Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Unblock request

    7Mike5000 (talk) (contributions) was blocked for making this comment about an editor, in this August 2010 AN/I thread, which was construed as a threat:

    I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Wikipedia is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware.

    Mike was unnecessarily combative, overly sensitive to actual or perceived insults, impatient, and prone to assume bad faith. He is aware of this behaviour problem and has resolved to change. He has contacted me and asked if I would keep an eye on him, and offer advice and guidance where appropriate. I have agreed to do that for a couple of months six months a year. Mike has created some very worthwhile content and, if he can reign in his impetuosity and adopt a temperate and cooperative approach towards others, will be an asset to the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    His request is well spoken and seems sincere. I'd be inclined to give him the chance. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd very much stand behind this. Mike is an outstanding contributor, something wikipedia is lacking. Occasional hot-headed moments aside (we're all guilty of becoming impatient at some point or another and losing our cool (and this is an aside from the issue of threatening off-wiki action)), Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken. His edits to various eating disorders have made them into great articles. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but rather preventative, and Mike's apology is an indication of genuine reform in my opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It's a clear threat for off-wiki action, or at least to instigate such action. Yes, there are people who will take the comment literally and actually do it. Apologies that suggest "oh, I'm just a hothead", or "I'm just a whiny bitch" cannot retract the action. Can you imagine the absolute shitstorm if someone actually already has taken the off-wiki action? This is not the type of behaviour that can be readily forgiven - people's livelihoods must be protected. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as Anthony is willing to mentor, and the unblock request shows awareness of what the block was for and commitment to not repeat the behavior, I see no reason not to give Mike another chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might be mis remembering things—didn't he actually end up contacting The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan that same month (Aug 2009)? Although we have a policy against legal threats but none against legal action (which really ought to be remedied), I think we can still apply the same principles here—no unblock without a full redaction and withdrawal of case. NW (Talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, that was a completely different case: this regarded suicide and a particular image said to glamorize it, and your link talks about the Rorschach test. Besides, the date of your link is 8/23, and the date of the diff above is 8/25.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely regardless of whether Mike has made a legal case, that is beyond our reach. By announcing you are a doctor on Wikipedia, you very much leave yourself open to criticism on your ability as a medical professional - This is the risk you are taking by using your career as a levy behind the edits you make. A formal complaint to the COP are up to the COP to deal with, not us. We deal with an internet site, they deal with the livelyhood of patients. Threats are prohibited because of their manipulative effect. Contacting a body that manages the medical profession for a perceived threat to the safety of human life is the right of every person. If someone comes here, says "I'm a doctor", and then publishes incorrect medical advice, I would implore users to make that kind of decision; just as we would contact the police if somebody threatened causing harm to others. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you threaten a person's livelihood on Wikipedia, you "severely inhibit free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles and create bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." And that's just from the no legal threats guideline. How much worse is an actual legal action? The policy is clear on that too: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." We don't prohibit anything, but I think it should be made clear that employing both the legal or professional system against another editor for whatever reason and also expecting to stay in good standing on Wikipedia is an insane proposition.

          In any case, Mike has apologized for his statement, so I think NLT is no longer a major issue. Still, this issue impacts more people than you might think, and imagine if you were forced to drop $10,000 or more on legal fees because of something you did on Wikipedia. Even if I were completely innocent, that would be enough for me to never edit Wikipedia again. I think we should take his words more seriously than you seem to be doing. If I said "over the next six months, I am going to be suing you and contacting your state board, and you're going to have to pay $5,000 a month just to appear in court with a halfway decent lawyer," wouldn't you be pissed and expect at the minimum, that the Wikipedia Community™ not treat the two of you exactly the same? NW (Talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't speak for Mike, but my impression is he understands the destabilising effect of his comment and regrets having made it. I also get the distinct idea he doesn't share Floydian's languid view with regard to occasional hot-headed moments, but deeply regrets every outburst, and has sincerely resolved to eliminate that behaviour from his repertoire permanently. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We're all human. We all make mistakes. I do not condone those moments, I'm merely stating that we're all subject to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that we are all subject to moments of threatening legal action against people. I'm fairly certain, for example, that I've never done that myself, and I very much consider threatening legal action against subject-matter experts to be inimical to our project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I certainly didn't mean to refer to that. I just meant heated discussions in general. Threats are a very different matter, as they undermine the very basis of our community and everything WikiPedia stands for. That said though, I reiterate that I believe Mike's commitment to reform himself is genuine and that he has enormous benefit to offer the encyclopedia as a contributor here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key issue would seem to be that we need to know: (1) did anyone ever actually follow up on that threat? and (2) did the editor himself actually follow up on it? The threat was a severe attempt to intimidate. Is the target of that threat still feeling or being threatened? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be candid, I'm not happy about the prospect of unblocking this account. I want to be forgiving, and perhaps Mike could become a consistently useful contributor, but I have very little hope for long-term success and less trust that today's apologetic approach will be present next week, much less next month. I realize that such candid comments must be painful for Mike to read, and I am sorry about that, but this is the direct and unavoidable legacy of his previous choices. I wish my experience had been the same as Floydian's seems to have been. I found that Mike created a high volume of problems, rejected advice, was frequently insulting, and turned simple little things, like 'Please stop WP:COLLAPSEing content, because it harms people who use screen readers', into dramatic discussions. I do not think I could support unblocking this account without a clear topic ban for anything even remotely related to mental health (which is, unfortunately, what he wants to work on), and a specific and not especially sympathetic admin publicly identified as a parole officer to whom any complaints could be directed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: People should be trusted to do what they say they're going to do absent a convincing reason. What he says he is going to do is enough. Most importantly, reblocking him if he stepped out of line would be no big deal. It's far too hard to get unblocked around here. Egg Centric (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose I can see that consensus will go against this !vote, but speaking as a licensed Physician it seems clear to me that this user is not aware of the seriousness of a threat to report allegedly inappropriate behaviour to the Royal College, however unjustifiable such a threat is; as is the case here. I also note a long string of adverse comments made by this editor relating to at least five other editors working in articles on mental health issues. I would only support an unblock in the presence of a topic ban on all mental health articles for at least six months, and longer would be better. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have no idea how long it will take for Mike to demonstrate an ability to operate collegially here. Nominating an arbitrary length of time for the topic ban is crystal ball gazing. Whatamidoing has suggested his behaviour be monitored by a parole officer. Let's leave it up to that person to decide when lifting the ban is appropriate to propose lifting the ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the topic ban the right thing, or is it better to insist he never makes threats such as that again? How does a topic ban help? Incidentally, is it possible to say if he ever does make a spurious complaint to the GMC-equivilant he is immediately and irrevocably banned? I think that should be a must. Egg Centric (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or possibly, seeing as Mike has a lot to offer to these topics in terms of content and research/sourcing, a no-drama talk-page approach? Allow Mike to edit the talk page of these topics, but institute zero tolerance on escalating any contention or issue while he is mentored though the ropes. Six months seems to be what most are suggesting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mike feels very strongly about psychiatry and mental health issues. The proposition is that the best place for him to learn to collaborate with and trust his fellow editors, and improve his understanding of (particularly sourcing) policy, is on other topics. He knows the consequences of taking off-wiki action against other editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good. Looks like a solution is very close that should satisfy everyone :) Egg Centric (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I how this will work out: "he feels very strongly about X," "he has strong opinions about X," those strong opinions have led him to make serious threats in the past," therefore a mentor will help him avoid those problems. I wouldn't mind an unblock if he agrees to post to Anthonyhcole's talk page every time he posts more than one time to a talk page, and so long that he knows that any hint or threat of real world action will be met by an instant site ban. NW (Talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The crucial points are insight and decision; help and guidance are important but without the former, the exercise is futile. I'm here because I see the former. Even with all these factors in place, there are no certainties but, because they're in place, I think an unblock with the abovementioned restrictions is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Whoah: I just saw what he was complaining about! While the user has of course obtained permission from the patients, and thus these images are ethnically acceptable, it should be incredibly obvious why people could have strong feelings about this. Therefore one should be especially happy to cut the chap some slack. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted! That a user asserts consent doesn't mean they had it. This is not in support of Mike's position, as per my philosophy I am perfectly happy to trust the uploader, but it is in understanding of it - I can see how others would be skeptical. Egg Centric (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no excuse for Mike's behaviour towards editors he's been in conflict with. He needs to make a behaviour change so dramatic that many of the above reasonable people are skeptical it can be done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I want to clarify that my concerns are completely unrelated to the circumstances that (finally) produced Mike's block. Even if he'd never said a word to Doc James, I would still have concerns about his behavior. I suspect, for example, that a person who really had developed insight and discretion, or even a very moderate level of skill at manipulating people, would use less disrespectful language when asking for discretionary favors (e.g., to be unblocked). Mike's unblock request shows skill at self-flagellation and a passable level of giving the "right" answer, but not skill at dealing with people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only thing that will demonstrate an ability to (radically) change his way of dealing with people is a trial. I've got a life, and I've got goals here. I'm not going to let him waste my time. I certainly don't see my role as making excuses for him. Either he can do it or he can't. We'll know soon enough. As for Machiavellian intelligence, he's working on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to be the cause of delaying the outcome of this appeal (whatever that is) but we really need a numbered list of what restrictions are going to be in place (and if we need to make any modifications, this would also be the time). Frankly, in the absence of Anthonyhcole being willing to sort of bend over backwards for him, I'd have opposed downright as there isn't a great deal to consider due to the seriousness of the behavior being reviewed. That is, this is by no means an ordinary violation of policy. That said, Anthonyhcole seems to be willing...so here we are...let's get on with it. Obviously a topic ban would be indef, but as things are never permanent on Wikipedia (in theory), we might need to put a restriction on when he can appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My default reaction would be that anyone who makes a legal threat as egregious as the one that was made in this case should probably ought not ever be allowed near a "Save page" button again anywhere on this project. Legal threats — especially ones that threaten the livelihood of an editor — are insidious and we are lucky that the one in this case did not end in the permanent loss of at least two editors (the one making the threat and the one on the receiving end of the threat, as well as anyone else editing Wikipedia who could be similarly vulnerable to such threats). If this block is lifted, the one restriction that I think is essential (in addition to any others) is that anything even remotely resembling a legal threat at any point in the future will result in an immediate indefinite block, along with a resulting community discussion on a more permanent ban. jæs (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's perfectly reasonable. Would an admin be prepared to volunteer for the parole officer role? I'll stay in close touch with Mike (as much as being in opposite time zones will allow) and keep the admin informed of his progress (or otherwise). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think since an editor is willing to keep an eye out for a while that this editor should be given a chance back into the project. It seems this editor, 7Mike5000 understands what the problems were and has acknowledged the problems that we should allow the unblock. If editors prefer a restriction to psych and mental health issues than just do it for say 3 months and then see how things go. Let's please be fair and allow him back to prove he can be the asset that some think he was and can continue to be. I think Anthonyhcole volunteering to watch over is a good plan. I say lets please give this editor an opportunity. It's real easy to reblock if things don't work out, but if they do, we get an editor that helps us build an encyclopedia which is what we are here for. Good luck, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify a few things. It was another Wiki editor who sent complaints to my college and they had nothing to do with Mike. The college has verified my written consents that I obtain from all patient who images are identifiable and have no concerns. Comment such as this "Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted!" and this "Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken." leave a sour taste in my mouth. That some here do not consider threats a serious issue is a concern.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm not an English Scholar, or maybe I'm from some backwards crazy loopy part of the world (I am from Canada, its possible), or maybe Doctors are just special fuzzy people... But there is no intent of action, or any sort of threat, blackmail, prejudice, etc in the statement that someone (ie, not Mike) should report a person. Thats an opinion and a statement, not a threat. I'm sure we as a community in "consensus" can manipulate it to be whatever we want, but the fact is that a threat is a communicated intent to do harm (physical or otherwise); not a communicated "somebody should report you" (but not me). Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to recall a recent issue where a certain former Vice-Presidential candidate made a comment about a certain Arizona politician being "in the crosshairs", and lo and behold, said politician was shot in the head by someone who failed to notice that the comment was somewhat rhetorical (or at least symbolic). Suggestions of action can lead to literal action. (...and yes, I'm Canadian too) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but should the vice president have been jailed before it happened for threatening to shoot her himself? The restrained person isn't in the wrong, its the person that actually commits to performing the actions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh. Bwilkins, with the greatest respect in the world, that is a terrible example. Her quote was victim of the circumstance (and chance), it did not incite the action (at least, there has been no indication that it did so). The takeaway from it is; be careful what you say, because if it chances to come true you could get blamed :) --Errant (chat!) 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not" - this is also a terrible example. The question you have to ask is "was the statement intended as a threat", or was it just impotent handwaving. I mean, if I was to say that 23-year-old college students don't have the emotional maturity to deal with something as serious as this, that's not an insult; it's an observation, an expression of a personal belief. When I was 23 I was full of myself and I look back with embarassment at my youth. Nonetheless you're offended, aren't you? And so it is with I wish you would die or I hope someone reports you or it would be a shame if the red Ford Focus parked on your driveway had its tyres slashed and so forth. In my opinion this Mike character's words were probably closer to impotent handwaving that a call to action - if he had believed what he said, he would have picked up the phone and done something - but it was clearly intended to intimidate his opponent. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    • Support with qualifications I am okay with Mike being unblocked with the following conditions:
    1. Anthonyhcole provides mentoring for a minimum of a year specifically addressing issues of WP:MEDRS if he edits health care pages
    2. Mike be restricted from mental health topics broadly construed including talk pages for a minimum of six month to give him time to get a better understanding how the community works.
    3. A block will be reapplied if further civility issues were to arise.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Doc James' proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposed by Doc James. In case it is unclear to users who comment in this discussion, civility issues include (legal) threats (which is why the latter is not being singled out). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Should these conditions pass with community consensus, they will be listed at WP:RESTRICT. I also note that I specifically agree with Doc James that the topic ban is banning him from MH talk pages as failing to do so is failing to appreciate the inherent concern which gave rise to the MH topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    The only reason I advocate opening talk pages is because blocks are preventative, not punitive. He has expressed his sincere desire to reform, and he should be allowed to do that in the place where he'll gain experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS. Learn by doing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The ban extends to talk pages of the mental health topics - the ban is not for all health care topics (and that extension is necessary to prevent the issues that were caused by his involvement there). He continues to have the ability to gain direct experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS because he can edit medical or health care topics with guidance from his mentor (aka he can learn by doing); he just needs to steer clear of the mental health parts of the health care topics. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with allowance for talk pages, so that he can actually participate in the consensus building procedures, and be forced to work alongside other editors, learnign to cooperate rather than acting in his own direction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My involvement depends on this temporary topic ban including the talk pages of MH articles. The point is to create a period where we can collaborate with Mike on less emotionally charged topics. This is a well-intended, good idea--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Doc James' proposal, parties agree, everything reasonable - how could I not? :) Egg Centric (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the third condition needs to also explicitly state that anything resembling a legal threat (as reasonably interpreted by any uninvolved administrator) would result in an immediate, indefinite block. I hope he now understands why these sorts of attacks are completely unacceptable, but I think it needs to be entirely clear. jæs (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied from Mike's talk page

    If you're okay with the arrangements at ANI, say the word here and I'll pass it on to ANI for your unblock. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Fine from what I read:
    • 6 mos. prohibition from articles on mental health related topics, even the ones I started like Depression (differential diagnoses) or Cognitive Remediation Therapy and also the talk pages.
    • If I make any comment that anyone even perceives to be a legal threat it results in a indef. block or ban.
    • I can edit articles on medical topics/conditions sans the aspects that apply to mental health, such aspects to include the cognitive aspects of said topics/conditions. 7mike5000 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right. Following on from my comment above at 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC), it seems the practicalities of this have been understood and accepted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone like to perform the unblock? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David Tombe is being abused by me

    I'd like to report myself for losing my ability to not respond nastily to David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't we arrange for another year of two of physics topic ban for this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Um -- this is a backhanded way of making a complaint, indeed. If you lose your own temper, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's magnificent actually. At one stroke Dicklyon admits his shortcomings and accepts any consequences for them, while at the same time focussing our attention upon the real villian, Mr. Tombe, who from a brief glance does look rather a nuisance. In fact it's so good I'm going to see what barnstar I can award the former. Egg Centric (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for understanding my mixed feelings, and for your cool barnstar. I have numerous times advised others to simply ignore David's nonsense, yet I seem to be unable to take my own advice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you gave that advice on the cf page and I ignored it. I was wrong but I have now heeded it, you should too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    David is still under general probation, as listed at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. I've not been following the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force but it looks like he exceeded the terms of that sanction a long time ago.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like admin action, e.g. a ban from Talk:Centrifugal force, then please present evidence that User:David Tombe has "repeatedly or seriously fail[ed] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He two weeks ago posted some clearly incorrect physics (it's at the top of the talk page), was told by three different editors he was wrong, reminded of previous warnings on pushing his fringe ideas, and stopped. Only since then he's joined and started further discussions pushing the same incorrect physics, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],..., undeterred by further editors pointing out his errors. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The simplest approach might be for any editor who thinks David Tombe is not adhering to proper standards to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for an appropriate sanction under his general probation, which was made indefinite by Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, item 6.2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For those not familiar with the case that involved David Tombe (the Speed of light case, though centrifugal force was mentioned in the scope statement), the final decision is here. My reading (as a former arbitrator) of the general probation (which I voted for at the time as an arbitrator active on that case) is that this was intended to cover the uncivil behaviour mentioned in the other finding related to him. The fringe advocacy finding was dealt with by the physics topic ban remedy (which expired in October 2010). Reimposing the topic ban is something that might be simpler and quicker to take this straight to an amendment request (it depends on whether those active at arbitration enforcement think it is within their remit to renew an expired topic ban under the provisions of the still-existing general probation). My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This can go straight under the general probation, which does not seem to be limited to civility problems. Arbcom knows full well how to write a civility restriction, and the general probation here isn't one. It's more like a discretionary sanctions regime, and AE has routinely reimposed under those regimes arbcom-imposed topic bans that have since expired in cases of renewed misconduct, as far as I know.

    Turning to the merits, it seems obvious to me that David Tombe is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place, in the same set of pages, no less. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#David Tombe restricted, David Tombe (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to physics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems to directly contradict Carcharoth's words: My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I take note of Carcharoth's comment, but the language of the Speed of light case explicitly allows admins to impose additional sanctions on David Tombe. (The remedies regarding Tombe were more strict than those applied to Brews ohare, since Brews' probation was for just one year, while Tombe's probation was made indefinite). Their decision states:

    David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

    Arbcom used the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' a number of times in their decision. In fact, the log shows that Tznkai took an enforcement action in November, 2009 which imposed a further restriction on David Tombe. If David objects to this new topic ban from physics articles, the usual appeal process is open to him. He can take the matter to WP:AE, and if not satisfied with the response there, he can go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ed for clarifying. I would have preferred if Carcharoth was allowed to proceed on the plan to involve the Arbcom further before any action was taken. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at Carcharoth's comment. That's why I specifically discussed the probation's difference from civility restrictions - arbcom has a fixed formula for those as well: "X is subject to an editing restriction for Y. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked...". This is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In Talk:Centrifugal force, David is defending an alternative idea that there really is an actual force of separation between adjacent members of a centrifugally rotating material system and that the system can then be made to transfer angular momentum and associated kinetic energy away from the system due to the existence and occurrence of this Centrifugal force property. The other editors in this matter seem to want to be "left alone" from discussions concerning this aspect of the subject matter. Since the utility of the use of the subject matter is better understand the correct functioning of same, it seems reasonable that such a discussion should be a reasonable topic of discussion in a talk section.WFPM (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think 2+ years without a source that supports his POV was more than enough discussion, to justify some of us wanting to be "left alone" as you put it; and he never advanced the position that you just described; that must be your own POV. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a "centrifugally rotating material system", so don't know what you're referring to even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between debating alternative physics and theories (that is better done on various forums that are available around the internet, rather than on Wikipedia) and using talk pages to improve the associated article. From what I can see, there is far too much discussion of the physics rather than discussing the writing and improvement of the article. This is what was a problem before, hence the action taken here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Charcharoth, With all due respect, I think we need to distinguish between the concept of 'alternative physics' on the one hand, and the fact that two alternative concepts of centrifugal force were being discussed on the talk page at centrifugal force. Alternative physics was not being discussed. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Charcharoth, Thanks for opening the debate surrounding the evidence which was presented. You have claimed that I was using the talk page to discuss physics, rather than for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article. And you hold up the diffs provided by John Blackburne as being evidence that I was promoting fringe ideas. Let's look at the very first diff provided by John Blackburne. It is this [7]. I was responding to an anonymous who had asked a question. I don't see where I have promoted any fringe ideas. I began by referring the anonymous to an excellent source which actually clarified some of the confusion surrounding the issue. Here is the source, [8]. It explains how Leibniz had deduced that centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force. But as is well known, there was an intense rivalry between Newton and Leibniz and when Newton saw Leibniz's equation, he criticized it and claimed that centrifugal force is the equal and opposite reaction to the centripetal force. The sources which the anonymous was producing were sources which related to the Newtonian viewpoint. But the Newtonian viewpoint is no longer the foremost viewpoint being taught nowadays at university. I don't see any misconduct on my part. It was a talk page discussion aimed at trying to improve the article, and that involved trying to establish some kind of understanding of the subject matter. In my opinion, dicklyon was being obstructive and on his own admission, he was being uncivil. The truth is that T. Canens engaged in a knee jerk reaction, and as we all know very well, those kind of knee jerk reactions, which are all too common, are never reversed. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not really familiar with WP procedures but I was contributing to talk:centrifugal force and the subject "abuse of David Tombe" cropped up. It seems that another editor reported himself for an abuse and it ends with this David Tombe permanently banned from physics articles. Can this be right? I have now checked back and this is about contributions to a talk page. Do you approve of free speech in a talk page? This was all about merging articles on centrifugal force into one, and got mixed up with interpretations. David Tombe's contributions were all "polite" were they not? The only heated comments came from Dicklyon and they were really minor but he admitted he had lost his temper. What is going on? I also checked back about the earlier fracas and it seems to me the ban was then to close down discussion rather than because of a single immoderate or insulting remark. OK there is disagreement here echoing Newton and Leibniz, actually very interesting stuff and as I said in the talk page, we do not understand the cause of inertia so we must be humble rather than fixed in our views of what is a real force. Is gravity a real force? We don't understand that either . I for one feel that we are seeing an injustice here where one editor (dicklyon) gets annoyed and has another banned - indefinitely.Profstandwellback (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental misunderstanding here is the idea that Wikipedia talk pages are somehow a place to debate what centrifugal force is, or is not (or whatever the topic of the page is). There is often a need for limited discussion of that nature, but it is important to bear in mind the need to keep such discussions limited and to focus discussions onto what edits need to be made to the page and what sources are appropriate. This doesn't mean discussing in depth the science behind what the sources say, but rather the talk page should be for discussing whether and how to present what the sources say. That might seem like the same thing, but there is a subtle and fundamental difference. In other words, Wikipedia article talk pages are not areas of free speech where opinions about the topic should be debated (though that does happen sometimes). This misunderstanding is clearly seen in the comment made by David Tombe here: "the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force". The aim of collaborating on a Wikipedia page on centrifugal force is not to come up with the last word on what is correct and what is not correct. The aim is to document what reliable sources say, and to cover some of the history, and put the rest of the history on the page about the history (see History of centrifugal and centripetal forces), and even there, the aim would be to summarise what historians of science have concluded, not to draw our own conclusions. It is very, very easy to cross the line and end up discussing the content (as you would in a forum), rather than discussing the article and what it should look like. There is even {{Not a forum}} that is put on talk pages explicitly to remind readers to avoid this conduct. For more on the community attitude to Wikipedia being treated as a forum, see the recent Village pump thread here. See also here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Carcharoth, You should have read the discussion before making a recommendation for a topic ban. Then you would have seen that it was indeed about how to reduce the content of five articles into one article. And if you think that the problem was that I was expressing my opinions on the topic, then so was everybody else in the discussion. As for John Blackburne, he wasn't even involved in the discussion. What is important here is that this thread has illustrated everything that is bad about wikipedia. Tim Song has acted arbitrarily on the back of rumour, without any investigation whatsoever, and he has summarily convicted without even giving the defendant a chance to defend himself. And it's not the fact that he has acted beyond his remit which is the problem here. It's the fact that the system has defended his actions and tried to argue that his actions were correct, even though everybody knows that his actions were badly wrong. Since when has it been acceptable to claim that a warning for one kind of behaviour is relevant to a warning for another kind of 'alleged' misbehaviour 15 months later? And there has been no evidence of misbehaviour presented. John Blackburne's opinions do not count as evidence. Ideally Tim Song should be de-sysoped for his actions. But experience shows that no such good fortune ever happens, and as such I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of appealing against this monumental farce. It is like England's goal against Germany at the world cup last summer. The whole world saw that it was a goal but the referee disallowed it. The decision was not overturned and England went into the second half demoralized. And so it is here. The priority is making sure that Tim Song doesn't lose face. And so be it. Let's end the pretence that there was even the remotest grain of legitimacy in his actions. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, it is polite to use people's current usernames. Secondly, since you have stated you have no intention of appealing, I suggest this thread is closed. I've explained why I think WP:NOT#FORUM applies here (the template is on that article talk page), and it applies to you more than others due to the previous arbitration case. I won't say more on that here, as that will just means things are going round in circles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ms. Black Gold on Stereotypes of white people

    The user has been blocked twice[9] for edit warring over this material.[10] Both before and after I reported it to the RS/N.[11]

    MBG has once again returned to re-add the material[12]. MBG has once again reverted a user who removed it.[13].

    I long ago gave reasons for why I removed the material. Here is a summary of the objections I had made up to when MBG was blocked for the first time. A dozen or so other editors criticised the material or removed it, but she reverted or ignored them all.

    If Wikipedia means anything, this editor either needs to be warned off or blocked yet again. BillMasen (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems a bit extreme to say that "if Wikipedia means anything," action needs to be brought against an editor who hasn't been here since before last Christmas. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying that the clear consensus, in every case, was against this material. Surely re-adding it isn't acceptable? Or is someone going to have to sit on the page and clean it up every week or so?
    If you think you can reason with the editor concerned (after looking at these edits) that would be great. I presume you agree that MBG's contributions on this page aren't acceptable? BillMasen (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the editor in question hasn't edited ANY page since 23 December 2010...GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So when I revert back to the consensus version, and she undoes the edit, will it be a problem then? Hey ho... BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If that happens, then maybe there's an issue. At the moment, it isn't an issue, since they aren't reverting - or, indeed, making any edits at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yep - revert back, and if/when she reappears and becomes disruptive, then it's a time to get admins involved - but presently there is no issue to be resolved. GiantSnowman 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have indefinitely blocked the account. Respectfully, I disagree with a wait and see approach in this situation given the history of the user. The contributor was blocked on July 7 for edit warring on the same article. The first and only edits she made after return were to resume edit warring, whereupon she was blocked again with a caution that further such activities would result in further sanctions. Her first and only edits after return from that block (albeit delayed by some months) were to immediately resume edit warring, including reverting the contributor who reverted her. If blocks were punative, there'd be no point in blocking months after the fact. But they're preventative, and there is every reason to believe that this contributor intends to ignore consensus and continue pushing her point of view at her leisure. An indef-block, of course, can be overturned by any plausible indication that she understands that this is unacceptable behavior and will stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Horrible block. Nothing in contributions that would support an indef block. Support unblock. -Atmoz (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeatedly edit warring to restore the same material that got her blocked twice, somehow that doesn't support an indef block? Do remember indef is not forever, just until they agree to stop the edit warring. Support the block. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. This user's only contributions to Wikipedia over the last six months have been to continue the same old edit war. Two previous blocks of escalating duration failed to drive home the point that this conduct is inappropriate. An unblock can be considered if this editor demonstrates an interest in contributing constructively to Wikipedia and a commitment to avoid the edit warring in the fugure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best block ever made. Clearly preventing disruption, indefinite is not infinite, if they wish to be unblocked and be allowed to edit they can engage in discussion on their talk page and give an account of their actions. --Jayron32 02:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you.

    To those who think there is no problem here; the user never would have been blocked at all if an admin had stepped in and warned MBG earlier on about POV-pushing (note the first two times she was blocked, I didn't even ask for a block). BillMasen (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One problem BillMasen, albeit a small one, is that you overused bolding on your comments at Talk:Stereotypes of white people. You make your points on that talk page quite well without it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're seriously nitpicking someone for how they format their text? Go outside. Jtrainor (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywrch, thank you for taking the time to read it.  :)
    The bold doesn't look to nice; the reason I put it was because I wanted to restate objections I'd previously made as well as make new ones, and I wanted to differentiate the old and new remarks. I didn't want to rewrite the whole thing and I didn't want to be accused of changing what I had said in the past. BillMasen (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Some assistance at WT:NFC please

    There is an ongoing RfC discussion at WT:NFC regarding the use of character images. Yesterday, I began a subdiscussion in the RfC. My efforts, while admittedly containing sarcasm, were in good faith and were an honest attempt to generate discussion in another way. Yesterday, User:Jheald attempted to close the discussion before it even got started [14]. I re-opened the discussion [15], and some interesting discussion with other editors has since developed. Today, User:Jheald has accused me of trolling 4 times (and later a 5th time) ([16][17][18][19]) and twice called my efforts a waste of everyone's time ([20][21]). When I attempted to split off the accusations he made of me trolling into a separate discussion area [22], he agreed with the subsequent closure of the discussion [23], and then reposted in the primary discussion area calling the splitting off of the discussion "artificially separated and boxed off" [24] and effectively restated his opinion from the accusations of trolling section that this was all a waste of time. Two other editors contributed meta discussion to the primary discussion section, and I attempted to segment that discussion into a section titled "Meta discussion about the nature of the conversation", so as to permit the two separate discussions from interfering with one another [25]. I was reverted [26] and referred to as "page format trolling" (edit summary). I am attempting to have a productive conversation, a conversation others were contributing to, and am finding it impossible to do so because of Jheald's actions. I have asked one of the participants to hopefully overlook this fraying of the discussion and focus on the posts I made that I would like to see his response to [27].

    I believe Jheald is attempting to disrupt this conversation and has been conducting a day long attempt to derail it.

    I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in and allow the refactoring of the discussion similar to the attempt I made [28] to separate the discussion and the meta discussion of the nature of the discussion, with perhaps a word of caution to Jheald to cease his continued accusations of trolling. Editor has been notified [29] of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry to burden AN/I with this, which seems pretty trivial.
    Hammersoft put up a proposal he didn't believe in, which suggested repudiating the Foundation's resolution on non-free content -- which clearly wasn't going to happen. That's not productive; in my view it can reasonably be construed as trolling, so I thought it was useful to make him aware of that. This seemed to trigger ever more attention-seeking behaviour from him, demanding I start a thread about him here at AN/I. Yes, perhaps it was a bit short of me to respond to that with "DNFTT", but that short blunt refusal to engage further can sometimes be a useful response to someone seeking drama. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on you go with your unfounded accusations of me being a troll and "seeking drama". Even if I don't personally believe in a proposal, I can still lay it out for discussion and see where it goes. Other editors found it useful. It has produced productive discussion. Your incessant attempts to interlace your accusations against my character, despite my attempts at appropriately separating the discussion is disruptive. We can't get anywhere in the discussion if you persist in attempting to close the discussion, incessantly accusing me of being a troll (six times now), and reverting my attempts to not disrupt the conversation. Look, I get it...I truly do...that you think I'm a troll. I'm not some gibbering fool that has to be told six times by you before it suddenly dawns on me that you think I'm a troll. That doesn't give you leave to do everything in your power to disrupt the conversation that is progressing. Would you please allow the meta discussion to be separated out so that the people contributing to the on topic discussion can continue with it? PLEASE? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My response of 14:33, reinstated/summarised at 15:47 was made in direct response to Hammersoft's comment of 14:08. My response was emphasising that the relevant place to draw a line was not one "permissible within the limits of U.S. Fair Use law", as his previous comment had had it, but had to be one which recognised "that NFC content has to comply readily not just with U.S. Fair Use law for us, but also for our verbatim commercial downstream reusers; and that NFC is not going to be allowed, if it discourages substitute free images from being uploaded". In my view that is a directly relevant follow-on comment on what Hammersoft had just said, and I do not understand why he is so determined to have this response moved away from his comment. I object to the two comments being separated because it was a direct (and I thought significant) comment on what went before. Jheald (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammersoft has long been a WP:FANATIC when it comes to NFC discussions, and that sub-section was one giant exercise in POINT making trollery, long before he started sub-sectioning it for 'meta' discussion. NFC is probably the top priority area at the moment for oversight from non-involved admins who are simply concerned with respect for the TPG and nothing more. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This AN/I thread does not need to become a recapitulation of insults and accusations which caused the thread to come to be in the first place. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Aaaand, a great big....nothing. Lesson learned; it's ok to repeatedly attack an editor as a troll, and intentionally disrupt a conversation so much that one of the principal people in the conversation can't find where to continue the discussion on the page. I appreciate the education, and I'll try to apply this lesson moving forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unarchiving this section as unresovled. Having not got his way, Hammersoft closed it himself in yet another episode of POINTY childish foot stamping [30]. Rather than letting yet another one of these examples of his completely unnacceptable behaviour slide into the archive, can an admin please give him the third party feedback he clearly wants. Alternatively, Hammersoft, why don't you file an arbitration request citing every admin who didn't act on your complaints that you are wrongly being called a disruptive troll. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your compliments. Most helpful. There is nothing further to do with this thread/request. The conversation I was hoping to salvage on WT:NFC has been destroyed and is now continuing elsewhere. No further action is needed. Therefore, resolved. If you have issue with it being resolved, please by all means feel free to start a thread about my childish foot stamping. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't need to open a separate section for that, it can be dealt with here, you do not get to set the agenda just because you started the section. As with all ANI reports, the behaviour of the filer is under examination just as much as any accused party. That's perfectly normal ANI protocol, no amount of continued back handed commentary from you on what has and has not happened here, changes that. If you really believed that conversation had been 'destroyed', then you would not in all seriousness be insisting on closing this thread now would you? I say you aren't interested at all, that you are a disruptive editor yourself, that this complaint was entirely bogus, and if anything, it's you who was making a POINT on that Rfc, and it is you who is in need of admin feedback on how to be a productive and collaborative member of this community. And I really wouldn't mind seeing an uninvolved admin's opinion on that assessment. If they really decide your actions aren't worth bothering about, then they can close it themselves with that conclusion, and that can go on record for future reference, just as you have presumably put into your record that no admin took any notice of your complaints that you were wrongly being labled as a troll. Until then, this thread remains open. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not questioning that my behavior can't be analyzed as a result of my bringing a concern to AN/I. I have attempted to close this discussion, despite your revert warring, because the situation truly is resolved. The discussion is evolving elsewhere at User_talk:JDDJS#Your_position, and there is no need for an administrator to step in and split the threads as I hoped to see happen. I understand you feel I am a disruptive editor. I understand you feel I have made a number of WP:POINT violations. I understand you think i am engaging in "childish foot stamping". Again, I thank you for your compliments. Your position has been clearly stated. I'm sure another administrator will agree with your summary and take appropriate action against me. Regardless, the reason this thread was brought in the first place has been resolved. If an administrator wants to take action against me, they are quite welcome to do so and my marking this thread as resolved has no effect on this.
    • Nevertheless, I am not going to re-close this thread. It has turned into a welcome vehicle by which you can air out your complaints against me. Please, by all means, feel free to further expound on my childish behavior or other types of behavior you feel I have been engaging in that are in your esteemed opinion unwelcome on Wikipedia, along with perhaps some suggested courses of action. The stage is all yours. I look forward to your commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've no real need to thank you for not edit warring on the ANI page in an attempt to prevent examination of your behaviour, have I? This is not a requests board, it's an incident board. You might not have got your desired outcome, but the issues of your behaviour in that Rfc are still live, and evidently unchanged. If your disruption has caused the RFC to fragment onto personal talk pages, that's also a live issue that would benefit from outside intervention, for the good of the project. I've no real need to expand on the sort of trollery you engage in, you make it self-evident most of the time. In terms of less visible disruption, I've just had to remove your innappropriate and un-noted insertion of a section break above my comment of 18:31. That was a very basic violation of the TPG right there, which is again all part of the live issue, as you will presumbly keep doing this without correction. I seek no stage here, I am of course not complimenting you, and I of course believe you are what I say you are and you do what I say you do. You've provided half the diffs on that score already. That you 'understand' these objections is neither here nor there, it's just more pointless sarcastic noise, because you can't/won't do anything about it. I don't have an esteemed opinion, just an opinion, which I will express here, unless or until it's brought to a close in the way I suggested. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've made accusations that I have been disruptive. Excellent! Would you please provide evidence that I have been disruptive? You've made accusations that I have engaged in "trollery". Fantastic! Would you please provide evidence that I have done so? If you wish to see my behavior change, providing evidence of that behavior so an uninvolved admin can analyze said behavior would be most helpful. I hope you'll take the opportunity to do so. I understand you feel my creating a section header to discuss me was inappropriate. I felt it was appropriate, given that it was a separate discussion. I thought I was doing you a favor by giving you an open stage on which to produce your complaints against me. I'm sorry it was poorly received. As to your not complimenting me, on the contrary. I take your personal attacks against me as compliments. Perhaps you intended to offend me, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The outcome is that I am complimented, so I do thank you. As to my expressing that I understand what you are saying, I am at a loss as to how you can construe that as sarcastic. I am confirming that I recognize you have that position. How is that sarcastic? Lastly, I requested you perhaps provide a course action with regards to my editing. Do you have such a suggestion? Would it be helpful to you if I started an RfC about me and my behavior? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didn't realise that going against the TPG to improperly refactor someone else's comments would be poorly recieved? How long have you been here? The evidence of your disruption is that sort of refactoring and that sort of implausible response/explanation, and all the previous examples in that RFC. And you wanted to do me a favour by doing that yes? To allow me a space to air my 'personal attacks' on you? Sure. The accusation that you are a sarcastic troll still stands, and the evidence for that is that post, and all other similar back handed statements before it. Maybe you see it, maybe you don't, but I'm not here to act as your self-awareness coach tbh, you'll get one straight observation from me, and that's your lot. As for this whole paragraph - As to your not complimenting me, on the contrary. I take your personal attacks against me as compliments. Perhaps you intended to offend me, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The outcome is that I am complimented, so I do thank you. - that is just incomprehensible to me tbh. What is it even supposed to mean? Firstly, what personal attacks? Second, I am supposed to decide if my intention was to offend you? Eh? What? It's hard to see that as not just more pointless noise - filling up sections with that sort of incomprehensible input is also a form of disruption. What would be helpful to me and everyone else is if you kept your input here simple and straight, without any inference or assumption, or if that's not possible, just stopped talking. Otherwise, making statements like " I requested you perhaps provide a course action with regards to my editing" - when what you actually said was Please, by all means, feel free to further expound on my childish behavior or other types of behavior you feel I have been engaging in that are in your esteemed opinion unwelcome on Wikipedia, along with perhaps some suggested courses of action. The stage is all yours. I look forward to your commentary just further illuminates the problem, piling example onto example. Whether or not I file an Rfc depends on what observers have to say about what I've said. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Still awaiting administrator input here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    <crickets> --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User:Moulton being disruptive, continuing to out editors

    User:Moulton who was banned for persistent disruption, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [31] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Coonsidering that multiple admins just removed those difs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anywas, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked user:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I find these kinds of threats laughable. I say bring it. He's got vast numbers of IPs? We've got vast numbers of users tirelessly getting rid of crap that doesn't belong. He's just one person, hmm I wonder how long he can keep it up? -- Ϫ 12:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [32] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And again, another 3 hours Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Behavior by User: Mad Doggin 7 / 65.254.165.214

    The user Mad Doggin 7 (also posts under the IP address 65.254.165.214, which is clearly the same person) has repeatedly disrupted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters. Over several months he has unilaterally reverted several community members' edits countless times to place his unsourced, extremely poor quality information (his story has also changed to very different but equally poor information despite him claiming the same source). This information is in direct contradiction to community concensus and provided official sources. When asked to provide links or verification regarding his sources or evidence, he has repeatedly explicitly refused to do so, stating that he is above the need to provide verification.

    Not only this, but he has repeatedly threatened other users on the article's Talk Page who disagree with him with bans/blocks that he has no authority over. He has even explicitly lied about the administrator privileges of another user in an attempt to intimidate other users. This is explicitly prohibited as noted under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

    I laid out a well formulated argument on the talk page (which he frequents): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters, in which I cited and provided links to many official sources (including the media's creator which he supposedly cites) and addressed his claims. I also warned him of his disruptive behavior and Wikipedia policy violations, with direct links to the policy pages. He has chosen to ignore this, and instead continued his reverts under his alternate IP address/account 65.254.165.214 (a quick look at the address' history reveals that this is obviously the same person) without bothering to respond or provide any sources as he has consistently done so in the past.

    I recommend immediate action be taken to prevent further disruption by this user. As demonstrated over the last several months, he has no intention of stopping or providing any evidence, despite being warned to do so. Investigation into the IP address reveals a history of disrupting other articles as well. CannikinX (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Still awaiting administrator feedback). It has now been more than 24 48 hours since this thread was started with no comment or action. I am posting just to make sure this does not get prematurely archived. Though this article may be of "low priority", it would be greatly appreciated if there were some acknowledgement that this situation has at least been reviewed by a member of the administrative staff. Further investigation into this user's history reveals that it was deemed necessary by administrators to block him for his behavior in the past. CannikinX (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he does this again and you catch it when its still "recent" you can report it at WP:ANV and probably get him blocked. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Competence is required...

    I'd like to recommend User:PM800 for a gross incompetence block, or at least a very stern warning about one. This user ignores any request to start a discussion... on anything. There's already a discussion on here about his continued removal of content without explanation... any other user caught doing this would be blocked on sight. Examples of this user's gross incompetence (a blockable offence):

    This user is full of personal attacks, unexplained reversions and plain rudeness. What irks me most about this user is his ignoring of all approaches for discussion. It's gotten to the point where this user can just do what he likes, because when he is approached for discussion about his actions, he just ignores the request. Of course, once it's apparent he won't respond, he is reported to an administrator, by which time it's too late to block anyway.

    There is precedent for 'gross incompetence' blocks for those who cannot comprehend (or choose to blatantly ignore) our policies and guidelines.

    You might say, 'warn and move on', but it's not like that. He has had several warnings in the past, all of which he just completely ignored (literally - no response) and continued with his same old behaviour. I'm at my wit's end as to what to do - warnings just don't work. Arctic Night 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Calm down. This is already being discussed above. The user was notified of the ANI discussion above, was issued a final warning, and most importantly has not yet returned to problematic behavior. He was editing within the past hour, and has not done anything wrong in those edits. As has been noted above, when he starts up again, he can be blocked. But there is no impending need to block right now. I have no idea why you are starting multiple threads on the same issue across multiple discussion boards, or even worse, starting multiple threads at the same discussion board. Please take it easy. --Jayron32 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not already discussing this above - the thread above was about Template:Bullying, whilst this thread is about this user's conduct in general (although I've consolidated the two now). He's had more than enough warnings and last chances ('next time, you'll be blocked!') - I honestly can't see why he should be given another one. He just ignores them. Arctic Night 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • His last edits in the past hour are all quality edits, and none of them is problematic. If you really want to have this discussion, try WP:RFC/U instead of here. If he starts edit warring again, I will be first in line to block him. Please trust admins to do their job. --Jayron32 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Quality edits" - right. This user mixes in a bunch of rude and smarmy comments with a bunch of productive edits, and needs to stop it. An RFC/U won't work - PM800 usually bullies IP users, who are hardly likely to return to certify an RFC/U. That's the point about this editor - he's productive in the article space, but rather rude outside of it. The point is, somebody clearly hasn't been doing their job if he's been edit warring fifteen times in a row without somebody picking him up on it (actually, somebody did, but he just ignored the warning). Arctic Night 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me say this again. When he commits another violation, I will block him. As long as one of the other admins above, who also said that exact same thing, don't block him first. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you would similarly be guilty of removing content. Look at the article now... Arctic Night 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I never implied that my revert wouldn't have been a mistake, but I think you could have called it an honest mistake given the lack of reference and lack of edit summary. When numbers from articles are randomly changed, without source, its generally a bad idea to let it slide. --Jayron32 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since a block by me was cited as a precedent for this I suppose it is appropriate that I respond. With that user, and others like them, lesser measures were attempted such as removing any advanced user rights and blacklisting them from automated tools they were misusing. It didn't work, but it is something to consider in competence cases. Of course, most of the competence based blocks I have placed were on users who were perpetually clueless but not extremely rude as this user has been, and they were willing to engage in discussion with users who pointed out their various errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Three comments. This PM800 needs a harsh lesson in civility, and it looks like he will get it if this happens again. Secondly; you shouldn't be labelling his edits as vandalism, even if you are getting stressed by them, WP:VANDALISM. And a third comment on the factual inaccuracies; removing religion from the Portman infobox was correct per WP:BLPCAT, he just did not cite that policy in the edit summary (which should be encouraged). --Errant (chat!) 09:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe this user SHOULD be blocked, judging from the information above; however, I wouldn't recommend an indefblock just yet. Maybe a week? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On second thought, since he/she has been constructive since the Final Warning, maybe he/she shouldn't be blocked. But if he/she starts up again, yeah, 48 hours to a week. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    This conduct sounds awfully familiar! Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Prestonmcconkie Hopefully I am wrong. Srobak (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    THANK YOU. PM800 = Prestonmcconkie. See the similarity in the name (PrestonMcconkie800) and the similarity in edited article areas (both users have been pulled up for dodgy editing at Natalie Portman, see here), and both users have been pulled up for ignoring requests to be civil previously. My recommendation: straight block for sockpuppetry. Arctic Night 16:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a couple of issues with a sock block, not least lack of evidence for the use of two accounts to sway consensus (it cannot be for "good hand/bad hand", since both accounts evidence examples of incivility). Further, although I have not looked deeply enough to see if there are patterns of activity/non activity, these accounts have edited over the same period without being conspiciously devoted to the same subjects; it may be that they are both reasonably active content producers who are rude, and unresponsive when confronted - also noting that PM800 does not use a monobook script while Prestonmcconkie does. I don't think the two accounts are linked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a point for check tough. Do I need to formally file a case? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless a passing CU chimes in here, then SPI request seems to be an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help request

    I have been watchlisting several Singaporean/Malaysian/Indonesian TV and radio articles as they have been targets for an individual, or individuals, that are intent on formats contrary to the MOS. Most recent in a long list of IPs is 125.162.18.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with this elaboration of a redirect (that has stood since 2008) into content whose sources are to a suspended internet account, and this version of an article with heavily linked dates and interlinks that are quite redundant. Posting to the IP's talk has resulted in the usual silence that I have come to expect when attempting to communicate with the 125.162 range. I have previously requested advice from the folks that monitor the MOS talks and the general consensus is that reversion of these edits should continue. That aspect of my actions tonight is also on the table if anyone has an opinion. Thanks Tiderolls 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify; my posts to the MOS talks were some weeks ago. The actions I refererenced above were the format reversions in general. Sorry, it's late here and it's been a long day. Thanks Tiderolls 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, these seem to be the types of edits where there are no problems reverting as they don't add any useful content. I've just reverted the last changes to Channel 9 (Malaysia) and TV9 (Malaysia) by this editor and semi-protected the pages for 72 hours to stop them edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what are the other IP addresses (and articles) in question here? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I worked on this list for an hour and barely scratched the surface, Nick. I have saved the info I've gathered so far and will post it after work. Tiderolls 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested list.
    Here is the list requested. I will not be placing notices on these user talks.


    Articles currently semi-protected:

    Articles currently semi-protected for a second time:

    I had to wade through my logs to build these lists and may have missed some strays. Tiderolls 01:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. It looks like there might be a case for a range block here - could an admin with experience in these kind of blocks please look into this? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, all these IP's appear to come from two /19 ranges: 125.162.0.0/19 and 125.165.0.0/19. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenatipo, WP:OUTING violation

    [34], Kenatipo is posting information that he claims refers to me that I have not publicly released on this site. This is an attempted outing under the WP:OUTING outing policy, which I note is considered a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy. I ask that this be removed from wikipedia permanently immediately under the WP:Oversight policy as well as proper steps to block this user be taken. WMO 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sent in a request to RFO. I recommend that you steer clear of Kenatipo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppressed now, per policy - Alison ❤ 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that swift action, now can we get an admin to take some further action per policy? WMO 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Alison, seen this and got your email at the same time. Neat. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I neither know nor care what Salegi's sexual preferences are. I could not possibly have outed him. --Kenatipo speak! 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is why Oversight deleted the difference, right? That's just blatant lying right there. WMO 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't "outing" have something to do with a person's sexual orientation? --Kenatipo speak! 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but it has something to do with a WP:COMPETENCE block I can see in your very near future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's more a "being deliberately obtuse" block. --B (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy, I don't understand why no administrator is doing anything about it. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiManOne, I would like to apologize to you for the names I called you. I am sorry I did that. It was not appropriate for me to do that, and I apologize. A lot of useless friction could have been avoided had I googled your old username sooner, instead of last night. Which brings us to my note to Moonriddengirl -- I was only trying to explain to her my behavior in suddenly walking away from further interaction with you. Your age, as indicated on your own outside websites, was the determining factor in my decision. "Outing" you, in any sense of the word, was the last thing on my mind and not my intention at all. I also apologize to you for embarassing you in that regard. Sincerely, --Kenatipo speak! 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Still an attempted violation of WP:OUTING, an egregious one I might add. Yes, you are correct that you did call me a bunch of inappropriate names multiple times which was a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So four policies/guidelines violated. That's all there is to it, administrator, please? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it that you want done? Please see the blocking policy - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish. What disruption is there to prevent here? The user seems unlikely to out you again. --B (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would prevent him from constantly removing the {{noindex}} tags from his Sandbox pages, for one thing. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is another thing that I have clearly shown him the policy for and he refuses to stop removing them. I quote from the WP:NPA policy:
    "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."
    I would say this is a serious personal attack, not a lesser one but even a lesser attack generally starts blocks starting with 24 hours, which he has already had a 24 hour block for personal attacks, so this should bring an escalating block. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My apology to WikiManOne still holds, no matter what happens to me or my userpages here. --Kenatipo speak! 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As a point of information, WMO did practically identify himself on wiki. I was able to find an online profile with the real name in seconds, by using information he himself posted at one point or another. If he is concerned about his identity he needs to do a better job keeping it a secret. Can old edits of his be oversighted so we don't have to hear about this again? In the end this appears to me to be more of the same. These editors have been cluttering up ANI for the last week trying to get each other blocked or banned. WP:BATTLEGROUND is apparently meaningless around here. I say block all the instigators on either side of the ideological divide. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear here. When I read this ANI, I was then able to find the afore mentioned personal information in seconds. I have never previously tried to find it. Indeed, until the recent spate ANI postings I'd never heard of any of these editors. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that leaves nobody interested in the tainted ideology. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I made the information publicly available, it is still considered outing, no matter how easy or how hard it is to find such information. I did ask for oversight a while back but it has not happened. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks

    This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues [35] Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hope you don't mind Gnevin but i adjusted your link to show the edit summary which is the source of the personal attack, it just showed the article and that it was an old version edited by Onetonycousins. Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as "Useless propaganda". Hows its propaganda is another question. User despite two previous blocks appears to still think demeaning edit summaries are permissable on Wikipedia. Mabuska (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mind at all, thanks for correcting my error Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as Useless propaganda. Hows its propaganda is another question." A stalker and a genius. Believe it or not, "Hows its propaganda" is the question. Maybe ask the IP who thought it was "pointless". Onetonycousins (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not my fault that this page is in my watch list and your name appears once again for personal attacks and the like. Though you should know the answer to your question seeing as it was you who said it was propaganda. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack while reporting a ANI case. [36] Gnevin (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bidgee

    I have WP:3O on my watchlist and noticed a listing at [[37]] by User:Jeffro77 in regards to Cairns, Queensland. The discussion between User:Bidgee on one side, and User:Jeffro77 (with a single contribution by User:BorisG) had become extremely heated. User:Bidgee's contributions were clearly uncivil.

    At the same time, I became aware that Bidgee included a reference to me on his/her userpage which was becoming a little shrine to the people with whom s/he had had disagreements (Jeffro77 got the same treatment at [[38]]), stating that I "had a POV" and "couldn't handle the truth". I removed this personal attack at [[39]] and warned Bidgee for the personal attack. He reverted and reworded it, but it was still unacceptable so I reverted and warned again and notified him/her of my intent to bring the issue here at [[40]]

    I have had run ins with Bidgee before, most recently because he inappropriately used a personal attacks warning template on a new user, User:MelbourneStar1 at [[41]]. MelbourneStar1 did not personally attack Bidgee any more than Bidgee him/herself did, visible at [[42]] and the edit summaries for the Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Yasi history at [[43]]. S/he reflexively warned me for inappropriate template use at [[44]] (this reflexive counterwarning was also conducted on User:Jeffro77 at [[45]] in response to Jeffro's warning on Bidgee at [[46]]).

    The discussion in regards to User:MelbourneStar1 continued at my page, in the second half of User_talk:Danjel#Top_Ryde_Shopping_Centre_not_largest_shopping_centre_nor_largest_development.

    User:Bidgee has a history of removing edits to his/her talk page highlighting his/her misbehaviour but continuing the behaviour anyway. These are some examples in order from most recent:

    I'm sure there are more. I only looked at the most recent 500 edits to the page.

    I would like any reference to me removed from Bidgee's shrine. Bidgee is an extremely uncivil editor, and I think a reminder from up on high about the requirements for people to be civil would be great.

    I'm not saying I'm an angel. I'm definitely not, but... Wow. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:USETEMP in regards to inappropriate template use. I at least pretend to be nice.</jovial> I'm notifying all users mentioned above. -danjel (talk to me) 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bidgee removed mention of Cyclone Yasi from the list of notable cyclones that have affected the Cairns region at Cairns, Queensland (with the irrelevant claim that effects on Cairns were not notable because other places were worse-affected).[51][52][53]
    After he repeatedly reverted mention of the cyclone, I posted a 3RR warning on his User Talk page,[54], which he immediately deleted.[55] He responded by posting a 3RR warning on my Talk page[56] (I had reverted his edit twice[57][58]; I had also made this earlier edit—not a revert—in which I removed the redundant commented statement, because Cyclone Yasi was still correctly mentioned before and after my edit.) and suggested there were no sources indicating that Cyclone Yasi had a notable affect on Cairns[59] (compare Google search for Cyclone Yasi Cairns). I provided sources indicating that Yasi had an impact on the Cairns region.[60][61]
    I initially (incorrectly) stated that he had breached the 3RR,[62] rather than merely reaching 3 reverts, to which the user responded aggressively at the article Talk page[63] in addition to a personal attack about me on his User page,[64][65] which I attempted to remove, citing WP:TALKO.[66][67] I also added a Third Opinion request about the original content dispute.[68][69]
    After realising he had only reached the 3 reverts, I reworded the incorrect statements[70][71][72] and removed his personal attack about me from his User page.[73][74][75] User:Bidgee has restored the attack, claiming it was "not personal"[76] and that he had not "claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region".[77] However, if that were genuinely the case, there would be no contention with listing Cyclone Yasi in the Cairns article as "a notable cyclone that affected the Cairns region".[78]
    When he saw the 3O request, User:Danjel also indicated similar difficulties in dealing with User:Bidgee.[79] User:Danjel thereafter warned the user about personal attacks[80] and attempted to remove User:Bidgee's comments about him.[81] See Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    First, can I just point this edit out? Anyways, I dealt with Bidgee a little bit. There was a discussion in the WPTC that seemed to reach a conclusion ([82]), so I went ahead and started moving articles to the more common title. Bidgee posts on the Australian notice board, claiming I was moving it to a less common name, despite the discussion we had. Bidgee went ahead and unilaterally reverted some of the moves I made [83] [84] Around that time, Bidgee got into the discussion, but IMO was ignoring the developing consensus, even calling my analysis of the data useless. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When I first had a look at he/r discussion page, I was pleasently surprised to see that she was not the subject to violations, there were many editors thanking he/r, It was as if everyone liked her. The "View History" on her talk page, unfortunatley, told me another story. S/he has reverted so many notices, warnings, etc. She has kept all of the "Thank you's" or "Can you help.." or the awards, but has kept a big bulk her/his history reverted to only be viewed in the View History section.
    Prior to having an issue with this user, i though of he/r as a strong user, a 'Leader', But all s'he wants, is to be the boss. To get the last word. S/he has used profanity before to get her/his own way [[85], as well as notice templates on other users talk pages to satisfy her own agenda. I have been on Wikipedia since the 17th of Decemeber 2010, so a substantial amount of time, I know rights from wrongs...accusing another editor of being disruptive after 2 small edits (that had references) [86] and then getting smacked with a 'stop attacking' template on my talk page [87] after trying to defend myself [88], Is all wrong. I had apologised to her/him for my actions (which were'nt as bad as hers/his actions) [89] (Feb6) and still have not gotten a reply, with her/his excuse being 'busy'...when her/his contributions log shows that s/he has been editing pages and talking with other users. It is disrespectful, and I honestly take my apology back.
    We all make mistakes, I am sure admins now and than make them too. It is normal. We're all human, but this user on the other hand just keeps on making them as well as blaming them on others. This is not what Wikipedia is about. It is atrocious that there are users like her/he on here. Someone has to set her into place, tell her/him what s/he is doing is wrong.
    I don't want to ever cross her again because I'm 100% certain that she'll stick the issue (our conversation) right onto her/his user page so everyone can see, as s/he has done before, and is currently doing now. [90] I don't think that there are many Bullies on Wikipedia, but I think I may of crossed one. A major one. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no content under dispute here, except in regards to Bidgee's shrine to all those who disagree with him/her, which s/he won't allow anyone to remove. More problematically, while Jeffro and myself have actively tried to get Bidgee to remove the content, there's been no contribution to discussion from Bidgee's side. I doubt that Bidgee would participate in an WP:RFC/U. -danjel (talk to me) 11:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Danjel, the disputed User page content is within the scope of the User RFC, and is central to the purpose of raising it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've endorsed your post there. -danjel (talk to me) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than griping about alleged personal attacks, you would be better off trying to address the content issues that Bidgee raises, and see if you all can reach some consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That has been attempted. Refer to Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Working with Bidgee has been attempted repeatedly. -danjel (talk to me) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, to be honest, mostly what I see are discussions where both sides have been escalating things - Bidgee may not always be right, but his stance is normally defensible, yet I see few non-aggressive attempts to resolve anything. Edit warring, templated warnings, and discussions through edit summaries don't tend to fix problems.
    I note that the current version of his user page is somewhat less intense than the old version - personally I never liked those sorts of "collections" on user pages, but it does seem that he's made steps to alleviate some of the problems prior to AN/I. Is the current version still unacceptable? - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the current version is unacceptable. My statements about his edits are factual as is demonstrated on the Cairns Talk page. When an editor requested that Bidgee not post statements about that editor on Bidgee's User page, Bidgee claimed that editor was "harassing" him[91]. Bidgee's attitude and behaviour therein are ridiculous. Danjel and other editors have indicated that Bidgee's behaviour at the Cairns article have not been the only problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the Cairns article as an example, Bidgee was using a different understanding to what a "notable" cyclone in regard to Cairns was. That's fine, and clearly consensus was on your side in the end. However, there wasn't a clear consensus when you added your edit, which didn't include a source. You were reverted, with a request to take it to talk. So you made a comment, and reverted it back. The two of you went back and forth, and each time you added the same and Bidgee requested discussion or a source. At no point during this did you or Bidgee make another comment on the talk page, and it culminated in an exchange of templated warnings - you to Bidgee for 3RR, followed Bidgee to you for adding unsourced material and 3RR.
    My point isn't that Bidgee was right, but that looking through the history I see two seemingly stubborn editors butting heads as they get progressively more annoyed with each other. It is very hard to apportion blame - at any point either of you could have stopped reverting and looked to a better path for dispute resolution, but neither did.
    In regard to behaviour about the user page, I agree that the content was inappropriate. However, the attempt to resolve the problem seems to have been conducted solely through more templated warnings, by you and Danjel, and comments made through edit summaries on his talk. Maybe I'm missing something, but again, when someone is annoyed, this isn't the best path to solving the problem - even if you are (as I think you were) in the right. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided sources at Talk indicating that Cairns was affected in a notable way (diffs already above). After I reverted twice, I did not revert again, and warned Bidgee about the 3RR rule. Bidgee ignored the sources, based on his own superfluous interpretation that for the cyclone to have a 'notable affect' that it must cause 'severe damage'. If the Cairns article were the only article involved, this would probably not need to be addressed here (or User RFC), but the reports of other editors' separate dealings with Bidgee in addition to Bidgee's behaviour at his User and Talk pages indicate there to be a larger problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, those sources were only provided after you edit warred to include the content. You added sources to the discussion almost an hour after you started adding the unsourced material to the article, and not until after you had warned Bidgee and Bidgee had warned you in return. My issue is not that you were in the wrong - although you should have provided sources rather than edit warring to include unsourced material - but that you, as much as Bidgee, could have tried some form of resolution beyond edit warring and templated warnings. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At User_talk:Danjel#User:Bidgee there was a discussion involving Bidgee and his/her interaction with MelbourneStar1 (in particular his unwarranted warning on MelbourneStar1). The discussion basically went nowhere with Bidgee sticking to his/her guns. The critical point that Bidgee was also in the wrong went completely ignored with Bidgee preferring to concentrate on MelbourneStar1's actions. It was a good case of "well so-and-so didn't follow the rules, so I don't have to either". I'm a teacher. I get that a lot. -danjel (talk to me) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I agree that Bidgee made a mistake with this warning to MoriningStar1 - it was inappropriate. But your response, of giving Bidgee a templated warning about the misuse of templated warnings, wasn't going to fix things. My point isn't that Bidgee was right - I just keep seeing people trying to solve problems with warnings, edit summaries and aggressive statements, (including in that discussion), and I'm unsurprised that there hasn't been a satisfactory resolution. I'm not sure that there could have been, of course. Anyway, I guess we'll see where the RFC/U goes. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rcsprinter123

    Many of Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s edits are related to list of bus routes in Derbyshire. On 29 December he created (at the time it was in article space) "important bus routes in Derbyshire"; it was taken to AfD the same day, and withdrawn after seven and a half hours because the article had been moved into user space. During the AfD, Rcsprinter followed the nominator, Aiken drum (talk · contribs), around and disruptively added tags to articles AD had created: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

    Two days later, the article was recreated and demanded full protection to make sure no one deleted it. The AfD was not complete as it was withdrawn, however I believe the emerging consensus was trending towards deleting the article or turning it into a redirect. As a result, I turned the newly created article into a redirect and explained why to Rcsprinter.

    On 3 January the Skyline 199 article was deleted as the result of a completed AfD (albeit with minimal participation). He recreated the article and again tried to abuse WP:RPP to prevent anyone from deleting the article. I explained this went against the AfD and wasn't appropriate and it was subsequently speedily deleted.

    On 10 January Rcsprinter created "key bus routes in Derbyshire", essentially the same as "important bus routes in Derbyshire" and gaming the system by trying to same content under a new title. It was quickly turned into a redirect, but on 10 February Rcsprinter restored the article without discussion.

    There are more diffs available, with Rcsprinter edit warring, and simply not understanding policies. In a nutshell, it's clear that Rcsprinter123 is treating Wikipedia like a game and is not abiding by the rules, despite repeated warnings. I think a block on the grounds of Wikipedia:Competence is required may be in order, but am seeking wider input. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse this summary completely. Rcsprinter appears to act in good faith on many occassions, and has a fair number of constructive edits (Template:Meat product navbox and Talk:Burger King/GA2 spring to mind), but also shows a serious lack of judgement on a variety of issues. In addition to the above, there's also the creation and subsequent speedy deletion of User:Sf07 and Template:Do not edit, edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, the odd totally weird edit, a recent block for copyright violations, creation of User:RcsprinterBot... certainly enough to show a lack of competence. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! I can hear you all talking about me, you know.
    Well, thanks for the constructive edits thing, but you don't have to be so rude! For a start my name is Rcsprinter123 not Rcsprinter, and then, it's very unfair when everybody just keeps deleting the stuff I made! Skyline 199 etc would have made great articles if they had been on there a bit and the community would have edited and expanded it. And it is notable, as it serves as a staple to nearly half of Derbyshire; I mean every single London bus route has its own page, even if it is minor!
    I am not edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, just keeping the key.
    The bot is still in progress, so there's no need to delete that either. It will update transport pages.
    I also think there should be an important bus routes in derbyshire page, to set them apart from the others.
    I also can't think why anybody never created a meat navbox before...
    Yours slightly-angrily, RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt you want to help, I notice you've nominated several articles at WP:GAC presumably with the intention of improving them. However, you have consistently shown that you are not interested in abiding by the consensus of AfDs, recreating deleted articles multiple times, and don't seem to understand policies such as Wikipedia:Notability or why the AfDs have been closed in the way they have. I was unaware of the block for copyright violations, and frankly it's not filling me with confidence. I'm afraid I just don't think you are sufficiently competent, regardless of your intentions. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with above. I am sure Rcsprinter123 thinks what he is doing is completely acceptable, but the antisocial attitude of ignoring community discussion and restoring articles inappropriately is not something we want on Wikipedia. He may think it's unfair if his work is deleted, but if he creates non-notable entries then that's to be expected. London bus routes are sometimes notable, sometimes not. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument here. AD 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rcsprinter123 identifies on his userpage as being 11 years old. While there have been young editors who have contributed to Wikipedia constructively, I can't help feeling that in this case Rcsprinter123's immaturity is showing through in the form of harassing AikenDrum back in December and failing to see the points of view of others. Nev1 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As per what everyone else has said, we don't doubt you're trying to help, but you've done some things that are unwise and some which are just plain wrong. You don't seem to have quite grasped some of the ways Wikipedia works, for example today's nomination for featured list of a list that's really not good enough yet. (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bus routes in Derbyshire/archive1). Arriva436talk/contribs 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing in an AFD thread

    Resolved
     – No-one was outed, nothing to see here. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Scamwarning (talk · contribs) has outed another editor in this edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji. As a new user, Scamwarning may not be aware of the restrictions, but the edit needs to be redacted anyway. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure about this one -- editor is apparently using his own full name, which is linked to the article subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just by the by, I've also listed this page in the BLP noticeboard as I'm concerned where this is going--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it, and not wishing to confirm or deny an outing, the scamuser editor has only suggested that this agency might have the subject as a client, and there is no apparent link (unless you've seen something I haven't). So there is no particular reason to think that name given is the same person as the one working at the agency, nor that the agency is related to the subject. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was also outed in a thread; I'd like this edit to be redacted. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)The diff you provided only mentions you by your username. I'm not seeing any violation of WP:OUTING in the short statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the name of the page being AfD'd. — Timneu22 · talk 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the comment, but as a non admin. Still available in history. I've also notified the admin who made it so they can decide if they want to put it back etc Egg Centric (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I reverted your change. It's not "outing", and besides which, it was posted by an admin who certainly would not "out" someone. Don't mess with other users' comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it can be anything other than outing, but no worries. However, I reserve the right to alter other people's comments when I believe policy permits me to. If I turn out to be wrong it's no biggy... Egg Centric (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Suspicioning that one user ID might be the sock of another is not "outing". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I read that comment I did not know the real life identity of Timneu22. Now I do (or think I do, which is the same thing according to the outing policy). Egg Centric (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the guy calls himself by a variation of a public figure's name, and calls attention to that fact, then he has basically outed himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never called attention to myself. A poor admin user did. It's a clear case of outing. — Timneu22 · talk 12:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You called attention to it in this very section. There are plenty of users who adopt names that pertain to public figures. Most of them probably aren't that public figure themselves, and the ones who are don't admit that they are unless they are engaged in blatant self-promotion. If you've admitted here to being that public figure, then you have outed yourself. And if you are not that public figure, then what's the problem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of Twinkle

    First time reporting this sort of thing, couldn't find a specific Twinkle-abuse page. I gave BLGM5 (talk · contribs · count) a warning about putting [97]"fuck off" in an edit summary using Twinkle (and personal attacks on their talk page); BLGM5's response. Any reason not to remove Twinkle privileges? A block as well? User has been notified. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also bit a newbie, referring to them as a "dipshit". GiantSnowman 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling another user to fuck oof is gross incivility.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I happen to know someone who got blocked for that w/o warning on first offense. Time to call Sarek :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The twinkle instructions make very clear that you are still personally responsible for all the edits you make with the tools, so I don't think this is a twinkle issue but a straightforward abusive editor one and should be treated the same as if they had made the edits by hand.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Twinkle instructions also say that abuse of Twinkle may result in the loss of Twinkle privileges, right? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with paint that whilst the user has breached civility (and should be sanctioned for that) that is a different issue from abusing twinkle.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriate for me to block as the user (as the most recent recipient of a personal attack)? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say not as you are involved, but my interpritation of that tends to be rather less forgiving then its useral implimenation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked for 48hrs. Someone else can handle the Twinkle issue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I find this an overreaction. He was warned. Did he repeat the offensive behaviour after the warning? No, nobody bothered to wait to see if he would. (Saying "poof be gone" while removing a warning is not in itself an insult; it's just a harmless expression of being annoyed.) Incidentally, not that it excuses the "fuck off", but a certain amount of exasperation at the IP who was stubbornly revert-warring to include a piece of silly unencyclopedic peacock language into an article (which is what triggered the insulting summary) was understandable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I'm removing the "not that it excuses" bit. This was a long-term disruption IP who had been revert-warring to include those words since at least last September ([98]), repeatedly forcing semi-protection or "pending changes" on the article. In solidarity with all those who defend encyclopedic quality against such people, I will here say too: yes, that IP user should fuck off. And I will oppose any good-faith contributor being sanctioned for loosing their cool once in a while when dealing with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the "poof be gone" to imply that I was a Poof. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Poof" is slang for homosexual in British English but not American English. The "poof" in "poof be gone" refers to the sound of something disappearing magically. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I understood it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, same here, hence why I didn't raise it earlier when I noted the "dipshit" comment. GiantSnowman 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that "poof" was referring to a puff of smoke in this case, and was not a homophobic comment. I considered that this was well past the WP:WQA stage (minor warnings), and well into a preventative stage. Someone else's actions may explain extreme incivility, but does not excuse your own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't change the basic principle: if an otherwise productive, good-faith user gets out of line, you warn them. And then you wait to give them a chance to stop. That is preventative. A sudden immediate block is not. – Unfortunately, this may now be moot, because the user is apparently now too angry to ask for an unblock (which I would otherwise support). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He may have been overdue for being uncivil. The edit summary for this which is just a simple Engvar issue has a totally inappropriate response.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its interesting the n umber if time this justification "well he's an experienced edd who's only offence is breaking rules he should be well aware of" crops up. If he is such a useful, and experienced Edss this is not an excuse or reason not to block him. He knows the rules and must know he was overstepping the mark with out being told. Indeed (if and I see no indication of this on his talk page) he is livid over this does it not tend to imply a "I don't expect to be judged like lesser edds" mentality. I think we need to make it clear (and do it ore often) that gross breeches of rules are unacceptable, especially from those who are supposed to know them (and indeed enforce them).Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Twinkle abuse by User:Srobak

    I started a discussion with User:Srobak after I saw he considered this vandalism worth an immediate lvl 4 "only" warning, but didn't actually bother to revert the vandalism itself (warning was 4 minutes before somebody else reverted the vandalism according to my timestamps). After looking at the users history and talkpage I noticed that the user likes to give out lvl 4 "only" warnings like candy. See for example this reversion of an [obvious good faith edit] and the following lvl 4 "only" warning. There are many, many more examples of this behavior in the users edit history and almost his entire talkpage consists of messages telling him to stop templating the regulars and go easy on the warnings as far back as two years ago. Discussion on the user talkpage was not productive as I was told "1st - you need to check your watch and then apologize. 2nd - if you think that un-referenced, DFE edit was in "good faith" - then you seriously need to review your criteria. Good day." [99]. Faced with such a serious wp:BITE and WP:AGF violations I had no choice but to report the user and request he is added to the Twinkle blacklist to prevent him doing further damage. My apologies if this is supposed to go on some other page, I couldn't think of any other place which might appropriate. Yoenit (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that this sort of thing seems to vbe croping up quite a bit do we need a twinkle noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note; the revert seems to have been at 00:49 and the warning given at 01:45 :) Agree the rest is an issue though --Errant (chat!) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As you quoted me above - you do indeed need to check your watch before making mis-informed, libelous accusations. The warning was issued 56 minutes after the revert, not 4 minutes before! Now, you get apologize here for all to see. Neither incident were biting in nature on my part. Both were deliberate acts of vandalism and/or mis-information on the anonip's parts. After years of extensive vandalism and DFE being endlessly contributed to both of those pages (you should review the page history of both to see the endless counts of "eats babies" and "died 2010" and other stuff), it is clear that shooting them with a squirtgun has absolutely no effect. Time to use the firehose. Now - as you seem to think that this is a TW abuse case, it further goes to illustrate that you need to seriously review your criteria. You will do a lot more good by helping to combat the rampant vandalism here at WP instead of undermining the efforts of those who are. The time for placating to that kind of nonsense has long since passed and you now taking deliberate measures to actually enable them will only make the problem much worse. Srobak (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Oh, apologies for that. I compared the date sign on the talkpage with the time of the vandalism diff, never realizing there is an hour difference between the two due to my timezone setting. Yoenit (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the post I edit conflicted with I want to clarify I apologize only for messing up the time difference on that warning. I strongly disagree with your attitude towards vandalism fighting and think your behaviour makes you a danger to the project. Yoenit (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. As it was a significant foundation for your complaint, it does negate it a bit. That being said - I strongly disagree with your attitude towards not fighting vandalism - actually placating to it - a behaviour which has a very demonstrated track record of being a "danger" to the project - but to each their own. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave a level4im warning to an IP who provided the information that Phil Collins was dating Dana Tyler, which is supported by this interview, among other coverage, with a note to "cut the crap". Since it clearly wasn't crap, though the IP didn't provide a citation, I think that you should take the advice you've been given here to dial it down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please don't accuse other editors of "libelous misinformation" for accidentally misreading a timestamp. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek - please decide where you would like to have this conversation - I don't have time to respond to fragmented discussions with you at multiple pages. As I said in your other thread - no cite was provided, and your are not citing a WP:RS. On top of that - citing it here does not help the issue. Perhaps you should contribute it to the article. As for the timestamp - as it was a very pointed factor for even starting this ANI to begin with - yes I am well within my right to demand accuracy in said complaint. Had Yoenit bothered to correct it in the first place and continue the discussion on my TP before over-reacting and starting an ANI, I am sure we could have found a mutually agreeable conclusion. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) A), level 4 'Only' warnings are almost never appropriate as a first warning, B) your tone here is entirely too harsh. Tauntingly demanding he publicly apologize for libel because he misread a timestamp? Correct him and move on. The rest of his report is valid. --King Öomie 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They are more than appropriate for obvious, blatant vandalism. The rest of your comment is addressed in my response to Sarek as you are both saying the same thing.Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not vandalism if there isn't a clear intent to harm the encylopedia. Adding unsourced but non-controversial information (rumors) doesn't fit the bill. That's a bad edit, not vandalism. --King Öomie 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would view it as controversial, but I can see where opinions may differ on that. However - I also view mis-information being contributed to an article as slightly more harmful than being categorized as a "bad edit" - a term usually reserved for something more trivial as poor formatting, incorrect/accidental content deletion, contributing to the wrong section, etc. But if indeed the admins view mis-info as bad editing - then there are some templates and guidelines that are going to require an overhaul. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor could conceivably have been trying to make the article more informative, but was doing so incorrectly or in a non-constructive way, you aren't looking at vandalism. The key issue here is intent. Dropping a 4i warning on someone for a single non-vandalism edit is pure mastication. --King Öomie 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to see an explanation of what in this article he thought deserved a "close paraphrasing" tag. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Already addressed in the article talk page. You can refer to and follow up with it there. The tag has also (incorrectly) been removed, and I have not reverted it (yet). In addition - that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Srobak (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not addressed. You said "it's close paraphrasing of the source", someone asked "what's close paraphrasing of the source", and you said "I already answered your question."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited the source from which the close paraphrasing originated. A quick perusal of the source will identify where. However - as I have already indicated above - the tag has been dropped and I have not pursued it further, the issue is unrelated to the one at hand in this discussion and can be continued on the article talk page if you really think it is a pressing issue. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you have no intention of working collaboratively. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are no other words. Take what I say AS what I say and at face value. Do not tell me what I mean in what I say. That is not up to you, and without doing a mind meld you are not able to read minds. If you would like to work collaboratively on that issue, then there is a place for that... and it's not in this thread. Srobak (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, it would have taken less time to answer my question than to complain about me. What in that article was paraphrased so closely that it deserved a huge honking banner at the top of the page?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Honest to God... 1st> I am not and have not complained about you. 2nd> You are beating a dead horse. The issue was dropped some time ago. Why you are hell-bent on turning it into a federal case is mystery, and is not helping matters or WP. 3rd> I provided ample information in the article talk page (the correct place for the discussion) regarding the paraphrasing so that if someone were to take it upon themselves to even glance it over, it would be evident. I am not in the business of spoon-feeding things to people, and I am not about to start now - even for a WP admin. If I really thought it was THAT important after the OA reverted and posted their reasons why - I would have pursued it further. 4th This is not the place for the execution of what you are pursuing. Are we done yet? Srobak (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please either A) link to the point where you previously explain what the issue is (source and our text) or reexplain here. It's a reasonable request. People often are asked to link to previous discussions to show that they did or didn't do something. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another misuse of vandalism warnings: last week this edit received an "only" warning from Srobak for being inconsequential.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to take a look at the warning and edit history of that ip. It is not the first time it had been issued a lvl4, and honestly should have been blocked long ago. Srobak (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That particular edit wasn't vandalism. For a little optimism, you should see vandals NOT vandalizing as a glimmer of hope, and instead gently link them to policy pages. --King Öomie 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noted and understood Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now from this vantage point, seeing that you've had a different working definition of vandalism than is laid out in WP:VAND (which I don't really fault you for, seems like there's a lot of it going around), you can understand our reaction to your warnings, right? --King Öomie 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can see that. I will try to use better discretion in my patrolling, and issue vand warns only for genuine vandalism, while being more support/informative to the others. It just gets old having to constantly fix the same pages multiple times a day while genuine vandals get pass after pass. Wears on my patience a bit, and I over-reacted towards those who were not necessarily deserving of it. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That pretty much settles that, unless someone feels the need to open another thread. I really don't think any kind of sanction is in order, and the content issues are better settled at the pages themselves or at DR. Absent further activity here, I suggest listing this as Resolved. --King Öomie 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on...he is insisting that he is going to template the regulars and using Twinkle to do it. Clearly it is disruptive, just look at his talk page. If he insists on templating the regulars then I'm all for taking the tools from him. I'd like to know he isn't going to do that again.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let's not drive helpful folk away from the project for minor transgressions. To prevent a snowballing which will occur, sadly, if this editor is looked at too closely, I endorse oomie's idea to close this. Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "He's a great editor, just don't look at his contributions?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame I have to say this, but... yeah! Group dynamics are such that if pretty much anyone with his sort of edit count is looked at and presented harshly enough a case could be made for a long block at the least, an indefinite ban at the worst. In an ideal world, you would be right (ironically, in an ideal world, so would Srobak as he would be perceived literally) but we have to look at reality.Egg Centric (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So Berean - you are actually endorsing bad edits/vandalism/whatever by people just because they have an account? If that is genuinely the administrative consensus then you all can do whatever you want. Registered users/regulars should be held to an even more strict adherence to the guidelines and policies than the anonip users - just like what you are doing to me here. If you are going to allow excessive latitude to users who obviously should know better - then you have far bigger issues and problems to worry about than me, and I will be happy to take my leave of this place as there is no longer a point in fighting a losing battle. Berean - you really ought to consider not putting the cart before the horse in this, and actually look at what the root cause of the issue in such a circumstance really is. Srobak (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Can I take that as a "yes, I'm still going to template the regulars"?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you always answer a question with another question? There are times when a template is warranted by a user. The fact that they are an anonip or a registered user is inconsequential. Just because a user creates an account does not ensure they undergo some sort of metamorphoses. As stated above - if anything a regular user should be far more aware of and accountable to policy and guideline adherence. Yes, I know your response will be to cite Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars - which is an essay - not a WP policy or guideline, to which I will respond with the equally valid essay of WP:Do_template_the_regulars. Please keep in mind I did not write either essay, and they both make very valid points - regardless of your personal feelings. Again - if the administrative consensus is going to actually endorse this lunacy - I'll be happy to just walk away now, and you can pull up the slack, saving you the witch hunt. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on guys, he's been big enough to accept the original problem. Is it necessary to now scrutinise everything he's ever done? WP:DTTR isn't a guideline, even if it's annoying. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it's fine Physics... I see where this is going - and it is truly unfortunate. Let'em get it out of their system. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    His judgment is the thing I'm questioning. He presumes a lot and using poor judgment with Twinkle is a bad recipe. He's quick to say that established users ought to know better...but here we are, with him having acknowledged that his judgment concerning vandalism wasn't right...why should we presume that his judgment is right about shoving templates in peoples' faces. I've seen a number of folks telling him not to and no one backing him up on that point...that is a running consensus. I'm simply asking him not to...
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually mentioned earlier on about us being "here", and I'm far from perfect. To be honest - rather than all this - I'd have rather gotten templated. That being said... "You have 537 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Shall I leave c&p from the raw watchlist on your talk page, or would you rather I email it to you? Srobak (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about your watchlist. I've asked you to not template the regulars and you threw back a strawman argument above. I asked again for assurance that you won't do it..and you insist that you are right and show nothing towards cooperation but instead state its a "witchhunt". I've suggested that the tools should be removed from you if you don't refrain and that turns into "I'm leaving". What is this? Templating a bot? ...and since when is redlinking verboten?
    I suggest letting him do things manually a while and work his way back to the tools. Cramming templates at a few admins and regulars is a bad idea and he hasn't listened to anyone. You need to work with folks.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, do you accept that had he phrased things entirely differently you would have no trouble with him? Egg Centric (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Egads, Srobak, I brought you a painless out on a silver platter. You seem insistent on vindication via argumentation, though, so carry on, I suppose. --King Öomie 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with vindication, and that is nothing I am interested in - a question was asked, and I answered. What's wrong with even spirited discussion? I appreciate your efforts, and it is unfortunate others opted to turn it into something else. That makes no less than 3 different directions this thread has gone.Srobak (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright y'all - I'm done carrying on with this. Do as you will. Areas of concern have been identified and I understand them (1) and (2) - and that I would address them. If that isn't sufficient without having to further pigeon-hole me with non-policy/guideline issues just because someone has a different viewpoint on it, then there isn't much more I can do. I have worked tirelessly for years to try and keep the quality of articles on WP at their best and keep the vandalism and bs to a minimum. That is not always an easy task - and it is certainly a thankless task (not that I am asking for any). One thing it can be is frustrating when you see rampant vandalism and outright fallacies in articles day after day, followed up by other users who want to run you through the ringer for every edit or revert I might do. I know I am far from the hardest working editor putting forth these efforts - I know some who do in a day what I do in a week or more, but I'd like to think I am making a positive difference. If the consensus of the admins is that this is not the case, due to a couple of isolated incidents of warning policies and the few times that some registered users thought they shouldn't be held to the same if not an even higher standard than anonip users out of the thousands of "QA" type edits and monitorings I have conducted - and that sanctions are warranted... then so be it. I'll take my lumps for it, and as I said - take my leave of WP. I leave my fate in the hands of the admins at this point, and will not respond to any further circular discussion. I've recognized the things brought to my attention and have indicated to make better efforts on them, and said my bit and perspective on non-policy matters. That is all the more I have to contribute to this situation. I await the decisions of the admins. Thanks Srobak (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you haven't recognized and said you'd do better on them because you have just tried to dodge what was brought before you. You don't have the right judgment to template the regulars. You don't seem to hear what has been asked.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus concerning Twinkle

    Both of you would benefit from reading an excellent book called Getting to YES. You would both be able to sort this out ambicably, I really think. The most troubling this is you are both right. Berean is essentially after greater compliance (and it has to be explicitaly stated) with policy and greater civility. Srobak is essentially after being allowed to edit towards the good of the encyclopedia, and the right to call a spade a spade.
    THESE GOALS ARE COMPATIBLE. Perhaps we could have another go, gentlemen? Ber could re-enable twinkle, srobak could promise not to warn anyone for a couple of days? Egg Centric (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle hasn't been removed..instead, I'm starting a consensus format. It isn't the time period of not warning...a couple of days won't make up for errors in judgment. I think your summary is probably right <and also appreciate your efforts here>. I see him as being too recalcitrant, don't like how he responds to other editors (longtime editors that I respect a good deal) and looking for him to play nice in the sandbox. Collegiality seems to be pitched out the window with him.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been templated after this discussion began for removing a warning template from the good faith IP mentioned in my original post [100]. I have little faith that the editor is really gonna change his behaviour. Yoenit (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really Yoenit? You were L1 templated because you violated WP:TPO! This is a perfect, textbook example as to why WP:TR exists and should be enforced. The original complaint from you was regarding [[101]], was reverted by an admin (Sarek) after being identified as an improper warn [[102]], replaced by the correct template [[103]], which you then removed as a third party, violating WP:TPO [[104]]. Thank you for making my case for me. Srobak (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I am off to bed before I make any comments I am gonna regret. Suffice it to say I think further discussion with you is futile. Yoenit (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Short Comment by uninvolved editor

    Srobak, I'm glad you're doing this work. You may not be aware, but you're coming off exceptionally aggressively/confrontationally here (heck, even your user page!) and I've no doubt that it's accidental, a feature of text based communication perhaps. Perhaps you may want to look at that - maybe be a little less direct, a little bit more flowery? Egg Centric (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Egg, I appreciate your feedback... but I will be honest: Flowery isn't me. I know I am direct... I don't pull any punches and I do not beat around the bush. For better or worse - it is who I am, and not just my "online persona". While some folks in this thread may see that as being potentially "problematic" for WP - the more realistic and open minded sort will also be able to identify the strengths and how they could be of far more benefit to WP vs. harm. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right, I am the same myself. Nevertheless there is some value in understanding how you come across to others and realising that even if one is in the right objectively, people will agree and disagree with you for all kinds of subjective reasons and taking care of that is wise. Furthermore, when it comes to the biting issue, this perceived aggressiveness (although we see it as straight talking) is a hindrance. Egg Centric (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Kerp in mind, too, that what you may regard as "honest plain speaking" may give the opposite impression: that you're being aggressive specifically because you have something to hide. I'm not saying that you lie; I'm saying that aggressive language often leaves the impression that the speaker is lying. People who pride themselves on aggressive plain speaking rarely realize this on their own, which is why I point it out. --174.5.67.203 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another short comment by outside editor

    Srobak, we have escalating warning levels for a reason. We try the softly softly approach before the big stick. Unless the edit in question is a serious BLP violation or otherwise egreriously violates our policies you should step through the warning templates in order. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, he's posted a mea culpa above (after this post). In general, I skip warning steps only when the vandal acts again in a short time (for example, directly reverting my revert of their vandalism). --King Öomie 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One more

    Srobak, this isn't about "talking straight" this is about following process and rules. We have a rather strict policy about what is an isn't vandalism and about assuming good faith - not to mention civilty which I guess you just don't agree with. But a level 4 warning means something particular, and so does vandalism - by using it in the wrong context you are making it meaningless.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Still another

    I couldn't help but be struck by Srobak's tone in this thread: he sounds like an old-timer who has grown embittered over the years, badly needs to take a long WikiBreak,& is tolerated because he has done valuable work in the past. However a look at Srobak's statistics show a far different person: a Wikipedian for less than two & ahalf year, having made less than 2,000 edits in that time. And there's no clear basis for bitterness on his side: yes, Srobak's been blocked, but that was years ago & for 3RR; a glance at Srobak's talk page before this WP:AN/I thread shows a lot of questions & mild warnings about he handles vandals.

    In short, I don't know where this bull dog mentality comes from. My advice to Srobak here is this: dial back on the 'tude, Dude. Not all vandals are vicious little scumbags; some are just bored juveniles. And people generally respond better to personal messages than to templates. If you can't understand this, & try to play nice with others, your experience contributing to Wikipedia will only become less pleasant. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Reliable Sources

    Issue

    On Amrish Puri, Winston786 added information without adding a WP:Reliable Source after final warning. User has recently come back from a one week block over this issue. He has had warnings over several articles from me and other users over adding WP:Reliable Source, here, here, here, here, and finally he has made changes to here again without adding references. Thanks--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ranbir Kapoor page is great example of what has happened. See the Talk page here, fascinating. Thanks --SH 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a list of where this user does not post WP:Reliable Sources, and on many occaisions goes against the source:
    1. here
    2. here which contradicts this
    3. here
    4. here
    5. here he undid a reliable source.
    6. here he seems to have an objection to Urdu.
    7. here he contradicts the reliable source.
    8. here he seems to have a strange objection against reliable sources.
    9. here he deletes what the reliable source says "When Hindus crack this joke, they are oblivious to the fact that had the Sikhs not intervened, their womenfolk would have been dishonoured and taken into exile.". This looks like WP:Censorship too.
    10. here, he removes content that I have typed on the Administrators notice board.
    11. Note the WP:Competence and WP:Reliable Source raised by an Administrator here
    12. He has had a another block this time for 2 weeks for breaking the WP:3RR rule here
    Thanks --SH 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Any interested parties might like to read the discussion on my talk page. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I didn't add it(on Amrish Puri page), I RE-added it, it was taken off by IP 115.188.244.146 on 12th January 2011, it was there earlier. User:Sikh-history, who is consistently stalking only my edits didn't check it and reverted it blindly. I have added sources(and provided better ones, when asked for) in all the disputed pages.

    User:Sikh-history himself have been adding unsourced data on pages. His edit history will let you know his obsession with me and is consistent stalking of my edits. Thank You. Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    My explaination

    2. This is a fact
    3. This is a fact
    4. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Urdu.
    5. here I did not do it.
    6. This explained above
    7. here not contradicting, infact adding
    8. This I did not, wrote EXACTLY whats written in the source
    9. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Punjab.
    10. here User:Sikh-history adding his POV unlike whats written "where they killed 1.5 lakh people, both Hindus and Muslims. He headed homewards almost immediately, taking back incredible loot gold, jewelry, elephants, horses, camels, skilled labourers and, as is usual in war, women" Winston786 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Comments

    User:Sikh-history seems to have a pro Punjab and pro Sikh bias and a little anti Hindu bias in his editions, also the user seems to be madly obsessed with me, most of his/her recent edits are the one which follow my edits on a particular page, there are too many such incidents to call it a co-incidence. He/She started editing those pages only after I edited them, so them being on his/her watchlist doesn't really hold too much ground Thank You.Winston786 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I am a Hindu convert to Sikhism originally from Haryana, and have lived in Punjab, not that it is relevant, but then again you must remember to WP:Assume Good Faith. Thanks--SH 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user seems to have a religious history which could be a reason for his supposed bias. Winston786 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is bordering on racism my friend, it is like saying because I am black, I have a chip on my shoulder, or because I am a Jew I hate Muslims. Accusations like that are not cool man.--SH 09:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RevDel needed at school articles

    Adolescent vandals teeing off on their schoolmates, who are private persons, at least one particularly nasty case. Very recent IP/new user edits, sometimes multiple edits to the articles. Edits reverted, but need to be removed from public view.

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Think I got them, but I left a couple that didn't seem revdelable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are comments made about a real person, made on a BLP of another person eligable for Revdel? As I mailed a revision to the Oversight list, but it was deemed not eligible for oversight nor for revdel as it was seen as simple vandalism. Jarkeld (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. The oversighters are much more conservative (as it should be) about using their tool than admins. If you post the diff, I can clean it up. --Jayron32 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This one. Jarkeld (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, and an earlier one by the same IP as well. --Jayron32 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a reminder, anything particularly nasty about possibly living persons, that needs consideration of RevDel or oversight, should be either sent privately to an admin happy to handle RevDel requests, or sent privately to the oversight team as per WP:OVERSIGHT. Mentioning it here risks attracting additional attention (although I imagine it made little difference in this case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The user DID contact oversight, and they refused to handle it. This seemed like a logical next step. --Jayron32 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but privately approaching someone in CAT:REVDEL might have been slightly better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to find someone on that list who was online at the time, but the people I looked at hadn't been online for a while so my next step was to mail the oversight team. Jarkeld (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the page User:Augustusguarin a violation of our licenses?

    Is the use page User:Augustusguarin itself a violation of our licenses? It seems to be a translation of Dot-com bubble to another language, which I think is probably Tagalog. However, there is nothing to attribute it to Dot-com bubble. Could someone please help? What should be done with it? Should it be deleted, or should someone encourage this user to send this article to the Tagalog Wikipedia if it has no such corresponding article (after properly attributing it to us, first)? Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to mention that this page is getting into content categories it has no business being in. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If they want to transwiki something, userspace doesn't seem inappropriate to do that. I did comment out the categories. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Attribution can (and should) be provided after the fact; this should take care of that. –xenotalk 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Google translate says its Filipino. Heiro 04:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagalog and Filipino are the same language according to what I can find. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it from search engines. Wikipedia is not a free web host, and it's the English Wikipedia, not the Tagalog one. They should be doing this on the Tagalog one, but maybe there's no rule against it. A subpage would be even better. Otherwise it's probably a good faith attempt. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Vandalism of Starwood Festival

    An editor keeps adding unsupported claims of Satanists attending Starwood. When stopped, he/she just picks a new name or logs in with no name and adds it back. There's never any attempt to include a citation or reference, just repeated insertion. I would appreciate it if something could be done about this. Rosencomet (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, is this vandalism still going on...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    131.204.254.72's edits

    An anonymous IP, 131.204.254.72 (talk), which is registered to Auburn University, has been making unilateral decisions to convert college athletic templates' color schemes. The person who keeps doing this at that IP address has been warned about it and re-warned about it, yet continues to make (some good, but too-frequently detrimental) color scheme changes. Some of the issues that concern me, and apparently at least one or two other users (on record), are:

    1. The lack of consensus with the color changes
    2. Inverting a school's primary and secondary colors sometimes
    3. This person's false belief that all navbox titles have to have white font (they don't)
    4. Many of the edits by this IP make the visibility very poor, much of which can be attributed to reason #3 above
    5. There has not once been an edit summary by this IP
    6. Last, but not least, is this IP's absolute refusal to acknowledge any concerns and questions left on his talk page; we can therefore only assume he is overtly ignoring us

    I may be out of line with this request, but I am proposing something along the lines of a two- or three-week block for this IP until he gets the point. If his unilateral editing persists, then impose a new, lengthier block, and so on. Sometimes, editors with the best intentions who think they're improving Wikipedia are the ones who weaken it, which I believe to be the case here. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment two or three weeks seems excessive. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A quick look at that IP's talk page and it is quite conceivable, indeed probable, this is a proxy server or something shared beteween god knows how many other users. Therefore whoever is making the edits quite likely didn't get the message themselves. Perhaps best to do a block that would be lifted once they acknowledge having seen the message? Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed my university (of a little more than 12,000) funnels all its internet through several IP ranges. Each IP can represent several hundred students at any given time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment

    An administrator by the name User:Maunus have had conflicts with me over content and references in some articles in the past. Articles about topics in which he identify himself as an expert in his editor page, something that always made me feel like he had somekind of a ownership problem. However those editorial conflicts had been solved, but I always felt a non necessary intromission of his part in some of the articles I edit after our conflicts were solved. In plains words, it seemed like he was "watching" my edits in order to provoke me. However, this was always ignored by me as merely a perception of my part.

    Today, another user found offensive that I erased a message left in my talk page and made me notice it [105]. Well then of all the sudden and without being involved nor asked to get involved, User:Maunus wrote a defamatory and missrepresenting note in that discussion [106], labeling my actions as "standard" and threatening me to fill a RfC. Then he continued to harass me by almost "challening me" to proceed with the RfC if I had nothing to worry about [107]. That was not only uncalled for, but like I said, generalizing my actions as something wrong. Needless to say that I have the right to delete almost any content left in my talk page [108] and that I always delete the messages that I have already read.

    Maunus' actions gave proof that he's got a personal interest against myself, given his past conflicts with me, now evidently by his meddling in a two-sided conversation. His actions were not in good-faith. This is not the first time I notice he has been watching my talk page, I just ignored that as merely my perception. His actions were uncalled for, defamatory and inflammatory. I now officially feel harassed and threatened by his actions and false sayings, which make me feel highly uncomfortable and discourage me from contributing. Needless to say that this confirms that I'm being watched in a not healthy way.

    After almost six years of editing and producing graphics for Wikipedia, I find myself with no energy nor in the mood to fight for my rights. Events in the past had left me with little hope for justice in this project. Sorry, I'm just being honest =(. I need to add that recently, when I'm asked to "give an explanation" of an edit in an accusatory way, I just delete the message from my talk page (as usual for me after reading a message) but then I stop editing in the "conflicted" article. Like I said, I recently feel tired about how certains things are done in this project. No energy.

    I just want other administrators to take notice on this and inspect the recent conversation in my talk page. It is not healthy to harass other editors based purely in what I can only call resentment. Thanks for reading this. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 03:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't find it offensive that you deleted my edits in your talk page. It was more the reverting my contributions in the main namespace without bothering to issue a single reply after multiple offers to debate (which you still haven't done) that irked me. All Maunus did was to point out that this is a recurrent trait of your history when faced with editorial disputes. As I said in your talk page, "in a horizontal collaborative project, [your disregard for editorial discussion] is likely to generate friction, since people like to have their opinions taken into account before their good-faith work is undone, and is counter to WP:EQ and WP:EP". Missionary (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not see any animus directed toward you in Maunus's messages, Alex. Talk pages are open to be edited by anyone. You may, to a certain extent, control what is posted on your user talk. I did not see where you had requested that Maunus not post to your page. As to your statement "As a free editor, I have the right to answer or not."; that is certainly the case as long as you understand that not answering has its own consequences. Tiderolls 04:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read User talk:AlexCovarrubias#BRIC and Community Etiquette and there is no harassment. It is perfectly acceptable for an editor (Maunus) to list examples to support a claim of "standard behavior for this user" (you). One of the reasons that user talk pages exist is to allow other editors to communicate directly with that user in order to discuss problems. While it's fine to reserve the right to answer, it is not fine to twice revert an edit to an article and decline to discuss the issue. Sure, you can do that a couple of times because of whatever reason, but rather than expending energy to raise a complaint at ANI, it would be more productive to engage with the issue raised at your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I obviously do not think that my comments constituted harassment, by any definition of the word, but rather saw it as a necessary step in dispute resolution. I regret that AlexCovarrubias feels that I have harassed him, that was not my intention at all, I would however suggest that that interpretation comes as he mentions from resentment - not mine but his. I don't think I can offer an actual apology, because I honestly think that all my interaction with AlexCovarrubias has been well witin reason. I do however reiterate that I do not have a wish for vengeance against him, bu only a wish for future collaboration in a more collegial spirit, including civil mutual discussion of disagreements, through talkpages. In order to determine whether I and missionary (talk · contribs) are completely wrong in our expectation that it be possible to communicate about content disputes through user talkpages and expect an answer either through modified behavior or through explanation I have filed a request for comment on the conduct of user AlexCovarrubias here·Maunus·ƛ· 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 24.185.84.37 Use of User name JeffJonez

    In reviewing edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Mitchell (government official) I noticed that 24.185.84.37 signed a comment in the AfD using the username JeffJonez. See [109] I have looked at the edits by both users and see a difference in the type of edits both create. 24.185.84.37 has removed maintenance tags and the AfD. The edits exhibit vandalism while JeffJones' edits are standard well thought out edits. Should something be done about the Anom's apparent spoofing of JeffJones' address? ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP didn't take kindly to this point being raised: [110]. Coming on top of several warnings, that one earned them a short stay in the sin bin. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    His actions go a long way to the validation of the assumption. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I've struck the fake signature in the AfD and replaced it with the real one. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I be flattered? I suppose my name is generic enough that this astroturfer thought it was cover enough. How odd! - JeffJonez (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you come into conflict with this IP recently? Or any other, in case he's hopping? GiantSnowman 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted my share of vandalism, but haven't had any challenging conversations in almost a year here. Who knows. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is it was not vandalism directed toward JeffJonez, but rather an attempt to add credibility to the AfD comment. ttonyb (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see now. The article was for a Homeland Security official, and I've previously made edits in several DHS-related articles. This is probably how anon came to choose my account -- as Ttonyb1 said -- to add credibility to their position. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacks on user:Christopher Monsanto

    Apparently Christopher made the mistake of pointing out the non-notability of someone's favorite programming language. The AfD process is simply filled with personal attacks from SPA's and anonymous IP users. You only need to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nemerle to see what I mean. I suspect there's rampant sock-puppetry as well as clear off-wiki canvassing. I don't really know what should be done, but the AfD is essentially impossible to read because of the overwhelming amount of attacks and irrelevant content. Glaucus (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Monsanto does not appear to be unduly flustered - indeed, his responses are in danger of verging on "brilliant" - and I do not see a closing reviewer being swayed by the SPA's. I think all that needs done is a quiet pat on the back for CM. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yebbut a significant number of closing Admins tend to count votes & make their judgment based on that. Not knowing much about Nemerle -- & I've made a living from computers for 15-odd years -- I would be very tempted by the discussion as it stands to close it as "No consensus" due to the combination of votes to keep & Monstanto's constant refrain of "show me the reliable sources" -- which is the right response, BTW. My recommendation in this case is that if you want to help Monsanto would be to study the AfD discussion, do some research, & add your opinion about this language. (BTW, what is the notability standard for computer-related topics? I've stayed away from this area because I'm not clear exactly what is a notable computer topics -- be it commercial software package, free source program, Linux distribution, or computer term -- & what will be deleted. Some subjects are notable only to its fanboys, & some are actually of interest beyond its cult of followers.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that the closing admin will note the lack of response to the request for RS by the majority of commentators, who question instead the acumen of the proposer. If there is a possibility that this might devolve to a head count, then perhaps thee and me should comment there? I shall do so drekkly, in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe my title here was misleading. The real issue is the clear attempt to subvert the AfD process. Rampant meat-puppetry, SPAs, meaningless votes whose sole content is to attack the proposer. If it devolves to a headcount, they will win solely because they ignored the rules of the process. Glaucus (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't devolve to a headcount. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly I should have more faith in the process :). Glaucus (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gnevin

    This user has an agenda, the results of which are continuous removals of valid content in an effort to degrade wikipedia articles on association football. The user in question is a supporter of Gaelic games and like many supporters of Gaelic games, views association football as an enemy sport in Ireland. This hateful bias is damaging to wikipedia. The user doesn't use inline cleanup tags (citation needed, etc.) in the articles in question as he has no wish for them to be improved. Instead, he removes entire blocks of valid text. Please see Ultras, List of association football club rivalries by country and other such articles (user contribs.) for examples. Onetonycousins (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do notice from his talk page there may be an issue concerning an obstinately strict enforcement of MOS:FLAGS or somethingrather, but I wouldn't say he's being disruptive, maybe just a bit intolerant. If you are seeking some sort of action to be taken you should specify, what do you want admins to do here? Have you tried steps in dispute resolution? Considered WP:RFC/U? -- Ϫ 11:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note related post: #User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks -- Ϫ 11:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the personal attack in this This hateful bias ANI Gnevin (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Jonasorg

    User talk:Jonasorg keeps restoring their machine translation at Puerto National High School. Editors have reverted this machine translated gibberish to a stub a total of FIVE times already. The user has had two friendly, informal requests, four warnings, including warnings in their own language. A short 31 hour block already imposed, was probably not noticed. Request a longer block please so that when they log on next time, they realise they have been blocked, and that the repeated reversion of the article to the long unintelligible machine translation is unacceptable.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why haven't you even started a "Discussion" page? IMHO you should try to improve other editors content instead of calling it "gibberish" and blanking it.--Raphael1 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you an admin? Instead of throwing in inane comments here, perhaps you would do your homework and look at the page history and the user talk page history where you will see that several editors, including an admin, have agreed that the page is unintelligible.--Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 1 week. -- Ϫ 11:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic: Isn't it a shame that about the only intelligible things I could get from that article were the school had both a vision statement and a mission statement. Management consultant wonk even in such a setting... Perhaps that explains the quality of its students! Egg Centric (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    About every school and school district (at least in the U.S.) has some sort of a mission statement and a vision statement; mainly a bunch of words, though, and mostly cookie-cutter. –MuZemike 02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biffer1965 making repeated accusations of plagiarism

    So Biffer1965 has been warned several times for specious material into Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers. If I were still an admin, I've have given him a time-out for not listening, but that's up to you guys now. He asserts that "someone" (likely him) originally created...whatever Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers did. It's not sourced, and it's usually added as a block of text at the end of the article. Since January he's decided to add it to talk page for the article as well. Clearly he has no intention of sourcing what he's adding, which accuses the subject of the article of plagiarism. We're in need of some intervention, here.  RasputinAXP  12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Some clue injection needed

    Anybody willing to provide some advice to this user: [111]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sizzletimethree on Lila Rose

    Sizzletimethree (talk · contribs) has now twice (1, 2 removed several days' worth of changes at Lila Rose without discussion, in violation of the controversial tag at the article's talk page. Due to intermediate edits I have been unable to undo his edits and instead had to do them manually (1 2). NYyankees51 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I am not unduly surprised. If you look at the user's talk page and their comment on the Planned Parenthood talkpage + activity there earlier today, you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. Since I have gone to some lengths to try to explain that the user needs to take things slowly and read the rules/heed advice etc, I'm starting to think that this is no longer a case of AGF, despite the user's apparent "newbie" status. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edits to Lila Rose had happened in the past ten hours, I would block Sizzletimethree. However, the edits are older, and Sizzletimethree has received some counsel from a number of editors in the interim. Speaking for myself, I'm unwilling to block for these past actions, but would block without hesitation for any such future edits. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me crazy, but the account looks suspiciously like somebody's bad hand sock. The first night the user was here, he or she went from taking three tries to figure out the {{helpme}} template to reverting Live Action (anti-abortion group) to an arbitrary early version in the history. --B (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Poofledawgirl Vandalism only acct.

    Resolved

    This user Poofledawgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying the shibi inu page and duplicating it all over wiki using different topic names as from her talk page she has been consistently using her acct. for pure vandalism. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted all pages, Sarek's blocked the user. In future this can go to WP:AIV where it's likely to be addressed quickly. —SpacemanSpiff 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Move spam

    User:Zoupan is on a move spree, which has messed up a number of articles already. He started with Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid by moving it to a ton of locations, creating a number of double-redirects in the process. There is currently a discussion on the talk page regarding the article's proper name and no consensus on a move has been reached. The user was notified on a number of times not to peform such unilateral moves[112], but he continued without responding. The exact title of the page was Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid and now it is... well, I am not sure since moves are being performed this very second. I would like to move it back at least until the discussion is over (although it seems like it is mostly going in favour of keeping the original title), but I cannot do it without creating a big mess. So, I have to ask an admin to move the page back and most probably take some action in regard to the clearly disruptive behaviour. I am not even sure what's going on with all the other articles he's been moving around, but I feel they are misplaced as well. Thanks in advance. --Laveol T 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note: I added this entry two days ago, but it seems like my edit was reverted. I have spoken to the editor in question and he said he didn't mean to do it. In the mean time User:Zoupan did actually drop two comments on the talkpage, but seemed rather uninterested in the ANI notice or undoing what he did.--Laveol T 20:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just added a friendly note to his talk page, also, encouraging him to show up here and engage in a good faith effort to address this. If he doesn't do so within, say, 12 hours, I'd suggest a block would be in order until he indicates, on this talk page, a willingness to do so. If this current thread rolls off to archives in the interim, it should be restored here so its continuity re subsequent discussion will be preserved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? Scratch that. I'd suggest an immediate block is in order. He's had plenty of opportunity already to discuss, two users have already asked him to do so, and he's obviously refused. A block is necessary at this point, imo, to prevent further unilateral moves, until such time as he becomes willing to address this in good faith. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk)

    User:Dorothyy11 and article about non-notable band "Dorothyy"

    Resolved

    This editor have three times now created the article Dorothyy, a non-notable band from Rhode Island. Three times it's been deleted, but he keeps coming back and recreating it. Then he made this diff to the Dorothy disambiguation page, after he had been reverted from adding that information to the disambig page before. To quote the edit summary in his diff, "im going to make a billion wiki pages and flood this site if this is taken down....." Recommend blocking of this editor, and salting of Dorothyy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --John (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Signatures

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

    There is potential for an edit skirmish at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, in which an IP insists on posting its signature as "Anonymous", with no links of any kind. I reverted it based on the User:Docu case. I realize it's only the ref desk, but can someone make a ruling here? Meanwhile, I will notify the user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't battle over this. I just think it's silly. Anonymous has been signing her post this way for years, and it's never been an issue. THis isn't an administrator engaged in controversial topics on talk pages, just a helpful volunteer at the desks. Whatever. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, to Baseball Bugs) It seems to me that your "it's only the ref desk" was precisely the correct reaction. Was this really worth raising here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have seen a couple of opinions here, but no definitive answer. So, yes, it was worth bringing here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, according to Wikipedia:Signatures#Links, isers are supposed to sign using the 4 tildes, and they are required to have at least one link. The IP is not providing any links or any clue who it is, and is edit-warring to try to keep it that way. Thus not only going against the basic signature rule, but also being disruptive. If anything, this is worse than the Docu case, because he at least said "Docu". "Anonymous" means nothing, and you have to look into the history to figure out who it was - which is precisely the argument that was used to justify threatening Docu with suspension unless he complied. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fine with a signature of the form "Anonymous, currently XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX", but not with a signature that purports to be from a user named "Anonymous" (who does exist). That makes it very hard, just reading the text, to tell who the edit is from. The signature link is also the main way to verify contribs, particularly once a post is archived. Without it, you have to dig in the appropriate page history for the edit with that timestamp. So the lack of signature does not add any actual anonymity (registering a username would be better), but the fake signature does make it harder for people to follow up on a contribution.

    Given how trivial it is to create a valid signature, or to let Sinebot do it, and given that there is no anonymity gain in faking it, the user is only doing this to make some kind of point (note the "playing Sinebot" remarks the user also made).

    If this user really is a long-term contributor, at some point they need to begin following site norms. There are a few users who don't want to create usernames - that's their prerogative. But the downside of not logging in is that your edits are going to be associated with whatever IP address you are using at the time, that's simply the way the site is designed. Misusing nosine to make a "fake" stable username, so that you can avoid creating a real username, isn't a solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That IP has been active for about 4 1/2 years, ad from their very first edit they've used that misleading "Anonymous" construct. Maybe when they started doing that, it was "sort of OK", as per Sluzzelin's argument; but it no longer is OK, and needs to be changed to conform to the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see it being tolerated in 2006, when the site was smaller, but it's certainly not appropriate anymore. It's also a bad precedent to set: the goal (and rule, in WP:SIGN) is for everyone to sign their posts. Particularly on "public facing" pages like the reference desk. I think it would be fine if the user simply appends their IP to the "Anonymous". — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a participant in this dispute, I should note I agree with CBM. Algebraist 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I checked, and the IP address is running an open proxy. I am going to block it per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxies: "Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight." — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm.[113] Perhaps that explains why the user was not so keen on having its IP address openly visible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me a crime akin to tearing the tag off a mattress. David Able 03:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the mattress. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, the IP is (1) starting to sign properly, which is excellent; and (2) going to check with a system administrator to find out what the deal is with the open proxy, a static I they've been using for 5 years. I suspect the user will get reinstated, and will have fixed the issue I raised here, and all would be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't ban IPs for technical offences. IPs don't have enough rights as it is. I have edited as various IPs for years and beleive me they're treated as third class citizens. Egg Centric (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IP's who stick with the rules don't get into trouble. It's the ones who hide behind the IP's (or multiple IP's) and use that anonymity as a vehicle for incivility and vandalism, that give the "good" IP's a bad reputation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Open proxies are guaranteed to get into trouble. However, I'm not seeing the open proxy here for 208.76.104.133. There's a webserver running on the system but I'm not seeing an open proxy on the standard ports and it's not in any proxy blacklists. Could Carl or someone else please identify the proxy mechanism? Sailsbystars (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    violation of 3RR

    User Roger Pearse has violated 3RR on Mithraic mysteries‎‎. He has made four reverts in close succession and at least one was after being warned to refrain from edit warring. He has also reverted one of my comments from the talk page.-Civilizededucationtalk 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there are better noticeboards for that, but in the meantime (since the situation was obviously headed downhill) I have asked the mediation cabal to assist in reaching a resolution, listing you and Roger Pearse and one other editor - you may (or may not) wish to indicate your acceptance of mediation on that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (In addition, the page in question is full protected, and the user in question said he's not going to be online today, so things seem under control) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavioral problems

    RegentsPark (talk · contribs) and I are rarely on the same side of content disputes and that's fine since it leads to improved article content at times. The user has however demonstrated behavioral problems on a number of occasions. He launched a personal attack on me by calling me someone with a "single track mind". When I requested him to remove the offensive content, he simply ignored me. I asked him again but instead of removing the content and apologizing, he simply continues to argue, now saying that I am obsessive about a certain position. I am neither of a single track mind nor am I obsessive.

    On an earlier occasion, in removing an {{Indian English}} template, he demonstrated that behavioral guidelines such as WP:POINT don't apply to him and do apply to me.

    In the past, RegentsPark has been brought to ANI by another editor User:Yogesh Khandke allegedly for misusing his administrative privileges and several other behavioral issues.

    Appropriate and timely action will help stop the reckless behavior by RegentsPark. I am requesting that an administrator remove the content that assails my character. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone is blowing things out of proportion... WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm apt to agree with Wikiman1. The comments may have been offensive to you, but are far from personal attacks and are closer to character observations.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (1)For an administrator, who has been for a greatly longer time on the project than Zuggernaut it is highly inappropriate that he attacks the person as opposed to contesting the content put forth by the person. (2)No one can be perfect and it not easy for an editor to understand the thin line between being considered tendentiousand perseverant. (3)Regarding the nature of Zuggernaut’s edits, is it not better for Wikipedia that an editor restricts himself to a very small spectrum of content of which he has expertise about? Please see the article Wikipedia, there is a criticism on it that which goes like this "My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the TV show Scrubs, also lampooned Wikipedia's reliance on editors who edit both scholarly and pop culture articles with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the Battlestar Galactica episode guide. (4)The least the concerned administrator-editor can do is to defuse the tension by making appropriate statements as requested by Zuggernaut, so that every one of us can get on with the task of building a better encyclopaedia: for example the The Great Backlog drive seeks our time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    racism by Badger Drink

    I saw this edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damnatio_memoriae&curid=44345&diff=412838755&oldid=406233625 and thought I would look into the user. Their talkpage is dripping with warnings about incivility. The term used in this edit summary is racist, equivalent to the n-bomb. There is an article on the term itself, which touches barely on the fact that it's offensive. Bitey and snide I can handle, this is too far.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't looked into the edits much but you cannot say Goyim is equivalent to the n-bomb, that's ridiculous. I don't even know how to respond, they're completely different. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 04:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that he used the plural form when it should have been singular. Other than that, meh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnic pejoratives of any kind are uncalled for. Heiro 04:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a term that has very different meanings depending on the context. For example, in the phrase Shabbos goy it has no negative connotations. In this context, the connotation seems negative and the meaning seems to constitute a slur. It does however seem that in this context the comparison being made by Kintet exaggerates the severity. If it were directed at a specific user I'd say it was a violation of WP:NPA, but given the context, it is more running afoul of not being a dick. It isn't helpful and is needlessly inflammatory. So, um, don't do it again?JoshuaZ (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a goy myself, I found it funny, if perhaps a bit too pointed for an edit summary. To call it "racist" is silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto Egg Centric (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but Kintetsubuffalo may have a good point. I think he sees the word goy as equivalent to gaijin, haole, Pākehā, Ausländer, and other terms, and he may be right. I suspect every culture on the planet has similar terms to indicate "those who are not like us". Xenophobia may be more than just a cultural or social value. It may be a function of the mind itself. If so, then one should be aware of our tendency to act in such a way, and to be more careful with the words we use. It is even possible that Badger Drink isn't aware of the words he uses, which would explain the continuing civility violations. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's focusing on the word rather than the meaning. I interpret Badger's comment as being short for, "Not only would a Jew never make this claim, only the most ignorant non-Jew would make this claim." He's just saying it in a somewhat more colorful way. That doesn't mean he's correct in his assessment, but that's another story. And while I suppose it's possible that some folks use goy the way the N-word is used, in general the idea the goy and n*gg*r are equivalent is... ignorant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct; the word goy is not used like or as the n-word, but it could be misconstrued as racist because it has xenophobic undertones. In this way, goy is really no different than gaijin or haole. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not racist the way he used it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oy vey. This goyim doesn't find it particularly offensive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it's not racist as he used it, as JoshuaZ so elegantly explained. However, it can certainly be misconstrued as racist due to its xenophobic undertones, and this explains the reaction of Kintetsubuffalo and Heironymous Rowe. Badger Drink should remember that edit summaries are used specifically to help other editors know what type of edits are being made as they peruse their watchlist. Was Badger Drink's edit summary helpful? Badger Drink has a history of using edit summaries to make wisecracks, and many are less than civil. Now would be a good time for him to stop using edit summaries in this way and an opportunity to engage in more civil discourse. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree that the edit summary was an attempt at humor (which I, as a goy, indeed found funny). But I don't see how could that specific comment could be construed as "racist". It doesn't put down any race or ethnic group, it puts down the ignorant. That may be unfair to the mentally challenged, but it ain't "racist". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Xenophobia" and "racism" are often confused with each other, and this would explain the reaction by Kintetsubuffalo. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Badger Drink's comment that "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact" is a clear personal attack on the editor who made the edit he reverted. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No question is a sarcastic putdown of the original poster, and may well be unfair. But the comment itself is neither "racist" nor "xenophobic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is most certainly xenophobic, and there is no question about that fact. Do a bit of research on the history of the term, please. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that specific statement xenophobic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The word, not the statement. You are free to consult Google Books, Scholar, or your local library for further information, as this discussion has gone beyond the boundaries of this topic. There is general agreement in this discussion that Badger Drink should be more careful with his edit summaries in the future and remain civil with his fellow editors. As for xenophobia, it is found in every culture, and is part of who we are as humans. Nobody is immune from it. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that doesn't fly. The word itself is just a word. Tell me how that specific statement could possibly be misconstrued as xenophobic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does "fly", and no word is by itself "just a word". Words have meaning, and this word is classically defined as xenophobic in the same way as gaijin, haole, and all the other words meaning "not us". This is not even up for debate. Do some research on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't fly. Words are used in different ways in different contexts. You can't say, "this word sometimes means this, therefore it always means this." Unless you think I myself am an "ignorant goy", in that I'm not in the least offended by it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept is classically defined as xenophobic regardless of the context. In fact, that is exactly what makes it good material for comedy, such that it can be used in any context without changing its meaning. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care what it's "classically" defined to be. You can find xenophobia and racism anywhere, if you go looking for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is removing a BIAS tag vandalism?

    User:Igny has reverted my removal of a bias tag and called me a vandal.rv vandalism I am sure it is not, would someone be so kind as to inform him such personal attacks are not on Tentontunic (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    this may shead some light on the situation --Guerillero | My Talk 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Impersonation - Mad Doggin 7 Making False Claims Using my Signatures/Claiming to be Moderator

    The user User: Mad Doggin 7 has been impersonating me, making claims on the Talk:List of Black Rock Shooter characters and linking my user name at the end as a signature as if I had made the claim myself. Prior to clarifying that I am being impersonated, I have not made any contributions to that page since September 24, 2010 as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=386769826&oldid=386560984.

    The edit(s) in question in which the identified culprit has made are the following:

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=410621620&oldid=410254409 : Mad Doggin 7 uses my name at the end to back his own personal argument about sources and naming in the article
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=411390510&oldid=411390089 : In this edit he claims for himself that I am a moderator to give weight to the last statement he made as me(noted in the above edit). I have never once alluded to being, cited myself as being, falsified my self as being or claimed myself to being a moderator

    My account has not been compromised and a quick check through My Contributions shows edits that correlates with ones that I myself am aware that I made. To summarize, the user in question, User: Mad Doggin 7 has been editing in my name to their arguments in order to gain some absurd advantage over other editors. They have also made false statements and impressions that I am a moderator, of which I myself have never expressed, in order to gain an upper hand in their personal desire to ensure their edits to the List of Black Rock Shooter characters article are not removed or changed. Fox816 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into it. Is it possible you wrote that in the past and he copy-pasted it? That's the only innocent explanation I can think of. N419BH 06:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never made any such claims and a refresher check through my history shows no such writings. I read through it all...and to be blunt, their methodology and the fact they claimed it to be mine is an insult to me as an editor and a person. I clearly state in earlier posts that "I myself am not sure as to what the accurate names are for the characters aside the main four in the OVA so I can't comment on naming issues" - edit on September 17. I also clearly state that reliable sources must be provided and should be linked. Fox816 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's kinda what I thought. Looks like someone who doesn't realize the history shows which account actually made the edit. Looks intentional too; they seem to have created the comment signed to you in order to provide a second opinion to back them up, then they mistakenly assumed that everyone who's been around for a couple years is a "moderator" (no idea what that is) and used that to proxy-threaten the opposition with blocks. A STERN warning here seems more than appropriate, and a block is perhaps in order, though I don't have the tools to do that. N419BH 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clearing this up Fox816. I had my suspicions that something was up because the recent behavior under your name was distinctly inconsistent with past behavior, and I had a feeling that Mad Doggin 7 was somehow involved.
    Please note, any administrators investigating this, that I have also started a thread with addressing several other grievances involved with Mad Doggin 7 (and his associated IP address 65.254.165.214) which is located higher up on this page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214. It has information related to this investigation, and as of yet has not received administrator attention (as far as I can tell). CannikinX (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out Fox's "signature" in the post in question and placed a note regarding who actually wrote the post and directed users to the page's history for the evidence. Investigating the socking claim now. N419BH 07:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for all your help. I went through the warning templates checking for one that fits "impersonation" but can't seem to find one, unless I happened to skip over it in my rage. If it is in my right to suggest, I believe a block is appropriate since the said user has shown a tendency for intimidation, subjugation and a general disrespect for other editors. As well, impersonation itself is a severe grievance that should not go unpunished. Will an administrator come along and deal judgment or do I have to parallel this case somewhere else? Fox816 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This template can be used once he is blocked, Template:Blockedimpersonator. Here is a warning template for his talk page, User:Chrisch/Templates/Impersonation. There is also one to use when actually blocking, Template:Uw-uhblock-double. I don't see one for warning users of impersonation however. Hope this helps! WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leave it here for now. It's pretty common around this time (late night in the United States, early morning in Europe) for the boards to go pretty silent and few people to be online, with even fewer admins around. Someone will read through it once they've had some coffee and deal with it as appropriate. A stern warning is appropriate here, and I will provide a customized one in a moment. As for blocking the user, blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't use them to punish people, we use them to prevent damage. In my opinion, a stern warning is appropriate here, but a block is not unless the user continues their disruptive behavior. N419BH 07:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I guess I went ahead of myself there. I opened up a can of angry birds, now I need to cool down a bit. Thank you everyone for assisting :D Fox816 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Final Warning given. We'll see what his response is. N419BH 07:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too optimistic, and a look at this talk page history shows why, but we'll see. Kansan (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with user needed

    Could someone who speaks Finnish please try to communicate with this user? I now believe they may be continually ignoring warnings and recreating pages because they don't understand english. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editnotice required, apparently...

    Per this Wikipedia:Hardcore images needs an Editnotice created to let us know that we're not allowed to edit that essay without Herostratus' permission. I was going to create one myself but it seems one needs to be an admin to do it; no doubt he would have himself had he not been desysopped.

    Oh, and yes the above may contain a *hint* of sarcasm. Egg Centric (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Account creators may also edit edit notices. --Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy

    At Aspartame_controversy Brangifer and his friends, particulary Yobol are making the lead into some gossip section, inserting multiple unreliable sources, strengthened with Weasel words and immediately claiming consensus when I removed rightfully the ridiculous sources. Yobol then falsely accuse me of the three-revert rule at my talk page while I only undid an edit once and undid an edit again that contained different info. When someone mentions an unreliable source, the burden is on them to prove it's reliable. These people have a very aggressive attitude towards editors who present the other side in the controversy to level out the article. After all it's about a controversy, a dispute. I would like to see these people being blocked or even banned from the article. Immortale (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please supply some difs of who the meat puppet(s) are and some of the other things you are claiming like false consenses. From looking at the history of the article, you are at 3 rr which means the notice is good. The sources you say aren't reliable the other editors involved are saying are reliable which brings consensus against you. Please keep in mind the WP:Boomerang. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the underlying issue is the prominence given to the Merkel emails, this is a niche event that is rarely even mentioned in serious coverage of the controversy. The article has been having serious discrepancy issues with regard to sources for as long as I have been editing here, to the point that GAO reports were sought to be excluded for spurious reasons. Why something that is rarely mentioned in serious sources and often only in passing if at all, is given the first line in our article is odd. un☯mi 13:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    These pro aspartame editors keep claiming consensus immediately whenever someone tries to make a valid contribution towards the neutrality of the article. They work closely together, support each other, protect each other (here for example where Brangifer demands an apology from me for his friend), and bully all other editors who have a different opinion than them even if they apply the wikipedia guidelines. The three-revert rule doesn't apply because I didn't revert 3 times the same edit. The source was replaced by another unreliable source. If this is what Wikipedia is about: bully-editing, then allow it, otherwise I really would like to see a strong and just administrator to do the right thing and ban the aforementioned two individuals from the article, as they are the most prominent. The proof for this is all over the talk page and the history section.Immortale (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reg1997 six (6) CSD of this article in three days

    User:Reg1997 claims to be "Isa 13 year old boy that have an assignment to create article on wikipedia by it's name." The article has been speedy deleted six times in the past three days. The user apparently understands how to game the system by using variations of capitals, etc., for each reincarnation. Request admin intervention to salt the versions of the title and eventually to block the editor.

    • 19:43, 11 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: fork of List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox)
    • 16:59, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
    • 17:29, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "REG JAYCOBB JACOBO" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
    • 19:43, 11 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: fork of List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox)
    • 16:59, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
    • 13:53, 13 February 2011 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg Jaycobb Jacobo" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: History of EastEnders)

    Kudpung (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have issued a final warning and will keep an eye on the young man. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the page he's creating is more or less a variation on List_of_EastEnders_characters_(1985)#Reg_Cox but with a different name substituted, thus this is bad faith, rather than just cluelessness. Egg Centric (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a salt request at RPP, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. Lavalamp from Mars (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Christopher Monsanto

    Currently all the activities of this users seems to be trying to remove information from the Wikipedia, especially about programming languages. He may be right about single points, some pages may really not be notable, but: overall he is certainly inflicting damage to the Wikipedia. The notability-related distinguishing features are often marginal, so this systematic elimination of information, including fast deletion-processes certainly implies the loss of a lot of usefull, and even notable (for statistical reasons) articles. It will decrease the representativeness of the presented programming languages dramatically, and I do not see any benefits in this systematic elimination. In my opinion it is better to keep some non-notable programming languages than to take those risks. Even if a programming language becomes notable in near future it is unlikely that there will be usefull information available at Wikipedia due to this process, authors will be shocked by that elimination. Since he has announced not to reply to criticism, I am writing this comment here. I am really worried about the quality of information related to programming languages in the Wikipedia. Sometimes we should not be to finicky with notability-policies, when the over-all quality of Wikipedia's information about one topic is in danger, this process of deletion should be stopped. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I'm not a fan of one of the removed programming language, it is just about the quality of information presented here. And I do not follow Christopher's advice not to complain here, because it is not a personal issue, but I care about Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=413690621"