or wait a few days to see if the problem of posting unverified fringe material to basic physics articles will sink in? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2over0, I don't know whether you are addressing me, or Softvision, or SarekOfVulcan, but I don't think there's much to discuss anywhere. Anything beyond a simple block is (i.m.o.) going to be a waste of time. DVdm (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Concensus" at Talk:Argleton

Yesterday an editor commented on the talk page that it was inappropriate to categorise the article in Category:Geography of West Lancashire; within two minutes, RaseaC agreed and the category was promptly removed, which is fine. When I saw the edits later in the day I disagreed and restored the category, giving my reason on the talk page, but RaseaC reverted me citing the earlier discussion (such as it was). As the removal was disputed (by me) and there was no clear concensus of opinion, I felt justified in reverting to the status quo in the hope that this would lead to further discussion. RaseaC responded with comments such as "until [someone else agrees with you] then we'll go ahead with what the majority want", and despite stating on my talk page that "I'm not going... to get into a revert war with you here" has nevertheless removed the category again.

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

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

So what now?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster Threats?

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

Someone should probably check up on whatever this is about. I have no idea, nor do I wish to be involved with it. Danger, will robinson... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is outright blackmail. Oversight nuke the diffs, talk page block WebHamster if necessary. This is some serious shit. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how WebHamster is indefinitely blocked (for a long track record of... let's just say incivility), and claims to have left the project anywyas, I would humbly suggest that "it's necessary" (to fully protect the talk page) 209.90.135.222 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Locking his talk page won't change anything as WebHamster said he'd use means other than Wikipedia (that's my interpretation anyway, although he didn't explicitly say that). I don't agree with what WebHamster's suggesting, but considering the campaign of harassment by Yiwentang with some disgusting accusations that had to be oversighted it's not hard to see how he feels he's been pushed to this. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blackmail of whom? Parrot of Doom 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Fully agree with Tznkai's decision. This matter has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Bad-faith RfA, likely by vandal's sock

Resolved

 – All blocked. Brandon (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Loobasooba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a single edit, for has nominated for adminship JoSePh3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who has 25. MISSKITT99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also has precisely one edit, has helpfully decided to answer the Questions for the candidate. Evidently the user can't keep straight who s/he's logged-in as. I think I smell LTA, but can't identify the culprit. The number 99 evidently holds some significance for this editor. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew Wayne Gretzky was no longer coaching the Phoenix Coyotes, but who knew that he'd stoop to vandalism :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you block him, Marty McSorley will not be happy. --Smashville^talk 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia

Resolved

Is a month old today. Will some uninvolved admin make the close? ThemFromSpace 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Corrections on Anastase Gasana Profile. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I love that acronym. I await the day when someone creates a page that acronyms as WP:YOUSTUPIDBASTARD. HalfShadow (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at Special:NewPages

There is a huge backlog at Special:NewPages, both of unreviewed articles and speedied articles. If some admins and users could pay it some special attention, that would be great. I'm logging off now. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I'll have a look for you. GiantSnowman 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Where would the admins be? Not doing work they could be doing? Disappointing.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Our paychecks were late so we called a work stoppage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Cooper joker with multiple IP's

Someone seems to be having fun with the Momentum article.

I reverted an unsourced nonsense edit by 130.184.198.150 (talk) again. Compare with Special:Contributions/Edwardgraef, Special:Contributions/130.184.198.202, Special:Contributions/130.184.202.172.

It is always the same edit, by the same person. He has been warned several times, and just continues as if nothing happens.

Can this be somehow stopped by an administrator? DVdm (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since rangeblocks and the like is beyond my capabilities I semi-protected the article for a week, hoping the individual will get bored and go play elsewhere. I did review the article edit history, and in two weeks there was only 1 ip edit that wasn't vandalism - so I am fairly confident there is going to be little collateral damage with my action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I always wondered what it is that makes subjects like Momentum, Time, Space and Light so attractive to vandals. Bad physics teachers? Very strange. Anyway, I expect this one Will B. Back in about two weeks. DVdm (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Schoolkids tend to pick articles they read I guess. Either "that's what I'm reading so I'll play with it" (why bother finding some *other* article) or "I'll do something my friends will see" (fun/petty rather than insidious vandalism) or occasionally (extension of #2) "I'll change something to play a joke on next kid who reads it". The forgoing is WP:AGF WP:OR obviously. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help of brave admin in merger

I have been asked to merge the edit histories of User:Dagypt/Gender aspects of globalization in China and User:Angelalhan/Gender aspects of globalization in China into that of the article Gender aspects of globalization in China. I have never done a merge in my life, and I have a horrible feeling that I would create a total mess of the matter. Do any of the rest of you, particularly those who have more experience in mergers, feel up to this? If I don't get an answer in the next day or so, I'll try it myself, but I can't guarantee the results will be pretty. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I've probably hosed something up, and generally 'dual' history merges are problematic because of simultaneous editing on different 'parent' pages. I suggest that we write something explaining this in the talk page so that investigating wikipedians don't get confused. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We cannot have admins causing confusion. That would be just immoral now, wouldn't it?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Scott Free

Resolved

Hi,

Today User:Brandon posted the following at the above editor's talk page: I have blocked you for one week, I wasn't kidding. Brandon (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC) No template was placed and the block log states: (Block log); 23:27 . . Brandon (talk | contribs) blocked Scott Free (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: logging out to disrupt User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft). I think further explanation is needed as there seems to be no evidence that User:Scott Free was disruptive or that they were warned. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked Brandon about it? LadyofShalott 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It just seemed irregular to me, no template was used and no warnings had been given - and on the face of it the user doesn't seem to have had anything to do with User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft. I cam across this as I am reviewing an artcile for GA ststus that Scott Free has been working on. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me 8 minutes to respond. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the statement made in the block log is accurate, based on checkuser evidence. Not familiar with the specifics of the case, and short for time, but that much I can say for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but should't a template be used, with information about appeal, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally a block template should be used so that an editor can ask for an unblock, yes. In a situation like this you should leave a note for the admin and wait for them to reply rather than bringing it straight here to ANI—it might well just have been an oversight. There's really nothing to be done here and if a block template still needs to be added simply ask Brandon to do that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I hadn't realised that the blocking procedure was so unstructured, I had assumed that there was some sort of due process, which mandated using templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much that's the deal I think, but ultimately the admin has to remember to do it, and some might forget or occasionally be lax in doing so. That's not the end of the world as I believe blocked users also receive a message while blocked as to what to do if they want to request an unblock, but as I said the best thing to do in this situation is just leave a note for the admin in question. No need for any action here so I'm going to mark this resolved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's a page in my userspace, and Scott would have been more than welcome to comment as himself (and still is), and that I have now semi-protected the page to prevent further such shenanigans, could I request a lowering of the block? I agree that he should spend some time in the corner for being sneaky, but a week seems like a bit much. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review: university wants to be notified of vandalism, not blocked

Resolved

 – No longer an ANI issue. Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The students at Lancaster University have been busy on Wikipedia. While some edits are without doubt constructive, others are far from it. Today's vandalism from 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) includes some really creative stuff. However the IP's talk page also has seven notations indicating that vandalism should be reported to the school rather than on the talk page, and that the university would prefer to deal with it, rather than have us block the IP.

This issue was brought to my attention when I processed a block request for the IP at WP:AIV. While I would normally be inclined to let the university administration deal with the issue, the 13 previous blocks combined with the steady and continuous stream of vandalism (which shows no end in sight) leads me to the conclusion that enough is enough. As such, I have applied a {{schoolblock}} with a one year duration.

Any admin who feels I have been too hasty should feel free to reduce or remove the block as they see fit. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely support this block. Tan | 39 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I saw where the one user claimed that this will block 20000 people. I don't see the problem with that. If they want to edit, they can register an account from elsewhere, and not be inconvenienced. While it is good that they are reacting to it, it does not change the fact that each of those 20000 could potentially make 4+ bad edits, and that quite a few seem to have taken that chance. Sodam Yat (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: and I have to say, we have received no notifications via email. Not one. Apparently the tools that WikiAdmins use (Huggle?) simply revert and write to the page (seems like a bit of a fault to me), so my efforts have been spitting in the wind. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: as things stand at the moment, unless someone here camps on WP all day, vandalism reports will go unnoticed. As the last week has shown, even responding to complaints is not enough. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

←I have notified Steveb (talk · contribs) of this discussion after seeing that they have responded to most of the warnings on the IP's talk page in an official manner indicating that they are an official of the university. (Could this be a shared account? I say that because of the almost constant usage of we in their replies) -MBK₀₀₄ 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: I use the term "we" because I work as part of a team. Steveb is a thinly veiled disguise, my real name is Steve Bennett, I work in ISS (the University IT department). Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation. If a vandal registers, it'll be easier to narrow them down for the administration, I'm thinking. Also: they're students. May as well... Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Makes it harder for us to track, plus they will still get autoblocked... Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• one year is excessive. The students change from year to year, and this year's sins should not be visited on the incoming class also. The block should run at most till the end of the school year this spring. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a British university, so they're only a month into their new academic year. Black Kite 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, DGG - if you want a block to run until the end of the academic year, it would need to be a 9 month block (end of the school year is officially 31st August) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the individual (Steveb) that claims to have jurisdiction over this IP verified their identify with OTRS? Just a thought. Netalarmtrick or treat! 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Steveb, you can read about it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

We see here another edu institution trying to do the right thing - allowing students to edit and taking action against those who are making bad faith edits. It seems to me that WP should welcome this editor, and try and link them with others in similar situaions, and create some policies / guidelines to help them do their jobs and help keep wp clean. Misuse of computers in english unis is taken pretty seriously. Remember Civility (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that obvious sock puppets shouldn't comment on administrative pages. But look, they do anyway. Auntie E. 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a sock, it's an alternate account. Please assume good faith. An apology for you assumption of bad faith and accusation of damaging the project would be nice, but is not expected. Thanks for your contribution, which completely failed to address the problem of edu institutions wanting to help prevent damage from their users on WP, and getting no help to do so. I say, again, we want people like that on WP. Template warnings from NPP get ignored. A letter from your IT security warning you that you may lose your place at uni (which has considerable finanial implications in the UK) would be more effective, no? Remember Civility (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While I am all for the University actively tackling student vandalism on Wikipedia, Lancaster's requested method (emailing details to the security department, rather than leaving messages on the IP's talk page) puts the onus on us, rather than the other way around. I suspect that many vandal fighters (like me) could not do this even if they wanted (because, for example, they can do web browsing from work but do not have access to their personal email accounts). Not to mention the fact that the defacto vandalism procedure on Wikipedia is revert/warn/block, so letting institutions pick a different way for us to handle vandalism coming from their network sounds like a recipe for disaster. If LU really wants to keep tabs on vandalism coming from their network, rather than relying on Wikipedians to send them email about it, perhaps the security department sould consider using the RSS web feed mentioned in the {{sharedIPedu}} header? — Kralizec! (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that suspending or expelling students for ordinary vandalism is an excessive punishment. By contrast, when your IP is blocked, you can still use Wikipedia, just not modify it. Blocking protects Wikipedia without serious real-life consequences. Bwrs (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think we would expel a student for adding rude words to a WP article?? Normally just getting someone face-to-face is sufficient to make them realise that computer misuse has real-world consequences. Steveb (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see Steve is trying his best here. If all of those students who need to edit WP register with an account, will the subsequent block on the Uni's IP prevent those who have registered being able to edit in their own account? Is that technically unavoidable? Leaky Caldron 10:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the block is on anonymous edits, and so long as account creation is not blocked, I think that's OK. My edits (like this post) are coming via the blocked IP address. Steveb (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. So can those students requiring access for legitmate reasons not register? Then the IP block safeguards against the vandalism? I'm not sure if this helps Template:Schoolblock, whether it's already been considered or whether it is a total distraction to your problem. Anyone having problems registering could do so via you presumably? Leaky Caldron 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonably common to block anonymous editing-only (reading will be fine) from a range of IP addresses. There should be no problem with users on that IP range creating a userid. I have rarely seen any hiccups with that process. Granted, users who thought they had logged in will be surprised to see a "blocked from editing" notice. It should be a wakeup call for people that they are, indeed, being watched. Does the University have an appropriate "Terms of Use" statement and security briefings for students that talks about "accountability and availability" issues? Getting students realizing early that nothing is truly anonymous, and that they are 100% accountable for anything they do and say not just on the internet, but everywhere seems to be a challenge these days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

That sounds good to me too. In case Steveb is not familiar with WP:ACC, students could contact Steveb (or someone else in the university) to ask for a username. Once the username is created with a dummy password, the student could then change their password. That should prevent vandalism-only accounts from being created, so autoblocks would less likely be an issue. Wknight94 ^talk 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The specific process isn't detailed on Wikipedia, to help prevent people gaming the system (see WP:BEANS). You can follow the instructions at WP:OTRS to contact them, and the OTRS team will help walk you through the steps to verify your identity. It's a touch convoluted, but it kinda has to be to prevent folks faking it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Yeah, never mind OTRS. It doesn't address the issues at hand. Bottom line is you want an e-mail every time someone from your IP address vandalizes? And then you'll immediately stop them on your end, even on nights and weekends and holidays? For the e-mail, try WP:BOTREQ. For your claim to immediately stop vandalism on your end, now I call Shenanigans. Wknight94 ^talk 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I never said that we would "immediately stop them". I said that we would identify the originator and deal with him/her according to our disciplinary procedures - which involve real-world interactions between the originator and University staff, and (on the whole, in my experience) prevents a recurrence of the abuse. The WP vandalism that we have seen has been due to users being ignorant of the effects of their actions, rather than any deep-seated malicious intent. Steveb (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The school is doing the equivalent of having the British government request the French police to report the whereabouts of any British pickpockets found in Paris back to the Brits, instead of arresting them. It might be well-intended but it's just not reasonable. Right now the school's network is essentially a big open proxy, and we routinely block those. Wasn't there a similar issue with AOL before, fixed by giving us a way to block AOL users based on the XFF headers? Maybe the same method could work with traffic from the school. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't find your analogy useful (if anything, it's like closing the Channel Tunnel to try to prevent British pickpockets in Paris, but it's still an unhelpful analogy). We're not an open proxy.

Your assertion about XFF headers is interesting (if true). The notice on User talk:194.80.32.8 has said clearly (since February 2007) that requests from our proxies include XFF headers; I was given the impression that WP had no support for reading these. Does anyone have information on how to make use of this, or is it a one-off bodge for AOL? Steveb (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to see this from the WP end Steve. If one of your guys goes off the rails and wholesale vandalises pages, you cannot expect that blocking will be deferred or for you to be contacted every time. What happens when your on leave? Surely by blocking the IP but getting your legitimate students registered it will save your time chasing and taking disciplinary action? Six of one and half a dozen of the other. Leaky Caldron 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

When we get recurring problems from IP addresses shared by multiple users, we do treat that as an open proxy (see for example the Bryan from Palatine and Scientology arb cases which I think implemented this remedy). As for blocking by XFF, apparently we have a list of proxies whose XFF headers we trust and to which the developers could possibly add your school (see m:XFF project and also for example here). In your case, that might not be workable, if your client addresses belong to your internal network rather than being real internet addresses. I'm not at all knowledgeable about this though. You could ask at WP:VP/T or irc freenode #wikimedia-tech if nobody here has better advice. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a resource Wikipeida should be embracing. If even a small portion of those students create accounts and contribute it is awesome. More editors is good and if some of them have resources and the mentality to create encyclopedic material it is even better. I can't tell from the conversation above: Has allowing account creation been attempted? A malicious account created here and there after too many beers should be easy enough to contain by editors. Also, the thought of one of those kids getting a talking to (or even worse some sort of sanction from the school) since they got caught is too good to pass up. Imagine some kids face when Steve notifies them that they are going to have to explain to the parents holding the purse strings that they are not allowed access to the school's network any longer.Cptnono (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the way mediawiki's XFF works, any non-logged-in edits are logged as coming from the real client address rather than the proxy address, and we can (if necessary) block the real client. If someone at the school creates a wikipedia account and vandalizes under it, we would block the account (and checkusers could presumably see the XFF address in case of socking), but under our privacy policy, we could not notify the school (except under some extreme circumstances). It would amount to disclosing the IP address of a logged-in user. We would never do it for routine vandalism. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not really an incident requiring administrator attention. Could the technical discussion be continued over at the appropriate page on WP:PUMP? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"van" or "Van"?

According to Tussenvoegsel, when a Dutch person whose surname includes a tussenvoegsel is referred to by their surname, the tussenvoegsel should be capitalised (e.g. Van Nistelrooy, Van Persie or Van der Sar). However, User:84.91.100.2 is ignoring this rule at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage and continues to write "van Persie" despite my messages on his talk page asking them not to. Could an admin please have a word with this user? – PeeJay 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the IP with a van-3. Hopefully that will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If the person in question was registered as "van Persie", then the correct way to write the name is "van Persie". This is not uncommon in Dutch. By the way, the word "van" is not a "tussenvoegsel". It is a "voorzetsel". What is needed here, is a wp:source for the specific name. There is no general rule for this. DVdm (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did not know this - but then, I ain't Dutch. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I. I'm Belgian, but we have the same phenomenon. By the way, have a look at van Persie's article and look at the consistency in the spelling :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of a "voorzetsel", but that's only because I was introduced to the concept via the tussenvoegsel article. Anyway, the article seems to suggest that, in the Netherlands, when the surname alone is used to refer to the subject, the "van" should be capitalised. I'm fairly sure that the names are capitalised in Belgian conventions too, but IIRC, aren't most Belgian names capitalised anyway (e.g. Anthony Vanden Borre and Daniel Van Buyten)? – PeeJay 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A voorzetsel is a preposition. "Van" translates to "from".

In Dutch (the common official language of the Dutch in the Netherlands and the Flemish in Flanders, the northern half of Belgium) most names are indeed fully capitalized, but by no means all. Mine is not (type: "Van de m...", with capital V only), and apparently van Persie's is not. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In Natalee Holloway, which contains many Dutch names, we learned that you only capitalize "van" when a first name or title is not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So I am correct in saying that, in 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage, my version is correct ("Van Persie", not "van Persie")? – PeeJay 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of weird-ass language being used here so I'm going to ignore all of that and address this issue as an editor who holds (and correctly writes) a Dutch surname. In the case of the entire name (i.e. Joe van Whatever) 'van' is not capitalised. However, if a salutation or no name is used (i.e. Mr Van Bloggs or Van Bloggs) is used then the name is capitalised. I've been writing my name for the past 25 years and have yet to be corrected. RaseaC (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Interesting Mr.Snoppy (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD help

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

See WP:DEADLINE. There is no deadline, even for deletion. If we wait 7 days or we wait 7 minutes, the world will not end because of it. Its no big whoop. For the record, the second one doesn't seem to be deletable at all; it seems to be a real settlement or administrative division; unless its a hoax, settlements and administrative divisions are generally acceptable subjects for articles. Even if it should be deleted, PROD is not a substandard process compared to CSD. On the contrary, PROD allows interested editors to spend some time actually fixing problems, and should it turn out that the article gets fixed up to where it is apparent that it shouldn't be deleted, what is the harm in that? --Jayron32 01:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Because the place doesn't seem to exist - I refrained from speedying as a hoax to allow further research, if any can be found, to show that this place exists. GiantSnowman 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an romanization of an name from a different writing system... there could be a dozen different spellings. Google results really don't prove the place doesn't exist. We're quite possibly dealing with a language barrier here, I think AFD would be a fairer venue to decide this. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky has said that he can't find anything about this place, "even using a plethora of alternate spellings"...GiantSnowman 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominating it for speedy deletion after this entire thread seems like a pretty bad call. If it is a hoax it's not a blatant one. A blatant hoax is "Bob is the emperor of France. He's 10 feet tall". You're talking about nuanced tests being run... if you're having to have someone run dozens of alternate spellings through Google, it's reached the point where it needs to be discussed at AFD. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would kindly direct you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manah Sharif, which another editor just beat me in creating. GiantSnowman 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You would, huh? Except what? --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Except what?" what? GiantSnowman 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true. This was not a blatant hoax. But we all make mistakes. Live and learn and you'll know for next time.--chaser (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a blatant hoax, but I still feel it is a hoax nonetheless. However, I'm glad I came here with this - surely, after all, this is what ANI is for? - and I'll know for next time. Thanks for creating the AfD. GiantSnowman 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Remember Civility is using an alternate account in contravention of policy

For reference: Remember Civility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have not blocked this user outright, but this account is editing in direct contravention of the policy on the use of alternate accounts, specifically where it states that alternate accounts should not be used to edit the project space; i.e. anywhere outside of the article space. This policy is reinforced by this Arbcom case where it states that secondary or alternate accounts "are not to be used in discussions internal to the project". I have engaged this account several times and requested that either

a) they disclose the connection to their main account or

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

Since I have had these discussions with Remember Civility, they have claimed that their main account has never been blocked or banned, and that their alternate account has been not used "abusively"; however these statements are not any defense of the problem, and miss the point. If you check the user's congtribution history, the account exists almost completely to make comments in the project space. They have continued do to so even AFTER I had asked politely to adhere to policy. Before I actually undertake a block, I wanted to open a discussion here to see if a block is warranted, and to clarify the policy in question. Are alternate accounts allowed to exist primarily/solely to comment on Wikipedia: prefixed pages (internal project pages)? This seems clear enough to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding something. --Jayron32 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

evidence that the account has been notified of this discussion. --Jayron32 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks Jehochman. I would have done that myself, but I wanted some back-up that it was the right decision. --Jayron32 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Another User:CosmicLegg account

User:RazerCrane is User:CosmicLegg. 202.108.50.22 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, RazerCrane is obviously a sock of somebody, his contribs history indicates that he obviously had a prior account and has been editing here for some time. What is the connection to CosmicLegg? I'm inclined to block as an obvious sock of someone; but it would be helpful to have some evidence to tie the two accounts together beyond a doubt. --Jayron32 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See User:DavisHawkens. 202.108.50.22 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Month ov Septembre. 202.108.50.22 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Afstuv, Meatwod and Meatwood

• Atsftuv (talk · contribs)
• Meatwod (talk · contribs)
• Meatwood (talk · contribs)

These three accounts are pretty clearly controlled by the same user, with a dubious grasp of WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:GNG. Most of the content they've restored (replacing redirects) has been reverted back to redirects by me and a few other users -- but, with this third account active today, it looks like this person is toeing if not crossing the line when it comes to multiple accounts. No AfD stacking, no multiple-chiming-in on talk pages . . . but, basically a pattern of, "oh, most of my edits have been reverted and I've gotten a lot of talk-page warnings; time to register a new account." I wonder if stomping out these alternate accounts and constraining this editor to a single voice could better compel them to abiding by consensus and policy? Thought I'd broach it here for more-experienced insight. --EEMIV (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise of User:Chrisisinchrist's account

Resolved

 – Nothing that can be done as of now, worth keeping an eye on--SKATER ^Speak. 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another editor more familiar with Chris' style has suggested to me that his account has been compromised/usurped, since the recent creation of a vanity bio page by this account is uncharacteristic. Could some other eyes have a look? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely uncharacteristic. Maybe worth checkuser investigation? Or is that against policy? (forgive me for not knowing checkuser policy...)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

No edits since the article was speedied. I'd suggest wait and see. If the account starts producing just speedyable stuff, we can handle it appropriately, then.--chaser (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it's uncharacteristic, also agree with Chaser so marking as resolved.--SKATER ^Speak. 07:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Defining original research

More eyeballs, please.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Max_B

Thanks. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Trulexicon

Trulexicon (talk · contribs · logs)

This user has spent almost the entirety of their time on wikipedia reverting references to Larry Sanger being the co-founder. That issue is long resolved to everyone's satisfaction (except her and Squeakbox's, both of which come back and revert to the founder version time and time again), consensus favours the co-founder description, something that is ably supported by sources from the time, including Jimmy himself and the WMF (anyone interested might like to look up the archives of Jimmy Wales). I ask that someone uninvolved step in here. I realise this is a content dispute, but there are underlying behavioural issues, like completely disregarding the consensus that has been formed and the almost-an-SPA status of their account. Viridae^Talk 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This still needs attention. Viridae^Talk 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the inattention. It seems to me, looking at Trulexicon's edit history, that Viridae's characterisation of the account as SPA-like is warranted. I also see no justification for Trulexicon's single-minded editing over this issue; that sources support Larry Sanger as the co-founder is, as far as I'm aware, a long-held consensus position, and the alternative view receives little or no support.

To address the intermittent but ongoing disruption, one solution would be to topic-ban Trulexicon from any founder-related areas, which I am happy to impose if it has the support of other editors/admins. However, Trulexicon's limited editing interests mean this might amount to a de-facto site ban, so my preferred response is to give Trulexicon a chance to voluntarily diversify their editing into more worthwhile areas under the following conditions:

• Any edits relating to Wales/Sanger should be proposed on the relevant talk-pages for discussion before making them (note that this is not a carte-blanche to tendentiously make use of argumentation; Wikipedia is not a battleground)
• The zero-revert rule should be followed by Trulexicon on all articles in this area
• Established consensus must be respected; if it is challenged, use should be made of the proper channels
• Any further disruption on either the articles or talk-pages will lead to to blocks of increasing length.

Pending further input, I'll leave Trulexicon a note setting out the above. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Trulexicon has added the word reared to the article again. Sanger is not an animal. See Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2#Reared vs Raised and User talk:Trulexicon#repeated BLP violations added to Larry Sanger article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou EyeSerene. Viridae^Talk 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf flaming out while announcing retirement

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.

---

Unresolved

 – moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Hounding of Tothwolf Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user. Depsite my walking on eggshells, they are lashing out. If this documentation is tl;dr for your attention span, just open the diffs.

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) is retiring[14]. Unfortunately he is going out in flames and claims that people are out to get him.[15] [16] [17]. Before his retirement claim he spent the previous day making increasingly outlandish, irrational and paranoid claims against myself and other editors [18], [19] [20] [21]

Tothwolf has lost touch with who his delusional attackers even are [22]. When taken to task on removing his flames from discussions by neutral third parties [23] he gets more belligerent at them [24]. Or, when a neutral third party simply hides the flames he revert wars to make sure they are visible to all [25] [26] with inflammatory edit summaries and new threats at the third party [27].

A month ago, Tothwolf made a huge screed at ANI about these accusations that myself and others were attacking him. It is here. Tothwolf would restate his case every day on ANI to ensure the issue didn't scroll off the main page of ANI, until someone moved it to a subpage. My take-away from the ANI case was to slow down PROD or deletion nominations in a specific subject area and to stay away from Tothwolf. At the conclusion of the ANI discussion, I took a one week break from the project. On my return, I was immediately accused of stalking him again [28]. All of my edits between my break and his accusation are in this contribs history, [29]. Tothwolf's subject area is IRC clients. I performed some followup to IRC articles based on deletion discussions one week previous. Tothwolf takes his ownership of the IRC subject area seriously, so apparently any work done on those articles is a personal attack on him.

I have tried very hard to have zero direct interaction with him. I have ignored his outbursts. I have let other parties reply to him in public discussions. In the interests of not interacting with him, I have not continued debates even on matters of substance. I was going to turn this latest episode of his into an RFCU but did not for three reasons. First, if he is retiring he won't defend himself which is not fair, and won't appear fair. Second, in gathering the diffs, it became obvious that this latest episode was extremely one-sided coming from him and towards many users. Nobody has done any action to provoke Tothwolf personally. Third, the outbursts are becoming increasingly less rational and needs the kind of immediate attention RFCU wouldn't provide.

Thanks to those who would take the time to read through this. Miami33139 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that there is much an Anministrator could or would do about this, looks like a good case for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to me, looks like he just needs a break and he has said he is having one. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He said his having a break, but isn't doing it, and the attacks are continuing. Administrators can act on that. Miami33139 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to an attack? Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As you did not notify Tothwolf of this thread, I have notified him.Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

this is an attack. Repeating it at every opportunity is an attack. Calling me a meatpuppet, repeatedly, is an attack. Doing the same to other users is an attack. Everytime he flips out and calls any criticism of an article he edits as a personal attack on himself is WP:OWNership, and irrational behavior that doesn't allow people to edit around him. Miami33139 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that much of an attack, and it is not a continuation of recent behaviour, the edit is two days old. I looked through his edits and it seems to me like he likes to save articles and you like to nominate them for deletion, as I said dispute resolution would be useful for you pair. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user."
Oh really? That's funny, I'm under the impression I've been the one prevented from editing articles or doing prod and AfD patrol work for WP:COMP due to you and your meat/sockpuppets wikistalking anything I touch. Lately the only thing I've been able to work on is a large project in the Template: namespace due to your continued harassment. You've been warned repeatedly to "disengage" and to leave me alone yet you still refuse to do so.
For those that care to wade through the tl;dr, past details are summarised in an AN/I discussion here (which I can update if necessary...I have the diffs saved and ready).
Here are a few links that demonstrate the continued Wikistalking the moment I touch anything outside of the Template namespace: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
Miami33139, quite frankly, your claims are absolute crap. You've continued to violate both WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS by wikistalking, harassing, baiting, and taunting. You did the same thing to User:Ed Fitzgerald and he finally gave up and left the project. I'm not Ed, however, and I'm calling WP:DUCK. Furthermore, I think any uninvolved editor who takes the time to wade through the tl;dr of the last AN/I (summarised here) and whom dares to comb through your contribs will see your tactics for what they really are.
For what its worth Miami33139, no one here can do anything worse to me than you already have. Bringing this here in hopes of getting someone to block me won't change anything for me since I already can't really edit anything because of you and your *puppets' wikistalking and harassment.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF Tothwolf. You are accusing Miami of a lot of things here. And as for your "no one here can do anything worse to me than you already have", WP:NPA.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow through the past AN/I linked above. I'm not stating anything that can't be validated. I'm not sure why you are linking NPA while quoting part of what I said above as while it has been tempting to give Miami and their *puppets some of their own treatment in return, I've not actually done so. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this edit [36] has anything to do with you whatsoever. Miami33139 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

-

Please explain how this edit [37] has anything to do with you, beyond you commenting on the AfD discussion of this article several days after I did. You have never edited this article or its talk page. When you claim I am harassing you, does that mean if you comment at an AfD discussion, that I may never touch the article or any discussion of that article ever again? Miami33139 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

-

Please explain how this edit [38] is harassing you. I nominated that article for deletion about a month ago. It is now at DRV. I believe that a short comment that I think it should have better sources before restoring it is legitimate. You did not work on the restoration, as far as I know. The comment is not directed at you. I found the issue because I follow DRV and follow the deleted articles that I nominated. How does this harass you? Miami33139 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

-

Please explain how this edit [39] harasses you. I nominated this article for deletion when it had a POV bias. In AfD several editors volunteered to change the article to remove the POV bias. That effort is continuing. I made a single edit to remove an entry that didn't belong here. What is your role here at all? Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

-

Related to the above, this edit [40] is a constructive proposal to create effective criteria for an article I've been looking at for a long time, after AfD discussion changed its focus. What does this have to do with Tothwolf? Nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like the two users should be banned from interacting with each other. Why do they need to comment on each other? Can't Tothwolf retire in peace? Can't Miami33139 refrain from posting about Tothwolf on ANI? I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in pursuing this matter further. Simply disengage and let there be peace. Does anybody disagree? Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Tothwolf doesn't want to actually retire, so these claims will continue. Look at the list of diffs that he has provided as evidence of my harassment and you will see my dilemma. For a month I have not interacted with him. He is pulling edits from nowhere that these edits harass him on articles he has never edited and never commented on. How am I supposed to know which edits will be harassment if he has nothing in that contribution history? Miami33139 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the edit history huh? [41] [42] [43] Miami, you are full of it. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in THIS edit history, [44].And there is nothing in the diffs shown that show how my edits interact with yours at all. Everything you touch becomes yours, and anyone you dislike gets told they are harassing you. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban Miami from software articles (especially Multimedia software articles), AfD, prod, and their new target "IRC" articles (they picked those to mass-AfD to try to get revenge on me for the last AN/I because I worked on many of them) and all those problems should go away. For that fact, expand it to the other two *puppets Miami "recruited" as well. I'll provide links for those two editors as well if needed although the AN/I link above should fill most people in. I'm not really interested in "retiring" although I tried to take a break without success due to Miami and their *puppets continued harassment. Hell, I've tried to stay away from Miami but they or their *puppets AfD seemingly any articles I attempt to work on as a means of harassment. I've gotten absolutely sick of it and I think most any reasonable person in my shoes would feel the same way as their actions have continued to fit the very definition of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this edit [45] is harassing you. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are being discussed here again? Oh Miami33139, you're a total drama queen lover, aren't you? You relish having driven Tothwolf crazy. "I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user." Bwhahahahaha. Thank god I'm not an elementary school teacher, as I've no idea how to stop this inanity.--Milowent (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it never stopped. It only slowed down when I stopped editing articles and stopped participating in AfD, DRV, etc, but you saw all the past stuff so you know what happened :/ --Tothwolf (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Milowent, if you wish to help Tothwolf, please examine the six diffs provided by Tothwolf where he claims I am harassing him, and explain to me how those diffs harass him. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The problem is 100% tothwolf, not anyone else. he has egregiously failed to AGF and defaults to paranoid personal attacks, accusations, and drama stirring anytime someone touches an article he owns. he's already been shown to have a COI in the IRC area, as he's an eggdrop developer (or somehow related to the eggdrop project (check the COI board archives), so it's no wonder that he has ownership issues with irc related articles. If an admin wants to see another admin's take on tothwolf's behavior, check out User:Mikaey/Tothwolf. tothwolf has already been admonished for his failure to agf by admins repeatedly. it's time this ended Theserialcomma (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

nominating articles that are not worthy of inclusion is not harassment. that is what we do with bad articles, we delete them. if they are worthy of inclusion, they will be kept. if they are deleted, they were bad, or can be recreated. this is not harassment. what is harassment, however, is calling people stalkers and trolls. stop this behavior and get over it. the only topic ban necessary should be tothwolf from IRC-related articles. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say its 100% anybody who is the problem, because my recollection is that there was some serious ban discussion around Miami and JBSupreme last month in connection with Tothwolf, before it all fizzled out in yet another tl;dr ANI. I suggest a cage match to resolve it.--Milowent (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

here's a link to tothwolf's admonishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=317692047#Proposed_Remedy_-_Tothwolf Theserialcomma (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Pfft, anyone who cares can check Theserialcomma's contribs, block log, talk page history, and the AN/I link above and see that their claims are bogus. They've been blocked for this kind of thing before and I see no reason to respond further to Theserialcomma. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't respond to him, respond to this, please explain how this edit harasses you: [46] Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A cage match you say? Cool. I'll be the referee.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I'd pay to see that...oh, wait... ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

so tothwolf, you attack my character when i link an admin's admonishment of you? [[47]]. I'm afraid that's not how it works. This is about evidence and diffs, not personal attacks against those who provide diffs. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf provided these six diffs to show my harassment. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. I encourage any administrator who thinks Tothwolf has any merit whatsover to his claims to examine the links he has provided and explain how these edits harass him. This is his evidence. These edits have no relationship to Tothwolf at all. They may as well have been chosen at random from my edit history. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said a lot earlier, you guys are in need of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, squabbling here is not helping. (imo) Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Long term harassment does not fall under normal WP:DR processes (I've asked). --Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an Administrator editing restriction that you are both not allowed to contact or comment regarding each other. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be highly unlikely to accomplish much as this particular "group" of editors follows me around to different XfD discussions and they AfD articles when I attempt to do any real editing. Can't say I've had much to do with them outside of their blatant wikistalking efforts. Here is a link to one of User:Theserialcomma's more elaborate efforts of false COI and SPI reports that they tried. [54] [55] Theserialcomma has a long history of doing that exact sort of thing to editors that they don't like and it can all be found in their contribs and talk page history. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is out to get you. Can you name some more members of this group? Can you show me how [this diff which you provided as evidence of my harassment actually shows harassment? Miami33139 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a finding that I have done so in the last month? That is exactly what I am alleging. I have ignored him. I haven't contacted him. I haven't commented on him, or at him. A little bit of actual process before imposing restrictions would be useful. Read the last entry from me above. Tothwolf gives six diffs showing my supposed harassment of him. Please show me where any of those six diffs actually have anything to do with him. How about you take a look at one diff he provided. JUST ONE DIFF [56] and tell me how that affects him? Miami33139 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

To end this feud, which is harmful to Wikipedia, where it is unclear who is in the wrong and quite possibly both editors have not acted perfectly, I propose to enact two editing restrictions:

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Tothwolf (talk · contribs) for a period of three months. If Miami33139 comments on, wikihounds, or otherwise baits Tothwolf, Miami33139 may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.
• Tothwolf (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Miami33139 (talk · contribs) for a period of three months. If Tothwolf comments on, wikihounds, or otherwise baits Miami33139, Tothwolf may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Barring an objection from another administrator before the close of this thread, or an arbitration filing by one of the parties, the above restrictions should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. There have been personal attacks and unhelpful behaviors by both parties during this thread. It would have been better if one or both editors had agreed to disengage from this dispute. Since neither was willing to back down, I think the only reasonable course of action is to force them to stop fighting. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC) and 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

Comments by Tothwolf

I'm going to raise a very loud objection here; This does not address the harassment from the other two editors in their "group", nor will it prevent them from continuing to AfD articles I'm working on, nor follow me to XfD and !vote against me (often with absurd rationales that go against Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or just consensus). This is not a feud as you describe, I've been the target of outright harassment for months on end. Furthermore, I've done nothing to Miami33139 or his "friends" to warrant someone proposing a topic ban for myself.
Let me make this even easier, if the community refuses to step up and properly deal with the three editors who've been outright Wikistalking me, and this thread closes without the larger being ignored again (and myself being "topic banned") then I quit. I've put a lot into Wikipedia and I'll finish {{cite IETF}} before I go (I got some emailed questions asking if I was going to finish it yesterday when several people saw me add a retired template to my talk page) but there is little reason for me to stick around if I can't edit without being harassed. I invite the community to have a long hard look at each of our contribs and decide the outcome.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are being harassed by a group of editors, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. ANI isn't going to be of much use because the group will simply gang up against you. I think you need to request arbitration so that the entire matter can be looked at closely. We don't have the capability to handle something that complex on this board. Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that may be the only option left. Can you point me to an admin who would be willing to lend a hand with the process? I've got piles of diffs saved from all three involved editors but I don't feel I can't tackle that process by myself. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He isn't being harassed. He is paranoid and delusional. He is now claiming that my edit to a section of an article harasses him because eight months ago he made a minor edit to the same article. What is clear is that if he has ever touched an article then anyone who he dislikes who later touches the article is harassing him. This is the most severe case of ownership I have ever seen. Miami33139 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Miami33139

Make a finding that I already have editing incorrectly in the last month in regards to Tothwolf. Tell you what, show me how this diff, [57], which Tothwolf claims is harassing and I will leave the project. Nobody here proposing anything has actually said I did anything wrong. Don't be so quick to act unless you are willing to actually look. Here I am pointing out Tothwolf's own claims, and nobody can say how it harasses him. Miami33139 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• You dug it out of my contribs [58] [59] [60] using the same unapproved JavaScript tools you used to trawl through User:Ed Fitzgerald's contribs which you admitted you "wrote" here [61]
  See also: (semi-)automated editing tools and Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits
  You continue to BULK REMOVE User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits (whom you Wikistalked to the point where he left) using one of the automated tools you "wrote": [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]
  Note for others: Check the edit histories on all those articles, you'll see those are intended to remove edits of User:Ed Fitzgerald while most recently also auto-sorting the interwiki links. Also note that this is only a small snapshot, look here [93] for this stuff in even greater volume.
  PS, Miami, stub templates go after categories. WP:FOOTERS
  --Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs are from FEBRUARY. Eight months have passed since you edited that article with minor edits. My edit isn't even in the same section of the article. HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HARASS YOU? Miami33139 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How about you address these: [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] and your continued removals edits made by User:Ed Fitzgerald? --Tothwolf (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I did. Look further above. None of these have anything to do with you, other than we both edited the same article. Sometimes months apart. This is getting absurd. If I make a minor edit eight months after you make a minor edit, to different sections even, of the same article, this is harassment by your claim. Just go away already. Or take it to Arbcom where they can laugh at you. Eight months. Ridiculous. Miami33139 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, this diff, dated eight months after your edit, which you claim is harassing. Is removing "Billy (music player)" from the list. Which I also did [100] there, on a dab page, and here, [101] on another page. And those were removed because they were useless because moments before "5 November 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Billy (music player)" Do you understand why ASSUME GOOD FAITH is a policy? Because I was just doing normal cleanup after a normal deletion. You are so paranoid, you think I'm coming after you eight months after you made an edit to some article and go screaming about it to anyone who will listen. It was a minor gnomish edit. THIS is exactly my complaint. I cannot make minor edits after normal Wikipedia procedures without hearing howls of harassment from Tothwolf. You have proven my point for me, Tothwolf. Can someone please act on this now? Miami33139 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Normal cleanup, my rear end. [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] You'll never stop even when links to diffs and histories are presented will you? You'll instead pick out one link that you think you can use to attack me, and attempt to turn the entire discussion into something about that one link. This is the same stuff you did before and it wasn't effective then, so why do you keep doing it? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that as this dispute has been taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Hounding of Tothwolf that it would be good for an Admin to archive this as a record to be used in those proceedings. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 7 November 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:Equazcion MfD with misleading, poisoning of the well.

Resolved

 – No administrative action is required. Ruslik_Zero 12:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here[108] is WP:Point

He's used his unhappiness at this; Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom as a spring board.

• WP:Civil - quoting out of context
• Plain untruth - satire not sarcasm
• Plain untruth - that I've "been attempting to backpedal on that initial stance"

In short Poisoning the well. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just stating my awareness of this thread for the record. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

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

In response to concern of impropriety, my experience with HarryAlffa began with the bot-posted notification at WP:VPP that Harry had marked Wikipedia:Politeness Police as a policy. My comments at his "arbcom" draft deletion discussion came after I had expressed my disapproval of the politeness police page. Equazcion (talk) 21:38, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has transpired that requires administrative intervention. Whether Equazicon is "right" or "wrong" with his assessment of Wikipedia:Politeness_Police in the MfD will be borne out by the discussion. Shereth 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I'm an uninvolved editor but I see nothing wrong with the nomination of this essay for deletion. At the risk of angering the Politeness Police, I also assume that this ANI report is retribution for the nomination. -- Atama頭 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ani medjool

Unresolved

I'm bringing this here because I feel I'm out of my depth with this. The editing of Ani medjool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been raised with me by two separate editors on two separate occasions. Deborahjay raised an issue with Ani medjool's editing with me on 17 October (further details). The editor was nominating Commons files for speedy deletion. I issued a uw-generic4, which was later removed by Ani medjool as delete lies.

Today, Hertz1888 raised an issue on my talk page about Ani medjool's editing (see most recent contribs of Ani medjool). I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA case and has been notified of this. Therefore I'd like to leave this in the capable hands of more experienced admins than myself to take any action that is felt necessary. I will notify Ani medjool that the issue has been raised here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only taken a quick look at Ani medjools editing today at Golan mountains, and as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• [ NPA redacted ]

I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I've looked at some of the edits in question. While some of the changes made by Ani medjool may be debatable, I do not see them as disruptive. While it is perhaps incorrect to change the category at Petroleum Road, for example, to read simply Category: Roads in Syria, it is perhaps equally incorrect for it read as it did before Ani medjool's changes as simply Category:Roads in Israel. The Golan Heights is considered to be Syrian territory that is Israeli-occupied by most of the world. Israel's annexation of it is not recognized as legal anywhere except Israel. All of these articles need to be reviewed. As a quick neutral fix, I might suggest they be categorized simply as being in the Golan Heights, without designating them as either Syrian or Israeli to avoid taking sides in this territorial dispute. Alternatively, they might be categorized as being in "Israeli-occupied territories" to reflect the majority worldwide POV on the matter. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment The redacted comment was not intended as a personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness. It was a statement of fact re SD's POV. It was also made clear that the SPI referred to cleared SD. If it came across as a personal attack to SD the I publicly apologise to him for the remarks. It's not a question of neutrality here; I don't know enough about the Middle East and the background of individual editors in the ARBPIA case to be able to deal with this myself. Which is why I've raised it here and am happy for other admins to deal with the situation. I myself will not be taking any action against you, Ani medjool. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment—It is clear that Ani medjool's edits are not simply controversial and disputable, they are pure vandalism. For example, in this revert, he removes a category and insert a controversial statement but also with improper spelling. He has also made a disruptive edit to a template, which is especially problematic. I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion about the content of the edits, but don't feel that User:Ani medjool should be allowed to continue these making edits like this until he has had time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia and its policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Counter-Comment I haven´t looked at Ani medjool contributions in general; but if someone call the Golan for "Israeli-occupied", (as Ani medjool did), then this simply cannot be labeled "disruptive". After all, it is the internationally recognized position. Reading what the BBC writes about notation might be educating: [109]. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Counter-Comment - Poor spelling/grammar/capitalization is not vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I'm not stating that he should be allowed to continue editing (he doesn't seem to be cooperating terribly well, which is necessary), but I just should hope that any action taken would be solely for the preservation of wikipedia's article standards, rather than based on any assumptions of vandalism or other malicious intent. (a fine hair to split, perhaps, but I think important) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

English not my first language, I sorry you have problem with my spell and language skill. It not vandalism, the edit I make, because international community recognize Golan Heights be part of Syria that currently under military occupation by israel. This do not change fact that place in article be located in Syria and not Israel. Vandalism be disruptive false insert of material to article, I just attempt to correct false information with truth: that Golan Height is recognize as Syria not Israel and there fore article about thing in Golan Height should be attributed to Syria and not israel. If other editor do not beleive this be Syrian and instead it be part of Israel, i stop making edits. But i request discussion because this important issue that has for long time not be addressed. Ani medjool (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ani medjool, you have edit-warred, POV pushed and politicized many non-political articles. For instance, at "Talk:Falafel#Images" you and another editor complained that the falafel photos taken in Israel should be removed because of the fact they were taken in Israel. Furthermore, your comments on that talk page telling me that I should "cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call" are not constructive. Those actions, and others, have made it very difficult for editors to Assume Good Faith when dealing with your edits. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - When looking through his previous edits, it is more than difficult to assume good faith. It's impossible, as it is clear that he is incapable of putting aside his political beliefs and contributing positively to Wikipedia. He isn't here to help the website; he's here to spread propaganda. The best example of his intentions is one of his past reasons for edits: "the picture in ramallah is good enough, its better than the one in jew city". -- 99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is no doubt that this editor has a strong anti-Israeli POV which he regularly pushes. He also has repeatedly made offensive comments against Jews. However, in reference to the specific issue which caused this thread to be raised, there has been collective violation of NPOV by multiple editors which has resulted in the pervasive categorisation of places and properties in part of Syria as Israeli. (Claims of items such as roads and wineries as being Israeli-owned are problematic due to their being constructed on illegally confiscated land and therefore there alleged Israeli ownership would be regarded as in violation of multiple motions of the Security Council and other internaitonal legal bodies.) Ani Medjool's highlighting of this problem is a positive contribution to the project even though some of his behaviour justifies repeated short bans. His conduct problems should not be used to prevent the pro-Israeli npov-violations in Golan-related articles from being addressed.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of the status of the Golan Heights (that's another debate for another time & place), it seems to me that this editor is indeed anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, and these beliefs are affecting his editing ability; Wikipedia is meant to be neutral! GiantSnowman 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Threat made against editor

Resolved

 – Vandal warned, nothing to see here Tan | 39 14:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I wouldn't call it a threat, . Removing it was best, and keeping an eye on future issues. I'll drop an NPA warning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is the edit in question. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

"Eat shit and die" is not a death wish or threat, it's a puerile insult. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Incivilty from TJ Spyke

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · count · logs) has a history of incivility and biting new editors. Instead of rambling on about his edits, I'll just provide you with a list of some diffs that prove my claim.

• "so don't bother me again. You already are a bad editor, Wikipedia would be a better place if you just left"
• "Apparently you think that people who disagree with you don't count (either that, or you are delusional. Based on the past, either is possible)."
• "You do realize that you just pulled all of that out of your ass?"
• "Haha, come back when you get to middle school. Maybe you will have some maturity by then"
• "Please don't act like a child. If you are just gonna copy and paste a previous reply, then don't bother replying."
• "You were WRONG in this, just admit it."
• "So you are WRONG on that count."
• "First, don't threaten others when you are wrong. That user that you threatened to report for 3RR has not broken it (despite your BS claim)."
• "Don't listen to the above editor. They are full of it."
• "You ASSumed it would be at Survivor Series."
• "next time try actually using a source rather than you own imagination"
• "I am talking to a brick wall here," "You also need to stop putting words in my mouth just because I was able to prove all of your arguments wrong," "The only reason you seem to object is because you just don't like it."
• "You know your argument is flawed, don't you? You keep trying to say that "it was a stub, do you think it should stay that way too?" BS. You do realize that has NOTHING to do with this. You try and claim that non-wrestling fans won't understand "singles match". Um, have you ever heard of tennis? You know, the internationally popular sport where a standard game between 2 players is called a "singles match"? Also, why shouldn't PPV articles have consistency so that non-wrestling fans won't be confused when they see one format used in almost every article, and then a handful of articles use the format you prefer?"
• "I can change it back for the exact same reason and you can't say squat (seriously. What are you gonna say? "I changed it for no reason and now i'm whining because someone else changed it back to the format used for almost a year")."
• "You know what, I don't feel like putting up with your crap tonight (I am too tired to listen to your BS)," "You are a pain in the ass and you always have been, I don't care about your opinion and you have almost never done anything helpful. If you aren't going to try and be helpful to Wikipedia, don't edit."
• "Second, there is no reason to change it just because you want it that way." (not so much incivil, but the biting newcomers thing)
• "Your comment "You are not a good editor" was a typo, obviously you meant to say "I am not a good editor", which I agree with with," "If you are gonna be too lazy to at least TRY and do good editing, then don't edit"
• "And you clearly don't know how to edit based on your action."
• "Egotistical, arrogant, and delusional. Quite a trifecta. I don't care what you think, I was right in removing your unsourced claim."

As you see from the above, TJ's comments are frequently uncivil. We want editors to stick around and help us out, but in many of the above comments, TJ is suggesting that editors he disagrees with should leave Wikipedia. I find that completely unacceptable.These diffs only date back to October 20th, 2009.

TJ Spyke also has been the subject of three behavior-related threads recently.

• [110] - Here, along with the behavior problem brought up, his comments in the thread were consistently uncivil, and way out of line.
• [111] - A lot of uncivil comments by TJ there too, besides the problem he was brought there for in the first place.
• [112]

iMatthew ^talk at 16:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, ignore the fact that almost all of those are in response to incivility and crap from other editors. A large number of those aren't incivil at all. Maybe I should just be like most editors and not leave a edit summary at all (since that is what this section appears to be about, the above editor not liking me being honest in my edit summaries) and not reply to editors comments either. Suggesting others leave? The only time I did that was today, and that was with a editor who has a history of not not following consensus, ignoring when they are proven wrong, and just being a bad editor in general. Maybe I shouldn't have said they should leave, I was trying to make it clear to them that I thought they were a bad editor and was not helping improve Wikipedia in any way. TJ Spyke 16:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a block for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE is definetely warranted.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The majority of those comments do not violate either of those (and the vast majority of my comments are nicer, iMatthew just picked a few that weren't). I can break down all of those comments if needed, and anybody who was actually aware of those situations would see I was not being uncivil. TJ Spyke 16:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

He's been warned about his behavior multiple times, but he clearly doesn't care. iMatthew ^talk at 16:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's that apparently you disagree on what is uncivil and also that you think I should take crap from other editors and just smile. If someone gives me crap, I will respond firmly (but while remaining civil). Of those comments you cited, I see only 1 or 2 that could be considered uncivil (and those were in response to the other editor being uncivil first). TJ Spyke 16:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone else being incivil first doesn't give you the right to also be incivil.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• • We crossed paths briefly on Talk:Halo 3: ODST, where he tried to argue an incorrect interpretation of WP:NFCC and then disappeared rather abruptly in the conversation (not before warning me there would be consequences)... I'm not sure there's any admin intervention here required, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Incorrect? I was quoting the agreed standard from WP:VG. As for "disappearing", I didn't care about the issue enough to continue arguing over it since it wasn't a big deal. TJ Spyke 16:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• Other editors being incivil to you does not allow you to be incivil back. The majority of the editors you claim to be incivil to you were provoked by your treating them poorly in the first place. All of the comments I showed above may not have been hardcore incivil, but all of them create an unwelcoming and poor environment, which isn't what we want on Wikipedia. iMatthew ^talk at 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I've seen more than enough to block, but AGF that the editor will have learned from this discussion, I've issued a uw-npa4im. Any more incivility and a long block is in order. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke has stated that he will be more careful with his words in future. If that is the case there will be no need to block. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rfp template

I have an idea for the template {{Rfp}}. This idea would automatically put one's signature on a user's request for permission. {{subst:rfp|USERNAME|(optional statement)}} ~~~~ is the current way to do a request for permission. My idea would reduce it to {{subst:rfp|USERNAME|(optional statement)}}. To do this, I would put <noinclude><nowiki></noinclude>~~~~<noinclude></nowiki></noinclude> at the end of the template. This method would also work for other templates. Would you tell me if this is a good idea? Also tell me if this is the wrong place for this message. Thank you.  Btilm  18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the place to ask about such things is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), or possibly at Wikipedia:Help desk; either place has people watching it with template expertise. Secondly, in my opinion autosigning templates are a horrible botch - they seem like a good idea, but they break on any signature that contains "|" or "=", and many other things will result in bad formatting. Thirdly, while we're on the general subject, I don't think your own signature is a good idea - six lines just to make an oval, however tasteful an oval it is, is probably too much. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem ridiculously lengthy (we have had a few examples of folks going really overboard recently, as I recall), and it is tasteful. I use Chrome on the Mac and it renders fine for me without the browser specific style; you'd save quite a bit of space by omitting the Mozilla and WebKit instructions? Just a suggestion. As to the autosigning idea, wp:vpt would be the proper venue, although I suspect the technical reasons Gavia raised would indeed prevent that change. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In order for me to make my signature, I have to substitute it from user:btilm/signature, which is fully protected. Do you think I should just transclude it?  Btilm  19:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion is not permitted, and substitution is discouraged. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Make a simpler signature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.201.224 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

legal threats by 76.238.28.61

see here Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, but not by me. TNXMan 21:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal encouraging illegal activities

User:Eagleslova21 - Encouraging readers to produce cocaine on their recently-made vandalism article. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's said article. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) Deleted. If they continue to vandalize, please report them to AIV. TNXMan 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User: StephenPaternoster

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

The above editor has been inserting unsourced material of low quality across Anglo-Viking and Anglo-Saxon articles, much of it reading as OR and fairly useless (possibly it was this. Or possibly that). He refuses to engage in any discussion over his edits on talk pages, even deleting other users' comments on article talk pages that pertain to his edits. He has also been reverting grammar and spelling fixes, declaring it to be 'fine as it is'. Following the latest reverts, he came up with this offensive edit comment. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Only 31 hours? For that inexcusable summary, I would have blocked him for at least a month, and brought it here for a review of an indef. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I support a longer block for that edit summary, a month would be fair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Our Father needs to have a month added to that proposed indef, for butchering the English language. I'm sorely tempted to revert everything he's done that's at least the most recent change to an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Syrthiss, his edits were dross (worthless) in my view, I was commenting on them and not the editor (who I'm sure has much to offer when he realises he is not a lone crusader). He refused to enter into any discourse over why his work was being removed/edited, so bluntness was all that was left. If people won't talk, there are few options available. Apologies if that seems overly harsh. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a comment like that doesn't really explain the problem. My edit summary for the first reversion was simply "editorializing", since it reads like a little original research essay. And the second one I reverted (so far) I labeled "editorializing, speculation, and poor English", the latter referring to that guy's tendency to write like a 3rd grader would talk, in run-on sentences. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, he writes the way Casey Stengel used to talk. However, when Casey wrote his autobiography, he worked with a professional writer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a few items from his most recent updates, thus putting several articles about Vikings and such on my watch list due to the pillaging of those articles by the user in question. I feel as if I ought to post something on his talk page, but he'll just zap it like he did the block notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually I'm worried that I'm being too harsh. My first inclination was for indef, but figured I'd give him a small benefit of the doubt. If someone wants to block our father the antisemite for longer, I'm fine with that. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I support a block extension for this awful anti Semitic comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support block extension - there's no way that comment can be acceptable Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The block has been extended for a very long time (indefinitely), which serves him right for saying such an awful thing and the extension will also save Bugs from having to correct his spelling. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have him reblocked to indef. I wanted to make sure that he was unable to edit (the original block would have ended soon) pending any further discussion here, as so far it seems the consensus is my original block was too lenient). Syrthiss (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That the startling and offensive edit comment justifies a ban is indisputable. However, a lot of what is said above is irrelevant and a summary indef. is disproportionate for an editor with no apparent track record. Leaky Caldron 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. I do believe 31 hours might be too short as a preventative measure (there needs to be some break so he can re-think his approach or the same behaviour will occur), but I do feel the motivation behind his edits was initially good, if misguided. Ideally we would find an editor willing to mentor him when he emerges from the block and we will have a constructure editor out of it all. Obviously this will only work if Stephen starts communicating with other editors, but if he doesn't then he will likely earn another block anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

One would assume it was more a lack of attention to his language rather than lack of knowledge, considering his location. I've often seen mentors copyedit propose edits as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If his userpage is to be believed, he is a 15 year-old who was born and reared in England. It's disturbing that a teenager would use such a vile and disgusting metaphor to indicate displeasure with another editor, particularly because of the photos on Narson's userpage. Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I cannot support an immediate unblock, but I may have a bit of a personal antagonism towards that edit summary. My partner's mother was one of the lucky Jews in Bialystok; she was exiled to Siberia rather than murdered (including those sent to Auschwitz). Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the general consensus is slightly veering towards leniency. My personal opinion is that any editor who can make such a callous, heartless, unfeeling and vicious edit as that edit summary (burning in Auschwitz) is, should never, ever be allowed to edit here. But I have been to Auschwitz, and perhaps he has not. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally reprehensible though the comment was, and deserving of decisive action, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of a block has to be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. He needs to get himself over here and provide apologies and assurances.Leaky Caldron 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

? The user cannot edit here due to the indef, though I did make the offer to cut and paste any defense he cared to raise on his talk page to here. His unblock message does apologize and does say that he won't do it again. If I've misunderstood your comment, my apologies. Since I'm the one currently holding the block, I'm not going to respond to the unblock request myself. Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I had not read it when I posted above, but his talk page says: "I am sorry for what i done and i will not do it again i won't attack personal people it is not right and i will not do it again". You could have copied that over. It looks like an apology and an assurance he will not do it again. Leaky Caldron 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, then my apology for not doing that. I considered that part of his unblock, and it was paraphrased by Off2riorob above. Syrthiss (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Agree that a longer block is needed. This is not being punitive, it's being preventative: absolute racism in that format has a ripple effect on the project. If a whole slew of people who were affected by the comment see that the editor received a very minor tap on the wrist, then you'll get a collective howl, AND set a precedent for future situations. I know this isn't a crystal ball, but the action/lack of correct action will have longstanding ramifications. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines on not coming back until he’s shown an appreciation of proper behaviours. If, as suspected, he’s a school student, ask him to produce an essay based on the 5 pillars or some suitable civility topic. If it passes in a week (or longer) fine, if he cannot be bothered let the block remain. We are allowed to be creative aren’t we? Leaky Caldron 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am about to scram for the day. My thoughts on the above essay idea - really, I suspect he wouldn't want to write one and I myself really don't want to read it. Wikipedia is not a 12 step program, or therapy. My thoughts are this: if we accept that he is sorry, then a week away isn't going to make him sorry-er. If we accept his apology, we should unblock him now. If we think that his comment is just an indication of future disruption to come then we should recognize that the block is not punishment (to address Leaky Cauldron's concern) and is to prevent further disruption. If that is the case, the indef should stand and his unblock should be denied.

His current status is that Beeblebrox was placing the unblock on hold, assumedly to come discuss with me, and then rescinded his offer based on the edit summary. Before I log off, I'm going to go restore the unblock to the state it was before Beeblebrox placed it on hold as that is my last read on what the user wanted. Syrthiss (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not acting as an apologist for this editor. WP:Block lead is clear the purpose of blocks and repeats 2 further times (wp:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goal, Wp:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks) that they are not for punishment. An indef. Block cannot stand without justification and there appears to have been no attempt at education either as per, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Education_and_warnings. He’s entitled to be treated per policy even if he does not have the competence to check out and understand the policy. My suggestion was merely to test his desire to join the community in view of the grave and wholly unacceptble error he made today. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He has again blanked his talk page and the editor that was looking at his unblock dropped out as he said he couldn't continue to be neutral after reading the edit summary, don't forget that we are allowed to add our own common sense to the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If he's actually 15 and is actually using his own name, that's trouble enough right there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support an extended block. Bwrs (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• He's blanked his talk page, including the unblock request, so I think we're done here and can let the indef block stand pending any future unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He has put in a new unblock request (rather rambling but hey ho). Pleased to see he wasn't planning to kill Jews but just me! ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you misinterpreted that Narson? I can't see that, have another look. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is something not right here. Although the user is not noted for using punctuation, this dif. [113] represents about 40 edits by the user (only a few by intervening editors). I cannot testify to the subject matter, but the general prose is not at the very poor level of his talk page explanation which is, frankly, puerile. I don’t know whether policy restricts illiterate editors and I do wonder if he is attempting some sort of juvenile attempt to “game” himself out of the block. I make no apology for assuming bad faith in view of his disgraceful edit summary leading to his block in the first place. I don't think he was talking about Narson by the way, more likely Hitler I think. Maybe my essay suggestion should be reconsidered, this time based on his ability to write coherently using correct grammar. Leaky Caldron 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

And....blanked again. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(response to Leaky Cauldron) Actually, I am pretty sure that the edit summary was directed at Narson. He has two photographs of Auschwitz on his userpage (free-use pictures he took and contributed to the project), and it's way too coincidental that a reference to the same concentration camp was made in response to an edit he made. In any case, I don't see a rush to unblock this kid, and if he keeps blanking his talk page, nobody is going to unblock him. Horologium (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary certainly was, no doubt about it. The discussion above is whether his "apology" on his now blanked talk page reiterated the threat. Having just re-read it, it is unclear, although I don't think he is reaserting it. Either way, he is a problem user and should be reinstated only once Admins. are satisfied about his future behaviour (and editing style).Leaky Caldron 17:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Notable song article reduced to a stub?

I'm not sure what's happened here, could someone please take a look and make sense of it for me? The song article 777-9311 seems to have had merge tags added recently, but then another editor has "merged" it to What Time Is It? (album), except they have turned 777-9311 into a stub. There doesn't appear to have been any discussion, apart from an editor opposing the proposed merge the other day. Is this a conventional way to do this? I haven't been active for a couple of years, so I'm not sure if some things have changed regarding merges. Markfury3000 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find the full version of the article at [114]. Charting singles/notable songs can warrant full articles - the problem seems to have been lack of sources. If you can find reliable sources documenting this song's notability, the full version can probably be restored if you include them. I imagine the fact that 'unsourced' has been there for three years might indicate an issue with finding some. Exxolon (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a rather bizarre set of edits by an administrator. Jeepday completely blanks the article [115], enters an extremely cursory description [116], then adds a single reference [117] with an edit summary that seems to indicate he's tagging the article for being unreferenced but he's not doing that. Meanwhile he doesn't restore the infobox.--Crossmr (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for sources, and I'll try and find some, but I don't see how suddenly blanking the article helps it get sourced. Doesn't there have to be a consensus for a major change like this? Markfury3000 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This falls under WP:BOLD, however theres nothing to stop you WP:REVERTing then initiating WP:DISCUSSion with the editor in question - following the WP:BRD cycle. Exxolon (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'll try that. I still can't understand why unsourced content in one article would be moved to another article. It's still unsourced, wherever it gets merged to. Markfury3000 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User: DaleEastman, rapidfire blanketing, vote fixing

For the past 18 hours or so, there's been a substantial bulk article editing going on involving User:DaleEastman and his mysterious counterpart 74.248.35.168. Puppet issue? Half of it. Other half is attempted vote fixing, disruption, article edit blanketing, some personal harassment. I admit it's a moderately weak case on both halves but combined it's impossible to deal with... that and none of the CU criteria currently apply.

I accidentally ran into this situation on the categories for deletion board while I was exceedingly bored last evening. Ok, minor vote fixing. Not huge but it'll set up the rest! Take this CfD here[118]. First seen a 'keep' vote without disclosing authorship of the category here[119], followed later by a comment in the exact same tone as earlier with another 'keep' vote here[120]. Upon inspecting the contributions of each [121][122], besides the very obvious shared articles of choice, note the time the edits on DaleEastman ends and immediately picks up on the 74.x ... which happened just after a rather nasty comment finishing a conversation on his talk page here[123]. I left XfD deletion and NPA lvl3 warnings on the user's talk page as each was a least a 2nd offense just that evening.

I guess I should get to the created category of contention[124]. In the past day this user has taken the time to clear the CfD tag off 3 times. Oh wait, actually it's the "user' first[125] and the IP the later two[126]. Now, I can handle the new category. Sure, I admit I suggested for deletion based on redundancy and the fact it's not ever spelled correctly. I know you can CSD-C2 for that but the discussion was already up. Since we can't rename it just yet, figured I'd see what was tagged so that it was actually accurate. Well, not so much. Since this a political and religious firestorm of a topic I decided to set really really basic guidelines on vandalism cleanup. Since the category is for "Islamist" activity, I figured I'd be generous and search for "Islam" generically on the marked articles. I caught about 10 or so total (40% ro so), some with other disruptive, inciting, hoax information[127][128] that I figured also needed to go. After all of that, I left extremely polite messages on the user talk page of User talk:Sherurcij[129] and User talk:DaleEastman[130] telling them what I'd done. These two had apparently "started" it all with the original CfD nomination and had done some sporadic hit-and-run edit warring across a number of pages.

It's just continuing this afternoon from the IP, tagging and minor edits some places, but most of that has been caught by patrols. It's been more the rather depressing attack toward me[131] and last[132]. I was a tad overzealous in my last post there, I confess, but given how much civility I'd given up to that point I didn't quite know how to react. I really did go far, far out of my way to try to reach for some good faith and stay on the fence on his sensitive Terrorism issue. The only good part of my coming in last night was that this user stopped wikistalking and User Serurcij who apparently focuses in articles of captured terror suspects, apparently. I don't care for either end of that argument and I did everything I could think of to just use policy in my changes.

To top it off for today, how about some random biting back from a welcome template here[133] Um. Any help would be appreciated. The one polite thing I will say about both DaleEastman and the IP is that they didn't vandalize my user page. Sherurcij isn't 100% innocent from disruption either with some somewhat-heated talk page hitting[134], but very mild comparatively. My guess about DaleEastman was he got somewhat upset about an article probation warning on an article he created[135]. Maybe that would have been a little too obvious. Anyway, they both seem highly politically-motivated with long and highly-focused edit histories and past admin intervention on different things, but DaleEasman and Mr 74.x have been quite... disruptive (and I have no idea if there are more IPs; some looked suspicious but I wanted to get to this). The IP seems to have taken a break and has added a red link for a new category "Terrorism by type", well, I'd rather not have to spend a few more hours on this.

Thanks! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I undid the removal of the CFD template and blocked 74.248.35.168 (talk) as a disruptive and obvious sock of DaleEastman (talk · contribs). I'll also add a warning to DaleEastman's page. If the disruption or socking resumes, please report it back here, but could you please keep it shorter next time ? Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I haven't figured out how to be brief yet and am used to RfCs and the like. Thanks! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold up here. Since when is socking not met with an immediate indef? Jtrainor (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not always an immediate Indef, Plus it's an IP...--SKATER ^Speak. 07:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New "Abuse truth" sockpuppets

The following edits (one per editor) all seem to be related to a previously banned editor (Abuse truth/ResearchEditor) in regard alleged Category:child abuse articles.

• Cocotree
• Birdpoet
• Remetta
• Helpingalla
• Bookwormer2

I don't know how to make an appropriate report to see if there are others, and no longer have access to a working semi-bot to warn all of them, which seems to be required to create a formal sockpuppet or checkuser request. Can someone help me with this? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fhetter
• DrHineman

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

Just create a report at WP:SPI and request a checkuser to be run to root out any sleeper socks; the checkuser may also be able to institute a hard IP block or range block to stop this at the source. --Jayron32 02:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And you don't need to warn all of the various sock accounts, WP:SPI specifically states "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." --Jayron32 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• Since this is an arbcom ban I would be inclined to check that the arbitrators are aware as well. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IP block request

Resolved

 – Blocked James086^{Talk | Email} 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody block 68.49.45.180 (talk · contribs) for block evasion from 98.204.183.125 (talk · contribs). Clearly the same user. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 06:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Immediate Block needed

Resolved

 – IP has been blocked for 31 hours.

Durova³⁶⁰ 08:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) Could somebody please block 134.88.169.210? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ongar_the_World-Weary&diff=prev&oldid=324607762 and I'm hoping an editor can block that ip for personal attacks and threats. Frmatt (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Also user:Bluefalcon916 as per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOngar_the_World-Weary&action=historysubmit&diff=32460 Frmatt (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

also: User:97.84.15.75 --- diff Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merits a block. Completely unacceptable. Durova³⁶⁰ 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

A person with multiple IPs; they pop up from time to time. Encourage WP:RBI in these cases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

problem solved --Chris 08:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for siccing the abuse bot! Frmatt (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the userpage for 1 hour. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)