Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

 – I'm on it like white on rice Tan | 39 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is pretty backlogged. AnyPerson (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at 98.223.164.233 (talk · contribs), whose listing was removed from WP:AIV without any action. The editor has a huge page of warnings for vandalizing wrestling related articles, has been blocked twice in the last two months, continues to vandalize this evening, but apparently nothing is to be done? AnyPerson (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have stopped (no edits in about 30 minutes). Let us know if it starts up again -- Samir 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And quit forum-shopping, AnyPerson. Stop getting worked up about one editor - you left a not-so-polite message on my page and shopped to JulianColten as well. Three admins have now said that there is insufficient evidence for a block. Tan | 39 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how many admins tell me that there is insufficient evidence for a block (and I only count two). If a person is vandalizing and the admins can't read the evidence provided to see that the person is vandalizing, then I'm going to continue trying to get somebody to block the vandal. The admins (You and JulianColten) are obviously not reading the vandal's edits properly. At the point when I reported them to WP:AIV, they were currently in the process of mixing possibly good edits in with obviously vandalistic edits, but the two of you shrugged. What does it take to get a repeat vandal blocked? AnyPerson (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless a vandal is operating a bot or otherwise editing at a rapid pace, there's no need to get so worked over having to revert an edit or two. John Reaves 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I guess I won't bother to report vandals any more, if admins don't care. AnyPerson (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When there is a question whether a person is editing in good faith or vandalizing, most admins will err on the side of caution... This is A Good Thing™, in my opinion. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that admins can't figure out whether or not this is a good faith edit, in light of the editor's past history and block record? AnyPerson (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit was from 21:39 (my local time, don't feel like doing UTC math atm), and the report was removed at 22:35. The most recent edit was in good faith, so the administrator must have decided the vandal had moved on. As should we. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are just jumping on the "rant about admins every chance you get" bandwagon or what, but drop the indignation and just accept that everything won't always go your way and get back to the encyclopedia, this isn't constructive. John Reaves 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate

Resolved

 – Both blocked 5 years John Reaves 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate uses both User:213.197.27.252/User_Talk:213.197.27.252 and User_Talk:94.75.219.73/User:94.75.219.73 at the moment. Please *PERMANENTLY* block both 213.197.27.252 and 94.75.219.73 from editing anything unless the user has taken the time to login with a real account. Clearly people are too childish to abuse the feature provided by IPv6Gate. Users who are using IPv6Gate and want to contribute meaningful items will register/login and provide their contributions that way. Basically IPv6Gate is an Open Proxy, especially as the Wikimedia software doesn't support XFF for IPv6. See IPv6Gate and IPv6Gate:Talk for other details. Blocking those two IPs avoids work for you and it is just the sane thing to do at the moment. 213.197.27.252 is blocked at the moment already because of this, thus make that one, and the other one permanent please. (/me is jeroen@sixxs.net and responsible for IPv6Gate) Jeroen (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you're responsible for said Proxy, then why don't you just deny access and leave anyone trying to reach Wikipedia a note telling them this? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think only Wikipedia has the ability to distinguish registered users from unregistered ones.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As Kww mentioned, we can't see who is registered or not. The normal case here would be to use XFF so that admins could see the original IP, but unfortunately XFF doesn't support IPv6 on wikimedia, as such, that is simply not possible. Jeroen (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • We don't do indefinite IP blocks, but I think a long block is in order. — Jake Wartenberg 13:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That is fine, a block for a long time which avoids anonymous users from abusing Wikipedia by using IPv6Gate without having a registered account would be the way to go. Jeroen (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that we do in fact do indef. IP blocks (rarely). — neuro^(talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've updated the talk pages to explain this block. Jeroen (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Insulted by user:Jake Wartenberg

Resolved

 – Not an AN/I issue at this point. –xeno (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He is continuously blaming me of vandalism, as I cleaned up an article Brahmi script. Doesn't assume good faith. --91.130.91.84 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about discussing it with him on your or his talk page, instead of immediately running to ANI? Tan | 39 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine fine --91.130.91.84 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Intelligent design

Resolved

 – Protected for three days. — neuro^(talk) 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war currently going on on Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the use of book cover images. Some help could be good. --Damiens.rf 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest full protection. I would protect myself, however I'm not sure that I'd be perceived as neutral. PhilKnight (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. FP 3 days. Tan | 39 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Historian19: copyright violations, disruptive editing and block evasions

I've just blocked indefinitely Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for evading his block for the second time in less than 2 days (user:ScottishGunner and user:AlJoseph) —not including a number of IPs he's bragging about using anytime he'd want. Historian19 has created havoc in every article he edited (mainly copyright violations or very disruptive editing) and has bothered many respected editors and admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

incivility ... i think

Resolved

on the article Glock's talk page, after mentioning to User:Nukes4Tots that he need not have a meltdown [[1]] and to chill with the (what i believe to be) borderline personal attacks, his response (with an edit summary of 'I WANNA KILL') was "Jeez, would you please use the shift key. Meltdown, my ass. Throw a fucking cuss word out once or twice and people who can't use a fucking keyboard freak out. So, two fucking sources and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. See how cool that was? You say I'm having a meltdown and I say you're freaking out. Toss a few explictives and you're convinced. Problem is, none of this is really happening. I'm here at my easy chair typing on a laptop watching a show on Anartic core sampling, sipping a cup of cold water. Just 1's and 0's dude, not enough to get my dander up. Here you are fantasizing about some Arlo Guthrie song that I'll quote for you to ponder: "And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." [[2]]. obviously this response of his is not relevant to an article, and is not an efficient use of an article's talk page. but it also borderlines on personal attacks and incivility, i think. i don't think sarcasm is really an excuse to be uncivil. since he told me 'i can't use a fucking keyboard,' i'm probably not the one to talk to him about this. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Formally warned on his talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

...although I'm wondering if a warning is enough? I'll defer... Xavexgoem (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I judge that User:Nukes4Tots is calm and that perhaps Theserialcomma is missing his point. Perhaps one needs to know Alice's Restaurant. Sure, User:Nukes4Tots is forceful, but the tone of this exchange appears to have been set by Theserialcomma's it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. As she/he says, "obviously this response of his is not relevant to an article, and is not an efficient use of an article's talk page. but it also borderlines on personal attacks and incivility, i think. i don't think sarcasm is really an excuse to be uncivil. " --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's from Alice's Restaurant as quoted by User:Nukes4Tots. He does that. It's for the children, you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He was warned for quoting Guthrie? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, and told in no uncertain terms he'd be blocked if he did it again? Xavexgoem, I must disagree here, and concur with Tagishsimon above. This is humor. You know, ha-ha? Not personal attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was Arlo. No one minds if you quote Woody, but quoting Arlo is a punishable offense in some states.—Kww(talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody was a socialist, he's not popular in some regions either. This land is your land, this land is my land.. replace "land" with, oh, Motersickle. This pickle is my pickle, this pickle is your pickle... see? Socialism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody had a guitar bearing the words, "This machine kills fascists." Would that it had said Socialism = fascism + late trains. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

some context: i first tried to add to the lede that glock also makes an automatic pistol, the glock 18. the consensus was that this is not worth mentioning in the lede, since it's a specialized weapon not representative of their products - and the glock 18 is already mentioned in the article. i did not argue further once consensus was against me, i was just arguing against the reasons provided until consensus was formed. for example, nukes4tots said that 4 heavy hitters disagreed with me, and that he was a personal expert on the topic and knew i was wrong about the glock 18 being different internally than the glock 17. i told him it's irrelevant whether someone's a 'heavy hitter' on an article or a newbie unicorn - there is no policy stating that 'heavy hitters' are more correctly following WP policy than a newbie. but consensus was against my change to the lede, so i didnt bother arguing or editing against consensus at that point. people didn't want it in the lede, i read their arguments, and i conceded thta i wouldnt edit against consensus. the thing that set nukes4tots off was a referenced change further in the article that the major parts of the glock 18 are different from the glock 17. he disagreed [[3]], disregarded my source, with the edit summary "Reference it or not, the main components of the Glock 18 ARE interchangeable with the model 17. Frame, barrel, slide. Only the selector, disconnector, and a few other non-major parts don't." so he reverted a reliable source to no source at all, because he is an expert. i tried to explain that you don't remove something that's sourced to revert to something that is not sourced, just because you think you know the truth. his next edit summary was [[4]] "Please, back off unless you know what you're talking about. Here's the reference, you put it in--> [5]" that is the 'borderline' personal attack i was referring to - he told me i dont know what i'm talking about when i was accurately quoting from a reliable source. he was attacking the editor, not the content. then he wrote all the other stuff above, which i believe is more uncivil than a personal attack. e.g. " nukes4tots: "(two unreliable sources) and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. " . i saw it as a passive aggressive way to try to hide a personal attack in sarcasm. he said basically "hey, i never called you a fucking moron, because that would surely be a valid example of a personal attack, which i did not do. i specifically said you WEREN'T a fucking moron! see, it's negated! humor! now i am going to quote from a song that mentions murder, for reasons unspecified. more humor for you!" maybe i should just thank him for bringing needed humor to the gun article. sometimes my ideas are best expressed in a song too. mixtapes for everyone. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you two don't agree on how to say the models are very, very much the same, but a 17 can't be quickly made into an 18 by swapping in the key bits. Why does this bring my thoughts back to Arlo and Woody? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno but all this talk about guns and Guthries has got Ludlow Massacre running through my head. The song, not the event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I once heard a Cuban comedian quote Alice's Restaurant in his act. Of course, with his accent it went something like, "Jews can get anything Jews want at Aleece's Restaurante." Can't help, to this day, imagining the Kosher menu they'd serve there. Do they serve Gentiles too? I'm afraid nothing I can say towards the matter at hand would suffice. Never much cared for Woody either, on that subject. Theserialcomma, Arlo didn't really want to kill anybody either. His entire performance was tongue-in-cheek, much as mine was. Hope your dander settles down some. I'm sure Alice's Restaurant would have something to help you in that respect as well, brother. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent GFDL violation

Resolved

 – GFDL attribution to be appropriately dealt with during the requested move process. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arcayne wishes to move Serenity (franchise) to Firefly (franchise). So and good. However, the editor pasted in text from the former to the latter without stating where it has come from, which seems to me a violation of the GFDL, indicating that he was going to nominate Serenity (franchise) for deletion (which would have vanished the originating page's history). I reverted the paste and notified him of Wikipedia:Move#Page_histories (which says not to cut and paste) and WP:Requested moves, the place to deal with this.

While User:Arcayne appears to be willing to follow the procedures at WP:Requested moves, he has insisted on pasting in the text from Serenity (franchise) into Firefly (franchise) twice more, before any page move goes ahead. I'd rather not go to three reverts on this thing if, instead, anyone can possibly get through to the editor over his actions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but there doesn't seem to be a noticeboard specific to this. – The Parting Glass 21:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne appears to have initiated a discussion at WP:RM, and I've restored the redirect pending the resolution of the discussion. Assuming there are no further reverts, I don't think there's anything ANI-worthy left here. --barneca (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So I shouldn't have banhammered Arcayne? Oops... Tan | 39 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I cut and pasted (and thereafter copyedited) the text from Serenity (franchise) to Firefly (franchise) after I discovered that the Serenity article could not be renamed (the Firefly article was being used, incorrectly, as a redirect). Even though deleting an AfD tends to cock up matters by orphaning the subsequently generated discussion page at AfD, I did not revert the AfD removal and held off finishing the AfD discussion page (I discovered the note from PG while previewing the discussion page at AfD). After PG offered the advice about requested page move instead, I agreed, and pursued that. Shortly thereafter, PG withdrew from the discussion, apparently bruised at being told how to actually address an AfD nomination, and subsequent commentary.

I had been planning on self-reverting when I received notification of this discussion by PG. I can see it has been reverted by Barneca pending the outcome of the requested move discussion. Sorry for any dramaz. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Tan - what would Wikipedia be without your edgy comic relief? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A more serious encyclopedia, probably. Tan | 39 22:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we can go with that. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Would someone care to review the complaint of an unhappy customer?

Resolved

 – copyvio deleted at Commons and user blocked there by User:Mike.lifeguard; unblock request denied here by OhNoitsJamie; reblocked with inability to edit own talkpage by User:TravisTX. I think that should cover it. Bencherlite^Talk 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See Doctorinth3tardis (talk · contribs) and this novel attempt to win friends and influence people. Oh, and a Commons admin may be interested in File:IHAVEEVERYRIGHTTOUPLOADTHISPHOTO.jpg. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cute. I think I'll upload a photo showing a dog with a gun pointing at its head, and title it "IFYOUDELETETHISPHOTOWE'LLSHOOTTHISDOG.jpg". Although I have a nagging suspicion that's been done already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

historian19

Resolved

 – See newer report below. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to copyright violations and editing nonsense, User:historian19 was blocked. Today, I see that a subsequent account of his/her User:ScottishGunner was blocked. While checking and reverting the stuff added/changed by this account, I also see that he/she used IP address 41.249.57.101 after historian19 was blocked and prior to taking up the account ScottishGunner (from Jan 20 to Jan 23). I know this from the nature of the edits and language used along with further copyright violations. Can you check on this and consider a block on this IP address. You may also want to see if some type of permanent basic block can be done as this is an editor who is very persistent and prolific in adding nonsense and copyright material to articles. Hmains (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not much that can be done with that IP, as the last edits were 3 days ago and the IP has likely been reallocated to another person. Have you seen any more recent IP edits? Kevin (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

no, Historian19 then went on to use ScottishGunner from the Jan 23 to today. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

The Rick Warren article was recently unprotected after being under full protection for a couple weeks. A new contributor to the article, User:Phoenix of9, who from his contribution history and user page appears to be an activist similar to User:Teledildonix314 (who caused the article to be protected), immediately began making wholesale changes to the article without any consensus on the discussion board and started edit-warring with another editor. Clearly, with an article that was just under full protection as a result of a very similar situation, User:Phoenix of9 should have at the very least discussed his ideas on the discussion page before he made changes - he didn't. I politely asked him to follow User:Teledildonix314's lead and walk away from an article he is clearly very biased against, but he rudely refused. Please keep an eye on him and the article - hopefully it won't need to be protected again. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone please comment on Manutdglory's behaviour?

Manutdglory "As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war."[6]

It seems he was already warned by two users (including an admin, User:ZimZalaBim ) about civility and edit warring issues: [7] [8] [9] Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: he was warned by 3 people, besides me [10]. He deletes warnings at once so it's hard to go over his talk page. And he seems that he likes saying he can bring in an administrator [11][12], so any admin opinion would be appreciated.Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Past comments by other users have nothing to do with this situation. Your actions however, do. Manutdglory (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to cease the personal attacks and the petty "stop or I'll call mom" rhetoric. Use the article's talk page to work through the content differences, and if necessary, seek the appropriate dispute resolution. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didnt make any personal attacks against Manutdglory. Feel free to go over post histories. His actions are unwarrented. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I took your advice and went through dispute resolution, creating an entry for Manutdglory in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And you were told by administrators that you had no case there either. Manutdglory (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have added a comment in the RfC on this talkpage but do notice some rather contentious editing and comments. I feel uncomfortable warning other users, as a now-involved editor, but would appreciate more eyes on this situation. Whatever has gone on in the past here seems like its boiling up some which likely isn't helping the article. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, and if you don't mind Benji, what exactly are your interests and intentions for the Rick Warren article? A glance over your user page and edit history seems suspicious, based on the profiles of users who have previously caused the article to be fully protected. Manutdglory (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please wp:Assume good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have warned Manutdglory regarding continued incivility and failure to assume good faith, especially wrt this edit. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gerardw made him a suggestion too [13] but he isnt listening: [14] Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it humorous that Phoenix of9 is yet to directly respond to my complaint against him. All his rebuttals seem to have one thing in common - ignoring the issue at hand and attacking me. Yet I am accused of being the one who is uncivil. Interesting. Manutdglory (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks except to say they are irrelevant and that you should comment on content and not on editors. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest you both disengage for a while. Perhaps spend a day improving articles about puppies or lollipops. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the previous suggestion regarding Manutdglory and other editors. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article Wikipedia seems quite inefficient. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, really, just leave it alone. All of you. Here, this is how easy it is to find other articles to improve. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh btw, theres a RFC in article's talk page in case u wanna discuss the actual content of the article instead of all this drama. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

@Manutdglory: No, it's not interesting, and it's not as you describe. It's a repeat of the sort of situation in which i found myself involved with you a few weeks ago, and although i changed my behavior after going down in flames, you have yet to swerve at all from your choice of behavior. The History pages of the Rick Warren article and of your UserTalk page make this quite painfully obvious. If you don't believe the Rick Warren article is being handled appropriately, i would suggest you consider the course of action which i already recommended on the Discussion Page for that article: let an editor with a Neutral POV write a good draft, and then let other editors discuss whether they are at a concensus with such a draft. Until then, your edits are not helping, your edit-warring on the Discussion page is not helping, and it would seem that you are going to only encourage other novice editors to repeat the same pathway i followed along with you. Perhaps it's time for *YOU* to step away from the article. Teledildonix314 ^talk 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildo, I'm not even going to respond - I'm over it. ZimZalaBim, I'm completely willing to disengage from the article for awhile. Actually, I didn't even participate in the vigorous dialogue on the article's discussion page while the article was fully protected. It was only when Phoenix of9 came out of nowhere last week and began making wholesale changes to the article with absolutely no consensus that I re-engaged with the article to protect it and maintain its neutrality. We'll see if Phoenix of9 is also willing to abide by your request. Manutdglory (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I reading through old discussions I noticed that you state you're a member of the church,[15], if this is true it may present a conflict of interest. If other editors are causing problems it's likely better to calmly state what you see the issue as and then contact an admin if the problem persists. You're welcome to edit and so are other editors regardless of backgrounds and beliefs. The article neither should be a slam peice nor read like an advertisement and everything is subject to editing so through it all it's better to remain calm and if it's getting heated, take a break. The goal is to improve the article. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between having an inconsequential "conflict of interest" (ex. an alum who edits his alma mater's article) yet being able to edit in an unbiased manner by only making reliably-sourced edits (which is what I do) and being an extremely-biased, radical activist who goes around editing articles of people one hates by adding non-NPOV, highly-biased and unreliably-sourced salacious material, which is a gross abuse of Wikipedia policy. Manutdglory (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Manutdglory for 24 hours for repeated incivility towards his fellow editors. He has been repeatedly warned as to this type of behaviour and today alone I count at least three breaches against that warning. I am not sure if that resolves this matter and thus closes the thread - but I note for the record that I am prepared to block as required in regards to this situation (as I have detailed at previous ANI's) if that is the only way to gain and maintain peace at this part/s of the project.--VS ^talk 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've archived some of the stale and more heated talkpage discussions and have pushed for an editor who added the POV tag to produce actionable items. There does seem to be a bit of tension there but it has slowed down. Let's hope dialog stays constructive. -- Banjeboi 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at the page of Cher

Wildhartlivie reinserts unreferenced sales-figures to the article of Cher [16],[17] claiming (in edit summary) that "dead links" simply need to be replaced; in fact, the very statement which he seems to be quite protective of has been there with the same dead link for eight months at the least. It's quite difficult to keep pages clean when there are such editors who believe reinserting a material without a source is not against the Wikipedia policy. I'd appreciate if someone could enforce the policy, I have a feeling that he might start edit warring with me if I tried to remove it again. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any discussion about this; the last talk page comment was Dec 9th by an anon. Maybe you should bring it on talk? Or bring it up with the editor on their talk page? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wellllllll, I was unaware that reinserting improperly removed material was being disruptive. I was also unaware thata sales figure which has a reference, albeit a dead one, qualified as contentious material or unsourced. In fact, keeping the sales figure, with the dead link note, is exactly what is indicated by WP:DEADREF, which says Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions. The statement is not unsourced and it is improper to flatly remove a statement and the supporting, albeit dead, reference. I'm well aware of when the dead link tag was placed at the ref, I was the one who did it, and it wasn't 8 months ago at least. Although a fresh source needs to be found, the content isn't contentious or disputed, unless of course, Harout72 is disputing it.

As an aside, the other statements Harout72 makes are a bit of bad faith: "I have a feeling that he might start edit warring with me if I tried to remove it again." Bad faith. I spend a great deal of time policing this, and other, articles to maintain "cleanliness", thank you very much. My edits are 4th on the contributor list for the article at 151 while the person complaining here has made 7 edits, all in the last 9 days. I'm not sure how that equates to attempts to keep the article clean. In any case, retention of this statement is well in keeping with Wikipedia policy as were my edits regarding it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk to them first. Don't assume people are aware of the larger context, debates, whatever. You know, generally just assume good faith? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to keep a dead link since July 2008? If a replacement hasn't been located yet, perhaps, it's because no reliable source ever wished to get engaged in publishing such an illogical figure for Cher's single "Believe". Wildhartlivie seems to have covered everything that WP:DEADREF speaks of except for the three final key-lines which clearly explain what needs to be done in case a substitute source is not found: If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link. Whether a dead link can or cannot be repaired or replaced, remember that Wikipedia policy (including policy on sources and biographies of living persons) still applies. Consider doing further edits of the citation and cited material, if appropriate, to improve the article. In addition, the original article which supposedly came from this web site cannot even be regarded as reliable as alike sources are known for inflating record-sales to draw the attention of readers.--Harout72 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thom Hatch

An editor who may be the subject of the Thom Hatch article has used 5 IPs and one new named account to revert to a spammy version of the article 8 times in the past 24 hours (against 5 6 other editors). They will not discuss or use edit summaries, and even filed a fake report on a user[18] and then vandalized that user's page.[19] Could someone semi-protect the page and try to talk some sence into this person? NJGW (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It says something about my watchlist if I can't even keep my own pages from being vandalized... time to clean :) Thanks for the revert. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 05:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry at SPLC; actual evidence rather than supposition

There was no admin response to my initial vague query, so I did a little more digging with regard to what's been going on:

• Dooteyr's very first six edits were to jump into SPLC Talk with a long commentary on why a source critical of SPLC is inappropriate. I partially agree with him, and change it so that it's attributed it as opinion and not fact. He later removes the source entirely. I revert and explain on Talk.
• Spotfixer's first edit at SPLC or SPLC Talk is to restore Dooteyr's Mainspace edit and say in the edit summary that he agrees. I revert and explain on Talk.
• Tom/North_Shoreman jumps in right after and reverts again, claiming "see discussion page where it appears to be one editor versus everybody else". It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while, but It's entirely plausible this was opportunistic rather than coordinated.
• BBiiis08 adds edits primarily to agree with the others or join in removing criticism; one being to simply echo Tom/NS's wording on the abovesaid source.

---

• Dooteyr, created last week, demonstrates advanced knowledge of policies and tools almost immediately. After 21 edits on SPLC and on a creationist's page over two days, he disappears.
• Spotfixer, created not quite three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily in creation/evolution, gay rights, and abortion.
• BBiiis08, created a little over three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily on creation/evolution and creationists, SPLC / Morris Dees, and televangelists.
• Tom/North_Shoreman dates back to 2006, almost all of it in the Civil War and none in religious issues that I found, though the huge number of edits he's made may have obscured it. To me that makes it seem much less likely he's directly tied in, but I'm not sure.
• My actual guess as to the original sock farmer would be Ramdrake, who didn't weigh in until later (with the Westboro Baptist Church edit referenced in my original query here). He was editing heavily in creation/evolution near his start in 2006 and has spent some time on religious issues, but of late spends almost all his time on race. He got dinged twice in late 2006 for 3RR; my nastily cynical mind speculates that he "learned" how to get around it. In an equally nastily-cynical vein, he's made several tweaks to WP:Tag team. As examples, this one and this one changed wording to soften criticism of tag-teamers and make it harder to assert that tag-teaming has occurred. arimareiji (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, please by all means request an RFCU on me. But when it turns out that all these users are actually different users, I will expect you to back down and admit that this is just you battling consensus and common sense interpretation of policy to push your POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pure harassment and an attempt to intimidate. Two of the alleged sockpuppets (each of whom has over six times as many edits as Arimareiji) have here [20] and here [21] have invited Arimareiji to pursue an RFC on the underlying issue (Arimareiji’s attempt to have a Talk Radio host treated as a reliable source). Instead, we get this second attempt after his first one was ignored by administrators.

His claim about my January 21 edit (“It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while”) is false -- I actually made an edit on January 15 here [22] when I noted that sourced material I had added had disappeared. Unlike Arimareiji, I actually have conducted research and added sourced material to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake with regard to timing; I didn't see you appear on the talk page and I missed that one while scrolling through the thousands of edits you've made (I looked and that one was something like #250ish-most recent). The first one I saw was over six months ago, but it obviously was not the next most recent. I've struck through my errant assertion. But I fully stand by my other assertions. Your ad hominem aspersions don't change the edit histories of those accounts, which contain severalfold more examples than the few links I made.

Ramdrake - if that's the appropriate forum, I will. I believed that the guidelines given at SPI indicated that this should be brought here first for review. arimareiji (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, though I won't further discuss it (it's tangential) - whether or not Smith is a talk radio host, the source being struck was a newspaper opinion editorial. arimareiji (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Tangent: anyone interested in jumping in, "SPLC" is now a dab page; the dispute is over content at Southern Poverty Law Center. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't see the sockpuppetry links here; just because a group of people who work on similar articles - while working on others as well - are engaged in a debate over a certain article with another group of people doesn't mean that they're socks of one another. I'd be stunned if Ramdrake were socking, considering how long he's been around and his extensive editing interests; it wouldn't make sense. If you really feel that you have the evidence to back up a sock investigation, have at it. As for the opinion piece that seems to be the source of the concern, it's definitely a partisan affair, and thus I'd be hesitant to consider it a reasonable source, myself. All in all, I think this is better dealt with through an RFC at this point - not much here for admins to get involved with. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say about this. I don't know if he's malicious or just clueless. Maybe clueless, because the link given as my first edit isn't even my edit. In fact, I don't think I've ever edited that article. Oh, and he thinks I'm a guy, which should be proof enough that he doesn't own a clue. I think I'm just going to laugh this off. Spotfixer (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, my mistake in mixing up your two edit histories. I've struck it through. arimareiji (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, it's better to make a case based on policy if you want items added or removed. The accusation is that I'm a puppet is for agreeing with North Shoreman (I didn't even edit the article in this dispute)? Please. An editorial of a non-expert calling a civil rights organization a "sham" does not belong in the aricle. Your grasping at straws.

Also Spotfixer's first ever edit was not on the SPLC. Look it up. The editors first edit was on Talk:Abortion in November. I suggest you get your facts right before accusing people of puppets. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS When we get done with Arimareiji's accusations can we talk about Arimareiji's motives in the the SPLC article? He wants to add an editorial by a conservative talk radio host (who calls the group and hate laws a "scam") to a group he considers "commies" and Arimareiji "will tenaciously defend the honor of his Confederate ancestors," presumably on the SPLC article who is critical of the neo-Confederates. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, your account edit histories aren't changed by ad hominem attacks on me, much less flatly-false ones. Your accusations of "neo-Confederacy" are based on Spotfixer's accusations wrt L0b0t - not me. And I'm not going to address your mischaracterization of Smith to try to prove your "neo-Confederate" accusation; that would belong on SPLC Talk. Finally, I never said Spotfixer's first-ever edit was on SPLC (though I did refer to the first edit he made at SPLC).

I've struck through the two errors Tom and Spot pointed out, but nothing you've said points out an error. arimareiji (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, your accusations are not merely implausible but increasingly irrelevant. You're claiming that everyone who disagrees with you must be a single diabolical person, when the reality is that you want to do something that is so obviously wrong that it's uniformly unpopular. I think you'd do well to stop spinning conspiracy theories and empty accusations, instead focusing on why it is that nobody wants to let you make those changes. All you're doing now is undermining your own credibility. How is that going to help you? Spotfixer (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, your edit histories aren't changed by repeated ad hominem attacks on me. If you're objecting above to the use of the word "your," please note that in English there's no alternate plural I could use - "your" serves as both singular and plural. Whether the same is true for French, I can't say. arimareiji (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As in English, vous in French is used as singular or plural. In English, once upon a time, you was plural and thou was singular but that was 400 years ago. When I have informal need for a second-person plural-possessive in English, I say/write y'all's :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for anon-only range block to stop long-running vandalism

Resolved

An IP editor using a dynamic address starting with 202.37.68.x has been adding large numbers of false claims to articles on Philippino foreign relations and military history since last April. The editor's vandalism typically involves adding lists of weapons which they falsely claim that the Philippine military uses (eg, [23] - one of dozens of examples), adding imaginary battles involving US and Australian forces in the Philippines in the last few years (eg, [24] and [25] - this is a mild example), adding imaginary Philippino embassies and false claims of alliances between the Phillipines and various nations (eg, [26]). The editor has also added similar material to articles on other South East Asian countries (eg, [27]). The vandal also occasionally edits from addresses starting with 118.92.x, but these vary too much to be range blockable. I have been blocking this vandal everytime they appear and lodged an abuse report in November (Wikipedia:Abuse reports/202.37.68.x and 118.92.x) but this has not been actioned and the vandal is continuing their activities most days using a different IP address each time. 202.37.68.x IP addresses used for this vandalism since last November and the date I blocked them for this include:

• 202.37.68.29 (talk · contribs) - 26 January
• 202.37.68.96 (talk · contribs) - 26 January
• 202.37.68.50 (talk · contribs) - 25 January
• 202.37.68.37‎ (talk · contribs) - 18 January
• 202.37.68.109 (talk · contribs) - 9 January
• 202.37.68.76 (talk · contribs) - 7 January
• 202.37.68.94 (talk · contribs) - 7 January
• 202.37.68.55 (talk · contribs) - 18 December
• 202.37.68.33 (talk · contribs) - 17 December (admitted IP vandalism from both sets of IPs: [28])
• 202.37.68.111 (talk · contribs) - 15 December
• 202.37.68.105 (talk · contribs) - December
• 202.37.68.101 (talk · contribs) - 14 December
• 202.37.68.12 (talk · contribs) - 5 December
• 202.37.68.26 (talk · contribs) - 5 December
• 202.37.68.11 (talk · contribs) - 4 December
• 202.37.68.47 (talk · contribs) - 28 November
• 202.37.68.88 (talk · contribs) - 28 November
• 202.37.68.31 (talk · contribs) - 26 November
• 202.37.68.17 (talk · contribs) - 25 November
• 202.37.68.95 (talk · contribs) - 24 November
• 202.37.68.80 (talk · contribs) - 17 November- borderline case, but clearly the same editor
• 202.37.68.53 (talk · contribs) - 17 November
• 202.37.68.5 (talk · contribs) - 14 November
• 202.37.68.38 (talk · contribs) - repeat offender, blocked 14 November
• 202.37.68.75 (talk · contribs) - 14 November
• 203.152.105.17 (talk · contribs) - looks very similar, and a repeat offender. Blocked 13 Nov.
• 202.37.68.103 (talk · contribs) - 13 November
• 118.92.131.226 (talk · contribs) - 3 November
• 202.124.137.206 (talk · contribs) - 3 November
• 202.37.68.34 (talk · contribs) - 3 November
• More addresses used by this vandal since last April are at User:Nick-D/sandbox

I notified the relevant Wikiproject of this vandalism in September and was informed that this vandal is also active on the Tagalog Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive18#persistent IP vandal)). The IP addresses were traced to New Zealand.

As this is an ongoing and serious problem and the abuse request has gone nowhere, I would like to request that anonymous editing from IP addresses starting with 202.37.68.x be blocked for at least a few weeks to stop this vandal. I have not seen any legitimate IP edits from these addresses, so there's no real likelihood of legitimate editors being blocked. I am an admin, and would do this myself if I knew how. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of all anon editors active on 202.37.68.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) in the past several months follows:

202.37.68.0/24

1. 202.37.68.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2. 202.37.68.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
3. 202.37.68.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
4. 202.37.68.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
5. 202.37.68.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
6. 202.37.68.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
7. 202.37.68.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
8. 202.37.68.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
9. 202.37.68.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
10. 202.37.68.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
11. 202.37.68.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
12. 202.37.68.83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
13. 202.37.68.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
14. 202.37.68.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
15. 202.37.68.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
16. 202.37.68.94 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
17. 202.37.68.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
18. 202.37.68.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
19. 202.37.68.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
20. 202.37.68.85 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
21. 202.37.68.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
22. 202.37.68.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
23. 202.37.68.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
24. 202.37.68.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
25. 202.37.68.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
26. 202.37.68.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
27. 202.37.68.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
28. 202.37.68.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
29. 202.37.68.59 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
30. 202.37.68.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
31. 202.37.68.55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
32. 202.37.68.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
33. 202.37.68.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
34. 202.37.68.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
35. 202.37.68.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
36. 202.37.68.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
37. 202.37.68.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
38. 202.37.68.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
39. 202.37.68.105 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
40. 202.37.68.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
41. 202.37.68.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
42. 202.37.68.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
43. 202.37.68.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
44. 202.37.68.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
45. 202.37.68.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
46. 202.37.68.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
47. 202.37.68.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
48. 202.37.68.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
49. 202.37.68.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
50. 202.37.68.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
51. 202.37.68.93 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
52. 202.37.68.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
53. 202.37.68.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
54. 202.37.68.64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
55. 202.37.68.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
56. 202.37.68.88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
57. 202.37.68.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
58. 202.37.68.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
59. 202.37.68.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
60. 202.37.68.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
61. 202.37.68.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
62. 202.37.68.28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
63. 202.37.68.61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
64. 202.37.68.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
65. 202.37.68.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
66. 202.37.68.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
67. 202.37.68.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
68. 202.37.68.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
69. 202.37.68.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
70. 202.37.68.53 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
71. 202.37.68.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
72. 202.37.68.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
73. 202.37.68.75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
74. 202.37.68.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
75. 202.37.68.38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
76. 202.37.68.57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
77. 202.37.68.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
78. 202.37.68.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
79. 202.37.68.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

At first glance, the user you've mentioned looks to be the only user currently active on that range. Also, it looks like the range is currently blocked by YellowMonkey for two weeks. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool - that was fast work by YellowMonkey! I think this can be marked as completed then. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption and legal threats

User:68.56.93.169 is involved in what I'd politely call a "difference of opinion" on talk:global warming. He makes a first legal threat here, is informed about NLT by Tony here, then continues to post a large number of soap-boxing copyvios [29], [30],[31], [32], which are promptly reverted, and then makes another legal threat. Can someone please do the proper thing? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked 3 months for legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aleman

Hello, I do not want to get into an edit war, so I would like some admin help here. A few months ago, User:Spartanad was blocked for Sockpuppeting in the only article he ever edits, which is the article on Nicaraguan ex-president Arnoldo Aleman. Now he is back. This is because Arnoldo Aleman was acquitted from his 20 year prison sentence, but there has been much controversy surrounding this decision, and many reputable sources (see Talk:Arnoldo_Alemán#Aleman_acquital for more info) discuss this controversy. What I did given the delicate nature of the situation was to take a paragraph from the NYT discussing the events and quoting almost word for word. I believe this is to be an unbiased review of events citing both, what the opposition had to say, and what Dr. Aleman had to say. User:Spartanad however, insists on adding an un-sourced one-sided paragraph essentially removing all the well sourced controversy. I would be extremely thankful if someone here could take a look at his last edit on the page after reading what some of the sources have to say. I personally like the NYT entry because there is no reason to suspect bias, it is in English and it is well-known. Finally, please note the language use by the source the user provides and the language the user actually uses, "innocent" never found. Thank you very much and have a great day, Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content by user:Dicklyon

Please note multiple deletions of content by Dicklyon:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=262335435&oldid=262334671
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=264956655&oldid=264936715
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266005255&oldid=266002509
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=next&oldid=266079819
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266149808&oldid=266141240
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&curid=6247691&diff=266332064&oldid=266288359
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&curid=6247691&diff=266450011&oldid=266446974

and also multiple removal of a suggestion for merger of the article Excelsior_(wood_wool) to the present article wood wool:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&diff=264902703&oldid=263760235
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&diff=266005479&oldid=265974147
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&diff=next&oldid=266128674 (claiming finishing the merging without an actual merge taking place, just copying part of the content from the article wood wool)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&curid=5410719&diff=266449647&oldid=266447545

Meanwhile, a discussion is still on in Talk:Excelsior (wood wool)#Proposal for merging.

The user appears to be acting in good faith, maintaining civility, but still he is removing content, in fact deleting a page, denying the tag for merger suggestion at another, because he thinks that another course of action was necessary (a move proposal instead of a merge proposal).--FocalPoint (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted. FocalPoint persists in trying to do a move of excelsior (wood wool) to wood wool by a content fork followed by a merge to there; I have advised him on the procedure for a move request, and have given him a final warning for the six or so times that he has done this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. What are you alleging FP of doing, Dickylon? Near as I can see, you insist onm a redirect in the opposite direction of FP's efforts, which look like a move to a more generic, more world-wide known term for it, over a North American, specifically USA, name for it. Please explain in more detail. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He keeps adding his preferred article into the redirect at wood wool and then proposing to merge excelsior (wood wool) to it; I keep reverting him, having merged his new material into the existing article already. What he wants is to move excelsior (wood wool) to wood wool; I've told him how to propose that (and that I will oppose it). The question of which name is more generic, or which is a better name for the article, would be addressed after a move proposal is started. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're treating BOLD like DICK. You should've taken this to his talk page LONG ago and settled this that way. I see you edit warring, to be frank, and it's not the only place you're doing it tonight. There's different sources and slightly different content, so your hostility isn't really that warranted. I understand process, but I understand asshole as well. Tonight, you're speaking asshole, not policy. Might be time for you to log off and take a breath. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Our discussions are all over his talk page, my talk page, the two article talk pages, etc. Mostly here: Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) I think you're missing what's been going on. Did you look? Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But while you are discussing the issue, you continue to revert to your preferred state. I have restored the text and merge tags to both articles while the discussion is ongoing. I don't much care if we are discussing a merge or a move so long as discussion and consensus precede action. Kevin (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated all his new material. The "preferred state" is the one that avoids an improper move. Please don't egg him on. The point of the move proposal process is to get more eyes on the proposal; we can't have a consensus discussion of it with so few of us; that's why he need to follow the process, not do his content fork and merge proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He changed wood wool from a redirect to a new content fork in this Jan 6 edit. The same day, here I replied to his incorrect statements on Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) that I would oppose a move to wood wool; I don't think I had seen his fork yet. We have been in constant discussion since then, and I have advised him on several occasions that what he is trying to do is called a move, and how to propose it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About the time he filed this, I had taken FocalPoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to AIV, and noted that if that wasn't an appropriate shortcut for his persistence past final warning in trying to do an improper move via a content fork and re-merge proposal, that I would come here next. He came here first, obviously. Anyway, I hope someone will let him know that move proposal process is not all that hard, and that trying to circumvent it this way is very disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, and his talk, and so on, I see you coming on like gangbusters, rebuking him heartily, then going with a big fat stack of templates. I cannot find the unanimous consensus you claimed for the unanimous actions you took, link please? This doesnt' reflect well on you, Dickylon.ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The templates were after I had lost patience with his repeated circumvention of process. The unanimous consensus was when he posted a merge tag after I and LouSheffer had told him not to do a content fork, but to merge his new material; since he too requested a merge, nobody being against it, I went ahead and did a merge. What he always really wanted and still wants is a move. The material is all merged into the article we had before he started this nonsense two weeks ago. Why is it so hard to get help straigtening out this mess? Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On Kevin's advice, as a show of good faith, I've gone ahead and started a move request for FocalPoint's intended move; of course, I also explained that I oppose it. See Talk:Excelsior (wood wool)#Requested move. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree with FocalPoint's proposed move, I agree more with Dick Lyon that he/she was going about it the wrong way, starting with a content fork of a 1-page article, then a request to merge the two articles into the new one. This is an inefficient, unilateral, potentially contentious way to move a page, and could lead to a permanent useless content fork. The right way, IMO, is to add content to the original (even if you believe it is mis-named), then request a re-name. As soon as FocalPoint realized the move was contentious, he/she should have backed off to the more consensus based procedure. LouScheffer (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not been involved in any of the edits, but I happened upon this dispute by accident. As I see it, this is really an WP:ENGVAR dispute. The article has carried its present title since it was created 2½ years ago. The article was written in American English, and excelsior appears to be the most common American English term for the material that is the subject of the article. The controversy and edit war started when someone (FocalPoint?) created a new article named Wood wool, which began move and merge warring. The creation of the Wood wool article was a clear violation of WP:FORK and apparently a violation of WP:ENGVAR. It does not appear that FocalPoint and his or her supporters preceded their actions by Talk page discussion, so it does not seem fair to criticize Dicklyon for acting unilaterally to restore the long established status quo. Usability, or the ease of finding the article, really has nothing to do with the dispute, because the article is easily found by either name; at present, Wood wool redirects to Excelsior (wood wool), so changing the article's name wouldn't really help anyone. In my opinion, the dispute is an overblown power struggle that has nothing to do with making Wikipedia better, and everything to do with egos, WP:ENGVAR warring, and ownership issues. Both sides would be well advised to be more civil and collaborative, but no one has been sufficiently uncivil to warrant action by an admin. Similarly, in my opinion, it would be a waste of time for an admin to get involved in this fairly trivial conflict whose outcome is unimportant to Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

Resolved

 – indefblocked

Can an anyone give me some feedback on the block of User talk:RhawnJoseph please? They sent me an email with the following text:

[SNIP]

Clearly, this user is confused as to what constitutes censorship and vandalism, but there may be some underlying valid points. Tan | 39 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin I'll say that he may very well be legit, but he doesn't have to be a dick about. Perhaps reply with links to policies on WP:COI, WP:FIVE, etc. etc., and see if he's still interested. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A google search on the name suggests a certain amount of infamy associated with the name rhawn Joseph. Can we get a confirmation that this guy is who he says he is?--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The email came from brainmind dot com, so I'd say we're dealing with Dr. Joseph. Tan | 39 05:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think his books are decent as sources, but he would need to understand how to contribute if he wanted to stick around. The way he did, it seems like he just wanted his name out there, in which case it's a good block. Grsz¹¹ 05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hopefully he'll read up some. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just visited that site myself. Augh - I'd rather we not link to that page ever simply based on aesthetic reasons. I see confirmations of actual books published from reputable academic presses. I also however, a lot of dipping into non scientific areas. Nothing I've read has suggested Joseph is widely considered an authority or not.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he also used 98.210.119.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), worth keeping an eye on. Grsz¹¹ 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: What I've read has suggested Dr. Jospeh is an R.S for neurobiology NOT panspermia.--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've snipped out the email pending confirmation that there is permission to publish this email here. Generally it is not allowed to post private emails to Wikipedia without the author's permission. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of policy or guideline that states that, Jehochman? I don't mean to argue with you, here, but I have never, ever come across anything that says I can't post that email here. Tan | 39 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, aside courtesy and privacy issues, there is a certain amount of GDFL legal copyright finagling that complicates matters.--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy means nothing in the context of this discussion. I disclosed no email address or contact information. Wikimedia's privacy policy says nothing on the matter. Off the top of my head, I would say this is an overreaction that is perpetuated because it "sounds right". Tan | 39 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some arbcom case that basically said "don't post the content of emails". Though I agree with you that in this case (posting them so we could review a block), it seems valid. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the contributions I see a familiar cycle. Researcher (or author or whatever) adds copious info about their own work to Wikipedia page. Edit is either reverted or altered somewhat to bring the article back to due weight. Researcher gets increasingly more upset and escalates the back and forth, eventually getting blocked. I don't know anything about Panspermia, so I can't tell if his contributions to that field are any more or less credible than the average. But I do smell something fishy. Evidently, UniversityPress, California isn't a university publishing house at all. This (http://universitypress.info/) is their website. HMMMM. Looks similar to something else. My thoughts are: relatively good block. Unfortunate that we got into the cycle I described above but it is unavoidable. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. This issue seems to be up in the air at Wikipedia:Harassment#Private correspondence. Jehochman ^Talk 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2#Private correspondence -- Samir 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I didn't mean to sidetrack the conversation. Thanks to everyone who reviewed this; I'm sure we'll be revisiting shortly after the block expires. Tan | 39 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block, Tan. Protonk's points are bang-on. WP:NPOV#Undue weight definitely holds here, and screaming censorship if the material in question is removed is certainly disruptive. Not criticizing Dr. Joseph's ideas but I think that they are certainly apart from mainstream academic views on panspermia, and should not be over-represented in the article. -- Samir 05:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, but whois confirms [33] that universitypress.info was registered to the same person as Brain-Mind.com,and that Brain-Mind.com was registered to Dr. Joseph [34]. Anything Dr. Joseph published through University Press probably ought to be regarded as self-published. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only now have I taken a look at his website. So far, his edits look like original research to me, along with coatracking to sell books/publications. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper into his self published material, I believe Joseph's PhD is in neuropsychology, and in that where hes published legitimate material, and somewhere along the line, he decided that his credentials gave him wide scientific insights into the soul, God, the rape of nanking, panspermia, the origin of life, evolution and everything else. In addition there are dubious presses here. "Academic Press", San Diego and "University Press", California (as opposed to University Press of California). The edits in question seems to be drawing from the latter category. --Tznkai (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I received another much longer, rant-y email that includes phrases such as "I am asking that my material be reinserted, and that a lock be placed on the panspermia article to prevent these three despicable, unethical, ignorant characters from vandalizing the article further. Indeed, I believe it appropriate if you remove the privileges of these 3 vandals. Their conduct is outrageous. Their user names are: Silly rabbit, Tanthalas39. and Glane23" (it was cc'd to all three editors). I propose to up this block to indefinite, as this clearly isn't going to stop upon block expiration and the emails are bordering on harassment. Can I get some opinions? Tan | 39 15:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I should add this gem too - "These 3 cretins have been contacted, and none of them have the courage or the integrity to respond to my emails or requests that my material be reinserted." Tan | 39 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is more of the same thing the original block was for, I'd re-block for a week this time, with email disabled. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with a longer block, but we should give a heads up to whatever OTRS queque likely to suffer the next rant. Separate thought, is this guy notable enough for an article?--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone would have to want to write it. ;) My guess is...maybe not? That CV looks pretty standard for an academic (not sure what the expected publication rate is for primate biologists), so he might not meet WP:PROF. Not sure if he has been otherwise covered in a detailed biography somewhere. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for a week, email disabled. See you all in eight days ;-) Tan | 39 16:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a message to suggest some reading while he's blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a good thought, although it might be even more helpful if the puppy were to sign it :P SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

After this edit, I have indefblocked per WP:COMPETENCE. Tan | 39 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems the way to go, enough time has been wasted.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Octogenarian 1928 at Ed Trice article

Octogenarian 1928 (talk · contribs) is essentially a single-purpose account who has been performing multiple blanket reverts ([35],[36],[37],[38],[39]) usually with little to no justification, or with misleading edit summaries, or with nonsense like this.

These edits seem to be tag-team interleaved with those of GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs), who is the subject of the article, and has just been blocked for COI edit warring. Between them, they seem to be attempting to push me beyond 3RR to clear up their mess. I've already informed him that this behaviour isn't appropriate (e.g. [40]), and an admin has suspicisons that he may be a sock/meat ([41] - the "O" he refers to his Octogenarian).

Disclaimer: it's arguable that I'm only prolonging the edit warring with my participation, but at least I'm justifying my every move on the article's talk page! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wasn't sure whether this should go here or at WP:AN3; the combination of edit warring, disruptive edit summaries, etc. and apparent SPA led me to list this here. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho ho! I was already 38, had 4 kids, and divorced before Ed Trice was even born! Oh my belly laugh could bump a horse out the gate, as we say.

Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This account is verysuspicious; I find it most, errr, interesting that all of these accounts with under 50 edits (O, this one blocked, and CH temporarily blocked) all of a sudden are reverting at Ed Trice.

Oli: You have my 100% support; your contributions have made Ed Trice a more well-referenced and verified article. I don't see anyone besides Trice himself and suspicious accounts with very few edits on the Wikipedia (or, in CH's case, a SPA) supporting his version of the article. 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just to clarify (talk • contribs)

Death threat treated as common vandalism

Resolved

 – Employing WP:RBI –xeno (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit, which was done on today's main page article and was quickly reverted, should be reported to the proper police authorities. Checkuser should be used, if necessary, to determine where that came from. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The gibberish before the "threat" and the "HEHEHEHEHEHE" after it make it pretty obvious it's just common vandalism. Revert, block and ignore is all that we need to do. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement agencies have quite enough to do with their time without being inundated by reports of childish, internet vandalism. L0b0t (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, death threats etc are usually treated as common vandalism, as that is what they are. Prodego ^talk 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A Couple Deletions Needed

Resolved

 – take to WP:RFD if you want; no incident requiring admin intervention at this time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A user created some pages for radio station KORB and kinda went overboard in creations. If an admin would be so kind, could they delete the follow as they are just redirects to the main KORB parent page.

Please delete the following:

• K218EN
• K289AS
• K300AO
• Broken Radio
• Broken fm
• KORB (FM)

Thanks in advance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 27, 2009 @ 00:45

Why deletion? Redirects are cheap. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No reason to delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want them deleted, please take them to WP:RFD - there is nothing here warranting admin intervention outside of ordinary process and I will mark this resolved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/Disruption on AfD

There is a current AfD running at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia. An IP editor has placed this keep comment; note the edit summary of *keep* (with the stars). User:Digwuren has then removed the IP's comments with Okay, let's cut the crap. Out this IP's vote goes. He then immediately leaves a delete comment further down the page; note the edit summary of *delete* (again with the stars). Given the Special:Contributions/62.65.239.167 IP's contributions and they are all things on which User:Digwuren is involved, there is a great chance that Digwuren has used the IP as a sockpuppet to be disruptive. Another IP that this user has used is Special:Contributions/62.65.238.142; note this diff, and compare it to the first diff above, and one can notice the way that encyclopædic is spelt. The articles edited by the 2nd IP are also articles on which Digwuren has edited. It should be noted that Digwuren was found by the Arbcom to have engaged in disruptive behaviour such as this, which resulting in him being banned for a year, from which he has only just returned, and he is aware there are sanctions in place. Additionally, Digwuren has himself recalled that Arbcom in this very AfD, when he accused another editor of being in violation of the very Arbcom decision he has breached. I think there is more than enough evidence for a checkuser to be done into Digwuren's sockpuppetry and action taken for his disruptive editing. User:Beatle Fab Four has also undone Digwuren's removal of the IP comment. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In the short time this has been posted, Digwuren has removed the IP comment, and after removing another comment inadvertantly, he has again removed it with the comment Take III: removing vote of a disgruntled IP. Evidence points towards himself who is the disgruntled IP and is trying to cover up his tracks. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a common mis-understanding that IP's aren't permitted to vote in AfD, I confused it with votes in RFA. I made a similar mistake when I removed a comment in another AfD, but somebody informed me that it is in fact permitted. I've informed Digwuren now, so it's no longer an issue. Russavia's report here is totally unwarranted as a message or email to Digwuren would have been sufficient. However, this report appears to be a blatant case of block shopping and an unprovoked attack on Digwuren. Note that an admin has warned Russiavia first not to troll, then warned again not to persist with this disruptive behaviour. Could somebody please explain to Russavia that Eastern Europe topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions and thus he should refrain from turning it into a battleground. Martintg (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IP votes are not allowed if they are a sockpuppet of an established editor, and the user "votes" one way and the IP "votes" another with an inane comment in order to avoid scrutiny. Evidence points towards these being the one and the same user. Martintg, it should be noted that the admin in question is currently the subject of an WP:RFAR, and precisely for removing content that he doesn't like, as in this case. And note on my talk page, User_talk:Russavia#LOL, if this were a battleground, this editor would be an enemy of mine, and he saw the humour in what I wrote. So that is indeed quite irrelevant to the apparent sockpuppeting. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP address in question is from Tallinn, I know for a fact that Digwuren is based in Tartu, so your accusations of sock puppetry are totally baseless. Frankly I have to say that many people have expressed to me that they are getting very tired of this wikidramu, they tell me that they want to edit Wikipedia in a friendly environment, but your behaviour is not contributing to this. Martintg (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually both IPs are in Tartu, which you state for a fact this is where Digwuren is...I believe you have just confirmed his sockpuppetry. http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm. 62.65.239.167 is 90% certainty in Tartu. 62.65.238.142 is also 90% certainty in Tartu. http://www.ip2location.com/62.65.239.167 also indicates it is in Tartu. As does http://www.ip2location.com/62.65.238.142. It is now obvious they are one in the same person with a very high degree of certainty. Only a check user will now confirm this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. See [42]. There's nothing in Special:Contributions/62.65.239.167 that would support claims of abusive sockpuppetry. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note your "confession" only came after I have basically proven you to have engaged in sockpuppetry, without a check user. This is now continued at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digwuren. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no sin here, so there's nothing to confess. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• close this thread - If I understood correctly, User:Digwuren on a number of occasions forgot to log in (or log in expired) and editted articles as IP addresses. That is absolutely ok, as long as there are no votes both by Digwuren and the IPs. Now, if I understood correctly, Digwuren voted as an IP in an AfD, then he wanted to replace the IP signature with his signature as Digwuren. That's again fine. That's not suckpuppetry. This thread clearly has no merit. Can we get an admin to archive it? Dc76\^talk 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.146.241.58 - unblock request

Something strange had occurred at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.146.241.58. Three three obvious socks and IP were blocked, but Terrakyte (talk · contribs) was also implicated in the sockpuppetry and likewise indefed. However, it is suspected that the IP covers multiple locations as Terrakyte and that the block of this user may have been made in error and as collateral damage due to the blocking of the other three accounts and IP mentioned in the checkuser report at SPI. Discussion is currently going on at User_talk:Terrakyte#Request_for_unblock. but would like to get more views from other admins on this. Thank you, MuZemike 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He edits from a multitude of IPs, all of which are private residental IPs, not school as claimed. It is also incorrect to state that he edits from a multitude of locations, but I don't think he actually ever claimed that himself, so that may be a mistake on your part. --Deskana (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest someone close this thread and send it over to his talk page, where the talk is occurring; or vice versa. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection req

Resolved

RFPP is not loading on the computer. Please protect Stephanie Adams for edit warring. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible phone number added to BLP

Resolved

 – :Rod and I were stepping on eachothers toes, but this is done. Revision selectively deleted, article protected 1 week due to recent excessive vandalism. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tennisaddict49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added what claims to be a BLP's phone number. (See only contrib). If needed could someone take care of the edit properly?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have requested Oversight per WP:RFO. – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll still be able to find it. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I sent the diff where the # was originally added so they should be able to. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Norman Rogers

Oversight-l dosen't work anymore. I e-mailed them two weeks ago about Norman Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Special:listusers/Norman Rogers and they didn't oversight any of it, despite it being the alleged real name of a vandal. Since I have already e-mailed and was ignored. 78.150.75.10 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary, but I have just received notification that this one has been oversighted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Offensive Content on Revenge

Resolved

 – fixed. delldot ∇. 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just a simple Wikipedia user so I am sorry if this is the wrong place to address this. But in doing some research I was on the Wikipedia page on Revenge and found the following line of offensive text embedded in the text of the page under the section on Function in Society: "[[Two wrongs make a right (flisten to me u stupid fucker i like to be apart of things and i want to edit stuff i didnt use profanity so wasnt wasnt my shit saved or rite now im on my period and i wann fuck u so hard how abot u jus eat me ot ok lick inside my clitorisallacy)|two wrongs make a right]]." I don't know if this is the result of a hacker or what, but I thought someone might want to remove it and update the page. Thanks.

Is gone now, thanks. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Hardy

Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I had been attempting to resolve a conflict over a deletion with Hardy, but he insisted on calling my comments bullshit four times, I don't think one on one discussion would work with him. I had deleted an image he uploaded, without any description page; instead, it had a redirect to a non-existent page, which I proceeded to delete. He proceeds to inform of his unilateral undeletion, also adding an unnecessary inflammatory note on my talk. I revert the note, and attempt to explain why I deleted the image, but the discussion ends in the bullshit comments. I'm at a loss as to how I can further explain, and hopefully someone can help me out. On a tangential note, I've looked through Michael Hardy's deletion log and it seems he likes unilaterally reversing other admin's actions, for example [43], [44], [45], [46]. Maxim_(talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned by the undeletions of Robert Denno, which appears to be a text book example of a wheel war. Two administrators deleted it as being a copyvio, and twice Michael Hardy restored the copyvio via undeletion. Truely concerning. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a really good idea to talk these out, and ask Michael to weigh in here with this, especially on the undeletion of possible copyvio material (not that possible wheel warring is a good thing, either, or the hot language). rootology (C)(T) 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The explanation at Talk:Robert Denno and the logs seem clear enough. Apparently the initial speedy deletion was a mistake (not for reason of suspected copyvio), and Hardy only restored possible copyvio to the history once, while Moonriddengirl eliminated it from there subsequently. John Z (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what happened:

• On September 1st, 2008 someone uploaded image:Ladakh Monestary.jpg. That is a misspelling of "monastery".
• Today I found that I could not move an image. I first tried at least redirecting image:Ladakh Monastery.jpg to image:Ladakh Monestary.jpg.
• I inquired at the village pump and was told I needed to download the image and re-upload with a different name.
• I did so. Then there were two identical image pages with different names. The page titled image:Ladakh Monastery.jpg was then a jpg image. If you looked at image:Ladakh Monastery.jpg, you saw the picture.
• "Maxim" deleted that within one minute.

I don't know what he means above when he says "instead, it had a redirect to a non-existent page". That is nonsense. There was nothing resembling a redirect; there was only a picture, with my comments about who had uploaded it first.

Is there REALLY something wrong with my restoring Poisson hidden markov model? That restoration has already been discussed at great length. Someone deleted it on the grounds that it was "patent nonsense" and the subject could not be identified. That is absurd. Just because an article is clumsily written and an admin doesn't understand it because he lacks familiarity with the field, is no reason to call something "patent nonsense" when 10 seconds with Google would have identified the subject. Speedy deletions are not for disputed cases; restoring after a thoughtless speedy deletion is proper. If someone thinks Poisson hidden Markov model should be deleted, they should take it to AfD (I don't think anyone will do that; I don't think anyone thinks an AfD could succeed).

It is nonsense to say that the image that got speedily deleted "had a redirect to a non-existent page". There was nothing remotely resembling a redirect in it. Here's the history. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what's going on - Michael Hardy was attempting to rename an image, a task he's never done before, and he got confused. User:Maxim reacted to the peculiar activity before he could straighten things out, and they both assumed bad faith. Also, User:Maxim may be unaware of MediaWiki's new support for image redirects since version 1.13. See here. This may not be turned on on En (I don't know), but it is on Commons. Also, let's not conflate this with Poisson hidden markov model, which was a clear-cut correct restore. Dcoetzee 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that this revision is undoubtedly a redirect to a non-existent page. Black Kite 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of copyvio in Robert Denno, the other restores all look legitimate. WP:IAR is very useful in dealing with speedy deletions done by users who have no idea what they are doing. No idea why the situation with Maxim got so heated over the Ladakh Monastery image, as both users were trying to do the right thing -- Samir 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no redirect in the page Maxim deleted. He could have just left it alone; it was a perfectly good jpg file.

For the Robert Denno matter, the solution was to rewrite the page so that it didn't contain copyrighted material from another web page. (It was probably not a copyright violation, but rather a case where the fact that permission had be given had simply been omitted. But it wasn't formatted properly for a Wikipedia article and would have had to be rewritten because of that anyway.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, neither article was an R1 (now G8) candidate because there were versions in the history that were not G8. However, the new image was eligible for deletion under F1. To avoid this, I'd suggest we create some kind of template indicating a image move in progress, that can be included in the description of re-uploads. I also suggest that you assume good faith, considering that Maxim was understandably quite confused about what you were trying to do. Dcoetzee 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's any way I could have figured out that he was "understandably confused", I don't know what it was. He deleted an image that was in fact an image and called it a redirect, although it in no way contained or resembled a redirect. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The 17:22 version here says #REDIRECT[[Ladakh Monestary]] (Ladakh Monestary is a non-existent page.) One minute later, you uploaded the picture, at 17:23. But though the picture shows, take a look at the source of the page. It still only has the redirect. The actual material one would expect to see doesn't show up until here after being repaired by User:Maxim. Perhaps this is why he thought it was a redirect? I'm not much into uploading images myself, but I can see that this might have been confusing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, the details are unimportant, and there's little sense in rehashing them. The point is that you were just trying to rename an image, and your initial introduction of a redirect - spotted by Maxim midway through the process - gave the wrong impression of what was going on. Maxim should have been more careful and checked the history before deleting under R1 (now G8); this also would have pointed out there was an ongoing action and he could have consulted you first. But I'm sure once the misunderstanding came to light, he would have been glad to restore his own deletions and help complete the rename. In an area where you lack experience, you should be more careful and communicative. Dcoetzee 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Moonreddengirl: I have no idea how you got those two links both dated 17:23 whose content is different. Can someone explain what those are?

My descriptions of Maxim's comments as "BULLSHIT" were certainly thoroughly deserved by Maxim. Those of his comments that don't deserve that epithet remain cryptic at best. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've edited Wikipedia articles daily for more than six years and created thousands of pages, and I think this may be the very first time a page I've created has been deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The first link is to an old version of the image description page; the second link is what you get if you visit the first link and click "edit this page." In other words, the image, the file history, and the file links are all generated information that is included automatically; the only content on the page was the redirect. Unlike uploading a new image, when you upload an image that already exists, your upload description is not used as page content; it is only placed in the upload summary. The page text was fixed by Maxim in this diff. Dcoetzee 05:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification in case anyone is confused by comments above: There's nothing wrong with speedy restoration of a speedily deleted article if the restoring admin deems it appropriate. That's part of what the word "speedy" means. That is NOT "wheel warring". If the deleting admin still thinks it should be deleted and the difference cannot otherwise be resolved, the deleting admin then takes it to "Articles for Deletion". It's not extremely unusual to see admins saying of an article "Molecular biology? What's that??? Never heard of it!!! Speedy delete!!!!" (or substitute for "molecular biology" any other field that requires some study beyond elementary school), although we haven't lately seen the torrent of that sort of thing that we saw in February and March 2008. That's exactly what happened with Poisson hidden Markov model. That's why I restored it. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is contesting your restorations and there is no need to defend against unrelated accusations here. The case itself is a simple misunderstanding. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, a little friendliness and looking to the future would close the matter. Please be calm. Dcoetzee 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I have no clue how it was three years ago, but nowadays it is considered preferable to discuss with the deleting admin before taking action. Putting that aside, however, I am shocked that you remain content to call my comments bullshit without making an attempt to understand them. I noticed the redirect with an external tool, and seeing as the image page had no description (it was a copyvio too, since you copied the file without attribution, which is a requirement of the cc-by-3.0 license). I proceed to delete the image, yet you decide unilaterally overturn me. I've actually fixed the image for you a long time ago, yet you still continue to call my comments bullshit which is concerning on a few counts—you still seem to be unable to properly move an image, you don't understand copyright law, and your behaviour is unbecoming of an admin. Maxim_(talk) 13:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxim: What appears to merit the term "bullshit" is your repeated assertion that you attempted to explain what you were doing. You did not and I don't see how it could be maintained that you did. You say it was a copyright violation because it was not attributed. That is false: when I re-uploaded the image, I included a statement of who uploaded it first, when that happened, and under what title it was uploaded, and I also commented that it ought to be made possible to move images to preserve the history.

Several people here have referred to "description pages". I have no idea what those are.

Discussing with the deleting admin is something that I take to apply to things other than "speedy" deletions, in which discussion preceded the deletion. No discussion precedes a speedy deletion. With something like Poisson hidden markov model, in which the grounds for speedy is that the article is "patent nonsense" and gives insufficient context to identify the subject, when in fact the subject is crystal-clear and the only way it could have appeared to be nonsense is the deleter's ignorance and the lack of ten seconds of googling, can anyone object to speedy restoration? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What the heck has this thread got to do with Poisson hidden markov model? Answer - nothing! Maxim's thread concerns the way that you use language to belittle his work in relation to the image:Ladakh Monestary.jpg - both at his talk page and then later at the thread that he starts to discuss this at your talk page. It seems to me that you have blown this whole thing up by way of your reactions - which appear certainly to be not assuming good faith and somewhat vitriolic. I note that there have been several recent discussions at your talk page asking you to reconsider treating others in that way.--VS ^talk 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxim's initial posting that started this thread cited my restoration of Poisson hidden markov model. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee: You say no one is contesting my restorations. But the initial posting that started this thread contested my restorations and cited in particular Poisson hidden Markov model.

VirtualSteve: The initial posting that started this thread contested my restorations and cited in particular Poisson hidden Markov model, so you're statement to the contrary is mistaken. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael - of course I can see that he uses a series of 4 examples which includes the Markov model situation. But his point is not about that situation, (or indeed the other examples he cites) it is about the way that you come to, or comment about other long standing editors/admins pages and treat those persons in a way that you clearly would not accept being treated yourself. You are clearly a good, perhaps even great editor, but your inability to assume good faith of your fellows, and then when they come to your talk page to complain, seek explanation or apology (as the threads and history shows) for writing such things, does not assist you in maintaining such an appearance.--VS ^talk 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxim cited your previous restorations as (dubious) evidence that you made a habit of irrational wheel warring, and nobody agrees with that implication, which we've already dismissed. It's not your actions that are at issue here, it's your attitude. You're being highly defensive, and refusing to admit fault, which isn't conducive to resolution. In an area where you lack experience, namely working with images, the appropriate response is to explain what you're trying to do and ask what you ought to do; you could have politely asked why he deleted the image, which may have been out-of-process but was in good faith. And likewise Maxim should have checked the history, seen that you were trying to do something, and contacted you before deleting. Try to understand his point of view, and think about reconciliation - no one will remember this thread in a year, but relationships with other editors are important and long-term. Dcoetzee 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He wrote an enormous number of words, of which he later said they were an attempt to explain what he did. I don't see that they amount to an attempt to explain.

I do wonder if he looked at the image before deleting. He says his grounds were a redirect to a non-existent page. But if you find that or anything else that plainly matches a criterion for speedy deletion, you're not supposed to delete at that point; you're supposed to look into the matter and find out what's going on at that point. (Same thing with pages that you find incomprehensible and contextless. Usually a google search can settle that very fast and tell you that it's actually a badly written page but capable of being cleaned up; clicking on "what links here" and finding a thousand respectable internal links would also indicate something, etc.) To say that he tried to explain is a considerable exaggeration. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason you don't thread your comments? Protonk (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're asking. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it's clear to me that some pride & self-respect has been infinged on here. I believe this dispute would be an excellent case for the MedCom/MedCab/mediation. (I wish my interpersonal skills were better & I had much more free time, so I could take this on.) If this is not handled carefully, we may end up losing either one or two veteran contributors to Wikipedia, & the project will be that much poorer for that. -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, given your wikipedia requirement to be civil and assume good faith even in the face of provokation, how exactly did you feel justified in writing bold allcaps 'bullshit' several times? And how exactly did you feel this help the matter instead of making it worse? 198.161.173.180 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming of an admin

I'm concerned with Gimmetrow - I know that he's been a valuable contributor in the past, and I'm somewhat reluctant to bring this here, but his recent conduct, particularly with regards to this page strikes me as rather short of the bar for an admin. See also the talk page, unilateral changes to a heavily-used template to support his edit war POV without any discussion on the template's talk page, and a particularly vitriolic series of attacks which, to the best of my knowledge, seems to amount to "how dare you use infoboxes and project banners?" I'm genuinely mystified as to where this is all coming from, particularly as this user is a well-known and otherwise respected admin, and has no prior bad blood (AFAIK) with any of these issues or editors. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow informed. Steve ^{T • C} 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "unilateral changes to a heavily used template", Girolamo invited me to change the template. I consider his actions now, misprepresenting that fact, to be a personal attack. Gimmetrow 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this response to the claim above made elsewhere. Also here. Happy‑melon 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a silly argument that has become personalised. What's the root of all this? I can't believe it started from this edit with no prior history. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at this without really commenting on much, this edit (which was part of the history listed), which Gimmetrow labelled as vandalism, was most certainly not such a thing. — neuro^(talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure this could have been avoided had Gimmetrow taken a few moments to compose a more diplomatic drawing of our attention to his problem with the {{film}} template, we have as a result started discussing ways in which the template's impact can be reduced for users that have Javascript disabled. But a "silly argument that has become personalised" seems to about sum it up, and I personally don't think any administrator action is required now this incident has been logged. If Gimme is willing to offer any ideas he may have, or bring any further issues to the relevant talk pages, we'll be glad to hear them, and I'm confident we can move on without lasting grudges being formed. That's not what we're here for. The concurrent—yet seemingly separate—issue regarding the infobox at Talk:By the Sword (film)#Infobox is a simple content dispute that should be resolved over there. I hope we're all happy to accept Gimme's edit summary that labelled an edit as vandalism is extenuated by the previous edit's accidental reversion of genuine improvements Gimme made that were unrelated to the dispute. These were subsequently re-inserted. Steve ^{T • C} 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this edit - [47] where he accused editors (presumably including myself) of having "tag-teamed to vandalize the article" - I cannot speak for the other editors but my edits are perfectly reasonable and cannot be defined as vandalism in any way. Exxolon (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Personally, I think that repeated, uncalled-for personal attacks ("ass" "moronic") warrant a block, but at the very least I ask that a neutral admin warn Sephiroth that any future violations of WP:NPA will resuilt in Sephiroth being blocked for at least 24 hours. Sephiroth has certainly shown poor conflict resolution skills and should, as an administrator, know that personal attacks like this not only do not help, but completely undermine any respect that might have been due. Yet more personal attacks and insults from the so-called "coordinators" of FILMS project lead to be believe that all the coordinators there probably need to be removed. Gimmetrow 17:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think that Gimmetrow's lack of knowledge of what is vandalism is detrimental to his ability to even consider the situation clearly. Seriously, adding an infobox is "vandalism"? The entire conversation at Talk:By the Sword (film)#Infobox frankly shows your lack of knowledge on what vandalism is, along with your perception that everyone's words somehow constituted the words "fuck you". Complain about my word choice all you want; it's irrelevant to how you're suddenly calling for the heads of every coordinator in the film project, which sounds nothing more than a petty attack resulting from you being overriden by established consensus. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, for an admin who's been here for nearly three years and has over 30,000 edits I'd expect a little more knowledge of what vandalism, consensus and infoboxes are and a lot less rampant bad faith assuming. Hell - if Gimmetrow is qualified to be an admin then I am as well (and I'm very aware of my limitations and don't consider myself to be good potential admin material). Exxolon (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are now logged for future reference, should you continue. Thank you, Sephiroth and Exxolon. You have been most helpful. Gimmetrow 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Er - what's that supposed to mean? If I/we continue to comment, you're going to keep notes or tabs on we/us? Exxolon (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, you guys better watch out. Your comments have been logged. Its a good thing your other comments haven't been logged... oh wait, they all are. Huh. I guess it's not much of a threat after all. Carry on!198.161.173.180 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

This is getting out of hand. Rather than disengaging from the dispute, having failed to get his way on the infobox Gimmetrow has decided to remove the poster image from it that I recently sourced, uploaded and added to the moved infobox - there is a widespread consensus that film posters fall under WP:FAIRUSE - this is perilously close to a WP:POINT disruption. Can we get some help here please? Or are admins above the law? Exxolon (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the causu belli correctly, this is a disagreement over the presence of a Fair use image. :::shudder::: -- llywrch (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it actually had to do with whether or not the WikiProject is allowed to place their project banner on the article's talk page. The rest is just collateral issues raised as more eyes examined the article and its history. To characterize this as somehow emerging from a fair use disagreement is incorrect, at least as far as I am aware. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at new MOSNUM RfC

Help. Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now deleting an RfC on WT:MOSNUM [48] This is intolerable. He is arguing about what old RfCs say in a fashion that misrepresents what editors understood and were voicing their opinions about, and then, when I try to clarify maters with a clear-as-glass RfC, he “archives” it. This is disruptive and must end. Greg L (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that we just had two RFCs barely a month ago (which were advertised in the watchlist notice for nearly a month). This editor is being disruptive by starting up yet another RFC while we're trying to engage in good faith discussion. What Greg L is engaging in is effectively a filibuster, and he should not be allowed to continue. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Links to prior RFCs: WT:MOSNUM/RFC and WP:MOSNUM/RFC, please note these are distinct RFCs (one is not the talk page of the other), and both were advertised in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details for many weeks, closing on Christmas day. This is a pure disruption and will not yield any clearer results than the community RFC recently did (which had over 100 participants). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The deleted RfC began to shine new light on a topic that badly needed more discussion. Why was it deleted? I don't believe it was up to one person to make the decision to remove it.  HWV258  02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I’ll answer that HWV258. No RfC is a “filibuster”. That is profoundly absurd. An RfC is a tool to find out what the true community consensus is after editors get locked into endless dispute about what previous RfCs mean. As for “engage[ing] in good faith discussion”, that sounds nice, but that is far from what Locke has been doing lately. He would much prefer tendentiously write for ever and ever about what the past RfCs mean and fears the obvious: that a new RfC to clarify these disputed points will not go his way. That is most unfortunate for him, but determining the community consensus is important to Wikipedia and he many absolutely not delete RfCs he disagrees with, particularly when he feeds everyone a line about how “we're trying to engage in good faith discussion”. There will now be more good-faith discussion: by others who will chose to participate in the RfC he so fears.

  Don’t delete it again, Locke. Any reasonable interpretation of your block log would suggest that you would have pulled this stunt and that you will do it again if given the chance. Greg L (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Whee, trot out my block log (most of it from 2006) as if that gives you license to be incivil to me, personally attack me, and engage in disruption. No Greg, you must stop. An RFC is a tool, and we've used it (twice! in the past two months), it's time to abide by the results received there rather than trying to go back for one more try. This is the problem at MOSNUM as a I see, you guys will ask, and ask, and ask again, until any reasonable person just gives in and quits. Then you get your way. And this behavior is not acceptable here. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind the fact that there is an ongoing RFAR... Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved to not delete the RFC. Doing so is not only disruptive, but can land potential editors with additional blocks. Let's not go down that road. seicer | talk | contribs 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It would have been better (and less disruptive) had it not been created in the first place. Especially while we're discussing ways of moving forward that involve a perfectly sensible software fix being developed by UC Bill... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Despite overwhelming consensus that your opinion on the entire delinking matter was ruled moot and dead? I'm sorry if you can't accept the fact that the community has voiced its opinion, and that you can't accept it without having to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, there was no "overwhelming consensus" except on the issue of dates linked purely for auto formatting. There was majority support for auto formatting of some type, which is what the discussion at WT:MOSNUM is attempting to address. Greg L and Tony1 have been trying to derail those discussions, repeatedly, by engaging in personal attacks, disruption and incivility. Also, I've renamed this section back to something more neutral because the old title was demonstrably false. If anyone is being disruptive here it's Greg L and Tony1. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please stop changing this section heading from “Disruption by Locke Cole”. If you don’t want an “inflammatory” ANI thread title, stop engaging in inflammatory conduct. Why don’t you change it to “Unnecessary brouhaha that is the fault of others because they won’t do what Locke Cole wants”? Greg L (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest you refactor that last bit. Wanting a less-inflammatory section heading is actually a good thing, because it means people will enter into reading the discussion with (hopefully) fewer preconceptions. I have changed the thread title. I am not commenting on any merits or lack thereof of anyone's behaviour here, just pointing out that less-inflammatory section headers are better all around.//roux   04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very well. Greg L (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please also refactor the unnecessary attack in your previous comment. //roux   04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedians have got to start learning that “WP:Personal attacks” (“Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets”) is quite distinct and separate from employing facetiousness to illustrate a point. I suggest we stick to the more important isue here: whether or not an RfC to clarify a chronic point of contention can be flat deleted by a tendentious editor who worries the results of the RfC will not go his way. That too, isn’t a personal attack; it’s truth. Greg L (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not worried about that at all Greg, and please stop trying to tell others how I feel. My feelings were made quite clear at WT:MOSNUM and will be restated here for your benefit: another RFC is unnecessary and is a stalling tactic as well as an attempt to try to get a result that favors your position (since the last RFC did not). It's been barely a month since the last RFC, and these repeated attempts to derail conversations by you and Tony1 need to stop. It's disruptive, unhelpful at building consensus, and inflammatory / drama creating. Your incivility also needs to stop, but that's another matter (and one I raised at the arbitration case as a proposed injunction). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• In November, Locke prematurely archived a delinking RFC only 14 hours after it started.[49] That RFC was created by Tony1 and is one of the two RFCs Locke mentions above. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking about that. Thanks. Darn relevant point. It speaks to the issue of being “tendentious”. Greg L (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're wrong. It speaks to how unapologetic you and Tony1 are in your repeated attempts to disrupt good faith efforts at dispute resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, whatever. I think you admins can mark this one as resolved. Locke, on WT:MOSNUM here, wrote as follows: I will take his [Seicer’s] advice about leaving this disruption of yours alone. Thank you very much for your volunteer efforts here to intervene and settle this. Greg L (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hardly resolved, your actions are disruptive and need to be dealt with. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh dear. A thousand pardons. I will endeavor to be much more like you in my editing behavior. Thank you for your constructive criticisms. I will try to do better. I wish you happy editing. Greg L (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cole says: "There was majority support for auto formatting of some type". Um, not this mantra again. Please see an in-depth analysis of how and why the results of that RfC were fatally contaminated (the three-choice trap). I wish you'd stop trumpeting this "finding". (It's just been archived at MOSNUM talk, and of course is now hard to find ...). 124.170.115.42 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch conversation at User talk:Daveneijsen

Would someone have a quick look at User talk:Daveneijsen (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Daveneijsen|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially the history. Probably a quick block/protect and delete is needed. Thanks --triwbe (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, why does this bother you? What do you care if someone speaks Dutch? Posting a xenophobic warning tag on that editor's talk page was rude but then to follow it up with a complaint at this page is the height of chutzpah. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's simply the fact that they communicate in Dutch, but that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. User:Onsjoe, User:Daveneijsen, User:Leonieeshuis, and their various IPs are using Wikipedia as a chat service. --Onorem♠Dil 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then I stand corrected. However, that was not made clear by the poster, and the placement of a warning message admonishing the target to speak English was something I found rude. It seemed to me to be a case of Waah...I can't read it even though it it doesn't concern me, wasn't written to me, and is in someone else's user space. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem, you got it exactly. Applying wikipeida policies is not xenophobic, neither is bringing up the case here. Please stop with the personal comments L0b0t. --triwbe (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As they say, it's not that it's Dutch, it's that they are using the talkpage for chatting in Dutch, and those are the only edits that any of those editors are making. Delete the pages, and put a notice each of them explaining why.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a warning (in Dutch) about Wikipedia not being a webhost. I have placed the same warning on User talk:Onsjoe and User talk:Leonieeshuis. The IPs used seem pretty static (User talk:80.127.156.245,User talk:81.204.77.234, User talk:85.159.97.1) so if the same behaviour continues on other pages, they should be warned and eventually blocked. Fram (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above remarks, I would point out that communicating in languages other than English on talk pages is distinctly frowned upon. See Wikipedia:TALK#Good_practice. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would have to add that there is NOTHING xenophobic about asking people to use English on the English Wikipedia. See Xenophobia and explain how it applies to asking users to post in English. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it kind of sad that so much of that sophomoric discussion was actually in English...nice, very good, gefixed, but especially "chill." Brr. Spreek je moerstaal! [That is, 'speak your mother's tongue.'] Yes, WP is not a chatroom. (And I'm going to clean up the Dutch messages I've left on talk pages...) Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, I find it handy. When I break down and cheat by inserting an English word, a lot of time no one seems to notice at all.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeHimmler baiting OrangeMarlin in honour of Dr. B. R. Lang's uncle

Resolved

 – Account indef blocked by MastCell. --Elonka 01:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeHimmler (talk · contribs) seems to require some admin action. A stern warning (at least) for User:Dr. B. R. Lang might also be in order. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked GeorgeHimmler (talk · contribs) as an apparent alternate account created specifically to attack another user. I will leave further actions up to other admins if any are felt to be necessary. MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But his attack on my user page was so well written, that I'm disappointed that I won't be able to read anything further from him. Note his use of "Himmler" in his name. I probably shouldn't read too much into it.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One of Heinrich's illegitimate nephews. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrarian Journalism

I'm not sure how to handle this.

I nominated Contrarian Journalism for deletion. One editor supported the nomination, followed by a Keep vote from User:DasV who seems to have been stalking him. But it looks like User:DasV may be the same person as the article's author, who is an SPA - see here.

The evidence is possibly not strong enough for a sockpuppet tag or a checkuser, but it smells very fishy. So, what should I do? andy (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is simply absurd. I have been editing on WP since it went on line. Just because someone does not agree with your deletist program does not mean they are the same person as everyone who has written an article that gets tagged for deletion. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted most of the article as original research - should be flushed down the shitter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• So much for your opinion. Too bad everyone in the world doesn't agree with you. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• DasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused a remarkable degree of argumentation given his extremely limited editing history. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• DasV states the case in a positive affirmative way. You have no idea of my editing history.DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fillairs has copied the article to their User page. AnyPerson (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

is DasV the same person - certainly looks like that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Only to someone who wants to believe it. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question to Cameron Scott: what is the evidence that DasV is really my sock puppet. This is my first venture into Wiki world and I have to say it's quite surreal. Can't someone see that I'm probably in a completely diferent part of the world to DasV? Is someone going to adjudicate this by looking at some facts? Fillairs (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also cameron: does your suggestion that the article should be flushed down the shitter, conform to Wiki rules regarding civility? Fillairs (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• They are not concerned with facts or civility. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - if I had said "you should be flushed down the shitter", then the answer would have been no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is almost interesting:

DasV leaps to the defence of an article written by an SPA, Fillairs

• DasV presented facts which supported the term 'Contrarian Journalism'. Camaron Scott deleted them. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DasV probably came across the AfD because he's keeping an eye on User:Flopsy_Mopsy_and_Cottonmouth's edits. Yet he also knows a lot about the subject.

• I could care less about FMC's edits. I know a lot about a lot of subjects. I make a practice to find out about a subject before I recommend it one way or another. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fillairs claims one of DasV's edits as his own.

Fillairs now says he's "probably in a completely diferent part of the world to DasV " - how does he know?

The logical conclusion is that either Fillairs has lost the plot while DasV is a knight in shining armour who defends hapless editors against "deletists"; or else Fillairs is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of DasV.

• DasV says what he thinks about a subject. He does not wander WP looking for things to delete. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The question now to the administrators is: is this sufficient to block either of them for trolling? andy (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• In other words you wish to have any discussion blocked which does not agree with your point of view. Since deletion vastly outnumbers keeps, you would remove anyone who is in the 'keep' camp on any subject. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please listen to me I am in Australia and I assume that should be something an Administrator can verify. When you talk about blocking that must mean there is something to indicate where I am posting from. I have no idea where DasV is. I simply assumed that it's a very big world we live in, so the odds that he or she is in the same city as me are quite remote.

As to my losing the plot, I make no claims to ever having had the plot. I really am feeling my way around in the dark and I'm somewhat stunned by the level of suspicion and hostility I'm encountering. If Administrators are watching this, as you imply, I would be grateful if they could verify that I am NOT DasV. I feel the hostility and suspicion has made civil discussion of the issues of my modest paper almost impossible. I made some changes in response to what I slowly understood to be the point of the critical remarks and then floated the possibility of more changes, only to be told that it was all gone, dead and buried, by a process that I still don't quite understand. Speaking as an outsider who has ventured into Wiki, this is not a good advertisement for Wiki. Fillairs (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Their purpose is to block me Fillairs. People that don't agree with them are not wanted. DasV (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • DasV: can you provide me with a quick tip on how I can put this allegation to adjudication? I would just like to see it on the record. I may never venture near Wikipedia again after this experience, but I would like the record corrected. I was thinking, however, that I might write an article for the print media entitled "The Wacky World Of Wiki". It's surreal: the use of exclusionary jargon, the rush to judgment and the vicious attacks on someone they don't know at all. I think people in the real world would be intrigued to find out that this nether world of self-invested heroes exists.

Fillairs (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• It would be an excercise in futility Fillairs. The article would be speedily deleted. It's quite obvious from our IPs that we are not the same person, to anyone that takes the trouble to look. Wikipedia has gone much the way the old newsgroups went with cliques controling the content. It is the policy that is wrong, and that is almost impossible to overcome. Counting votes for 'delete' or 'keep' from people who are unfamiliar with the subject means most articles tagged for deletion will be. Some admins boast of deleting upwards of 2000 articles ... some 5000 pages a day are deleted from WP. Because of policy most material that is kept is simply a reprint from other sources. WP is a handy quick reference that will point you ... usually ... to some actual informational sources, but improving the content is not really most editors intention. Otherwise they would improve articles instead of deleting them ... and deleting any positive information in the discussion. Deleting discussion material is beyond comprehension! It is for these reasons that WP is usually not allowed as a source citation in schools. So much for a great idea.DasV (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Persistent incivility by user:Dicklyon

user:Dicklyon has been persistently engaging in incivility against me (and a host of other editors). user:Dicklyon has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and other topics [50], as well as topic-banned for inappropriate behavior on other topics [51]. His edits below are grossly inappropriate and are conducive neither to productive discussion nor dispute resolution. His continued problematic behavior, despite repeated sanctions, does not suggest any serious intent ever to moderate his behavior. His edits below follow a failed attempt to delete Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (which I created), a failed attempt to move the same page (started immediately afterward), and an RfC which also failed to bring any uninvolved editor to agree with him.

After I indicated on a talk page that I am a colleague of one of the people whom I cited on the main page:

"If your "disclosure" were more complete, you'd note that Ray Blanchard made up the "feminine essence theory" in these so-called reliable sources, by listing an unattributed set of "tenets" of it that he then proceeded to knock down. Nobody believes the theory, nor likely many of its so-called tenets, and he knows it, since they're a bit absurd. His reason for putting it forward to knock it down is obvious: to prop up his controversial Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of transsexuals. So to call this a theory, to help your boss spread his nasty propaganda, by writing this horribly misleading article, is the worse kind of WP:Conflict of interest." [52]

After an uninvolved editor asked Dicklyon's what information he was trying to gain from his RfC on that page:

"Well, I was hoping you'd read some of comments, see what Cantor is doing here, and be as appalled by it as I was. It's really quite vicious to present this as if it was a theory held by transsexuals, just for the purpose of saying what a stupid idea it is. That what Cantor does here, just as his boss Blanchard did in the real world. The appearance of sourcing disguises what he has done. I guess it was unrealistic to expect someone not familiar with the controversy to be able to help, though." [53]

After the near-unanimous defeat of the AfD that he himself proposed for the page:[54]:

"Oppose – It would be nuts to move this content to a place where a real article could go. It's better to leave it here as a monument to James Cantor's and WhatamIdoing's collusion to have some "fun" with wikipedia." [55]

Although Dicklyon will sometimes apologize for his behavior, the clear lack of change after such apologies does not suggest sincerity. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat my earlier point about user:Dicklyon's clear lack of intent to change his behavior, after notified him on his talk about that I made the above incident report (using the ANI template), he repeated his behavior on the same page:

Following my indicating that I believed his edits to violate WP:civility:

"It's about your article and your editing behavior, which I repeat I find appalling and vicious; not to mention WP:COI." [56]

and

"In fact, nobody adhere's to such a theory, as it was made up by Dreger and Blanchard just for the purpose of attacking transwomen; Cantor reports to Blanchard and does his dirty work on wikipedia." [57]

Permitting such behavior is never in the best interests of WP.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick has been showing similar behavior at Eric Lerner and WP:FRINGE. There's an active arbitration enforcement thread here that seems to have petered out due to lack of interest from admins. Of his most recent disruptive edits in this area, IMO this edit takes the cake, where he claims that Arno Penzias, recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics, is not a physicist. He seems unable to comment on the content, not the contributor, and often follows editors who have vexed him to other pages. Skinwalker (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my separate editing disputes with ScienceApologist are in any way related or analogous, nor do they represent any misbehavior. If you disagree, please give me a clue; I have not had any edit pointed out as disruptive or uncivil by anybody there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was pointed out as disruptive or uncivil? Have you read in any detail the arbitration enforcement thread and the responses? Skinwalker (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obvoiusly I discounted ScienceApologist himself, as he's just trying to get me banned; Shell didn't get back to me on my request for any indication of what I did wrong, and PhilKnight and you basically said I shouldn't refer to ScienceApologist's SPOV or editing methods in my comments or edit summaries. I'm still unclear on whether anyone has anything specific that they think I did that was inappropriate, as these are just ways of saying I should stop fighting with ScienceApologist; but it takes two, so tell him, too. Now back to the present... Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone has presented your problematic behavior and other editors/admins have said "stop that", you respond with "stop what?". This is getting silly. Its not appropriate for you to attack other editors that you are in a dispute with - in fact, its not appropriate to attack other editors at all. Learn to play nice or get out of the sandbox. Shell ^babelfish 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon is not behaving very well but I sort of understand his frustration -- the Feminine essence theory of transsexuality article goes way beyond what its sources justify. The term was invented in a commentary published in April 2008, and nothing has yet been published in response to that commentary, so really all the article should properly be able to say is that Blanchard said XXX a few months ago and no reactions to his ideas have yet appeared. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is mishaving to call James Cantor's edits and behavior on this particular page as appalling and vicious. It also baffles me that he is allowed to continue to push his boss's vicious transphobic attacks via wikipedia; I didn't have much luck taking him to COI in the past, but probably it's time to try again. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and Skinwalker (and now, apparently, still more editors just two doors down here) emphasize my point regarding Dicklyon's multiple prior blocks: Dicklyon's behavior is not limited to me, nor to other editors, nor to any specific group of pages.

Looie496 is completely entitled to disagree with me, of course, but the purpose of WP:AN/I is to discuss/intervene regarding editor behavior, not page content. I do invite user:Looie496 to make content edits and suggestions at the page and its talkpages themselves.

— James Cantor (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcome a review of my block history and editing history by anybody. Compare it to User:MarionTheLibrarian, the name James Cantor used to attack the bio of my friend Lynn Conway while hiding his identity as one of the principals in the real-world dispute with her. The current issues are a contiuation of his essentially single-purpose campaign on wikipedia, to polish the reputation of his academic sexologist friends and boss and to push thir views that have been characterized by many in the real world as transphobic. If anyone is willing to look into this, the result will certainly be welcome. As to the other disputes that I get into as an active wikipedia editor, I am happy to have them examined, one at a time or all at once; I make no claim to being the most congenial or whatever, but I stick to policy and push back on abuse. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my $0.02 to this I even went as far as to open a userconduct RfC on him and his behavior Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. He has made more of his little comments than I care to hunt down diff's for. He has been given a pass for acting the way he has for far too long. Nothing much has been done with this(I am not sure what more needs to be done before it will go through). Someone needs to send Dicklyon a message that his behavior is not acceptable. Or else he will keep on keeping on. Thus leaving no recourse but response in kind. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that it was you who were blocked for incivility, toward me. If you have a complaint about my behavior, please make it more explicit so we can tell what the issue is. Your RfC was found to be "inappropriate and very counterproductive" and I saw nothing there worth responding to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This easily has got to be one of the more bizarre and complex ANIs I've stumbled across. The core issue, besides generally incivility of quite a few editors, is the propagation of some rather cutting edge research, Wikipedia's that is, on sexuality of transgender people. Newsflash, the jury is still out. Feminine essence theory of transsexuality does seem rather like we're on the very cutting edge leading the effort to publish material when we already have Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual called "Homosexual gender dysphorics", The Man Who Would Be Queen and BLPs including J. Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard and likely others. Like a B-movie ooze that smothers all opposition this content just seems to creep along on one article after the next. I'm not sure there are any easy answers here but this propagating by, what does seem to be a strong and persistent minority, that this information is widely accepted and embraced seems dubious. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine can help as there is no end to sourcing from medical sounding sources. If these theories are widely discredited then why do we have so much material on them? I may just be posting in vain but to see another of these articles pop up seems like a bad prospect for an encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. At the risk of seeming incivil, I repeat that they made this new article for the brilliant fun of it. Unbelievable gall is what it is. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As to "these theories" and "widely discredited", there's a lot of confusion right there. This theory (Feminine essence theory of transsexuality) appears only in the paper by Blanchard that both proposes it and discredits it. None of the other sources are about this theory; that's part of what's dishonest about how the article was written. As for the other Blanchard theory, it's NOT discredited within the academic sexologist community so much, but it certainly did stir up a fight with the transwomen. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi: "Widely discredited" perhaps but not among transsexuals ourselves. ""Feminine essence theory of transsexualism" is just a overcomplex, fancy name for an idea so simple a 7 year old knows it. The idea is called "brain sex". Read "The theory that prenatally established brain and CNS structures determine innate gender feelings and gender identity." by Lynn Conway or Searches for "brain Sex" on Jokestress's website "tsraodmap.com. It appears about 8 times. A similar search on lynnconway.com gets a much greater number. The basic idea is that male to female transsexuals have female brains in male bodies and thus are in essence female. Hence one can understand why one writter could call it "feminine essence theory of transsexualism". Judging the article by it's name is not good practice. A name change was proposed and oppose won (I supported a name change). This is not the place to retry those issues.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of this report at AN/I is the incivility, not the content dispute. Discussion of Feminine essence theory of transsexuality as a topic belongs on its talk page, and I would invite you to offer your views there. As Banjeboi has noticed, the incivility is currently overwhelming any productive discussion.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have. I also felt that the issue raised by Bajeboi needed an answer here and now.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain the underlying civility issues, which are hardly limited to Dicklyon, are mere symptoms of a serious content problem that has been bubbling away for months. Personally I really haven't wanted to step through all the drama and I'm aware of other editors who have also - for sanity sake - simply moved on to more productive efforts. This may not be the best venue to resolve these issues but neither is various forms of intimidating editors helpful which also seems to be happening across multiple articles and noticeboards. The benefit of this board, however, is more experienced BS detectors are able to suss out the issues of problematic behaviour vs. content issues that also may need some specialized attention. I fear that this entire group of articles is showing few signs of coming into line with OR and NPOV policies and that we are headed towards more and more reports. I honestly think all these articles should be bundled and put on some sort of article watch with OR specialists sent it to weed out some of the more glaring issues. If you remind me I'll give shiny barnstars for whoever cleans these articles up as our readers deserve good NPOV articles and instead we seem to have a growing battleground. -- Banjeboi 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We're in the process of starting mediation. A mediator has been chosen and we're in the 48-hour period to hear if there are any objections. While this was getting set up, other things do tend to happen still. But please do let me know if you find any of my remarks to be incivil; I do take input. So far all I've got here is Looie496 saying I'm "not behaving very well" and a couple of people mentioning a separate (and past) interaction with ScienceApologist, another complicated case with various "misbehaving" editors. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear there is movement on this, please consider making the trimming of unneeded materials on BLPs part of the discussion if possible. -- Banjeboi 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten O'Clock Classics

Resolved

semi-protected[58]

I've asked[59] over at WP:RFP for long term semi-protection of this article due to some persistent IP-initiated BLP violations. I'm cross-posting here because the matter has been on AN/I at least twice, and may be too compicated for a simple RFP request. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. No, just kidding. I'm not familiar with the ongoing dispute, but it does seem that the article should be protected for, I figure, six months or more. Hopefully someone less sleep-deprived than I can sort it out. —Travis^talk 02:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the condensed version. Wikipedia good. BLP vio bad. Non-notable individuals are our friends. Non-notable individual's arrest record not our friends. Need admin rescue. Jimbo would approve. Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another PoliticianTexas sock: HoyaFan!

Resolved

 – Blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

HoyaFan! (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is probably a sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). PolTx has generated several dozen known sock puppets. The last was DianaRuiz (talk · contribs) who was blocked 00:57, 22 Jan; the HoyaFan! account was created 07:24, 23 Jan, and edits primarily pages which have also been edited by PolTx. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Some more specifics:

• HoyaFan! made two edits to Espanola, New Mexico, which is a PolTx favorite and has been edited mostly by the known PolTx socks DeLaCueva (talk · contribs), LamyQ (talk · contribs), Colorado Lover (talk · contribs), ABQster (talk · contribs), Martinez07 (talk · contribs), BradlyRM (talk · contribs), Evhs00 (talk · contribs); suspected socks TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs), and Dowhatyoudo (talk · contribs) and by PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) himself.
  • One edit, the story about the Obama visit, which was updated by HoyaFan!, was added to the article by LamyQ (talk · contribs), a known PolTx sock. HoyaFan! diff, LamyQ diff
  • The other edit was to show the party affiliations of city councilors, also a PolTx favorite subject: HoyaFan! diff, TrentZee diff. TrentZee (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock.
• HoyaFan! made 5 edits to List of New Mexico Activities Association championships, which was recently split from New Mexico Activities Association, which is a PolTx favorite; the latter article has been edited recently by known PolTx socks TrentZee (talk · contribs), JWillems (talk · contribs), and AndrewGirron (talk · contribs).
• Characteristic capitalization of most words in edit summaries, for example HoyaFan! diff, HoyaFan! diff, DianaRuiz diff, JosephTatum diff. DianaRuiz (talk · contribs) and JosephTatum (talk · contribs) are known PolTx socks.

How about a block on this editor? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

HoyaFan! is now blocked indef as a sock of PoliticianTexas. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

massive edits in 2 days

In Aspartame controversy a newly arrived editor user:Keepcalmandcarryon made in the past 2 days 32 edits and or deletions without debate or any consensus from other editors who worked for many weeks on it. On some occasions 2 serious edits within one minute were made, which indicates not much reasoning lies behind it. So far me and another regular editor already contested on Talk a few of his edits, but at the rate he's working, it puts us back many weeks. Can some administrator tell him to keep calm and to respect the consensus among contributing editors. Immortale (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon (let's call him/her keepc for short) is hardly a newly arrived editor. They have been prolific in preventing cruft (let's say, unsubstantiated, unscientific claims) from being added to medical articles. You have been reverted by a number of good faith editors. I think this is purely a content dispute, where one editor, Immortale, is not prevailing in disucssions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor (as of yesterday, talk page only) this looks like a controversial topic undergoing active editing. It might be a good idea to slow down a bit, but the "32 edits" are mostly contiguous blocks, not 32 individual reverts or anything.

My impression, jaundiced as it may be, is that this and this provide some useful context. Of course, I had no sooner posted to Talk:Aspartame controversy (to suggest that human studies might deserve at least 1/10th the coverage as rat studies) than I was accused of being an industry propagandist, and Keepcalm labelled an employer of Orwellian doublespeak, so take my ramblings with a grain of acesulfame-K. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would say that if someone is making significant revisions to an article, it's often better to do them as many individual edits, rather than one or two big ones. That way, it's easier for other editors to revert or revise particular changes they don't agree with. Also, if text is being moved around, isolating the 'move edit' from any others makes changes easier to follow in the diffs. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mast, obviously, as his view represents reality ;):):) I do feel this article should be on probation or something (I know this usually isn't for AN/I to decide, just commenting) as it seems to be up here every week. Maybe protect it? Sticky Parkin 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page immediately after making my first (and most bold) edits, and later in additional comments on the talk page, the much-criticised results from one primary research article had been turned into what was essentially an article of its own. In my recent edits, I sought to return some proper weight to the article. I have also insisted that sources be verifiable, as claims had been made and attributed to sources (primary sources) that did not make such claims. I feel that my actions were properly explained in my edit summaries and in discussion on the talk page, and I don't understand why this ANI was brought...nor why I was not informed of it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I should have known that neutral comments by neutral administrators are hard to find here. user:Keepcalmandcarryon is a newly arrived editor to the Aspartame controversy and some of his edits were deleting complete paragraphs. Keep playing your "my-scientific-career-is-over-but-at-least-I-can-make-myself-feel-important-on-Wikipedia". You might want to read what propaganda actually means. I suggest you start with George Orwell's 1984. I know that aspartame use influences the short term memory, but MastCell already started editing the article on the 12th of January: [[60]] user:Keepcalmandcarryon pretends he corrected the article in the interest of Wikipedia, but all his serious edits were done in the critical parts of the article. The article that is supposed to describe and explain a real controversy is an attempt to denigrate and downsize the criticism, even when fully sourced and having plenty of impartial weight. Good luck with your games, I'm out of here. Immortale (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You have gotten some neutral observers here, and more may follow. I explicitly identified myself as involved. You're correct that I did edit the article back on the 12th - we even had a chat about it. I'd forgotten, though I don't think it changes the points I made. While the article is entitled aspartame controversy, that is not a license to ignore WP:WEIGHT.

I also think that your approach is bound to fail because it admits no common ground. I say: "The rat study should be mentioned, but not given undue weight." You say: "Of course you want to delete the rat study because you don't like the results." I say: "I share your suspicion of industry-funded research." You say: "You're an industry propagandist and Orwellian failed scientist." That approach is probably viscerally satisfying in the short-term, but in the long-term it leads, well, here. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Immortale, I hate to tell you this, but no one owns these articles, and we aren't forced to stick with certain topics. I have no clue how I ended up at the article, but it's probably because I stalk MastCell's editing (and about another 100 different science and medical editors) on here. We watch over any medical article to make certain that NPOV is followed. Moreover, Keepc and many of us have debated ad infinitum with you at Talk:Aspartame controversy, so any of our edits are open for discussion. You need to chill out and not make false accusations against editors and admins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Moreover, Keepc and many of us have debated ad infinitum with you at Talk:Aspartame controversy". Keepcalmandcarryon placed 4 reactions on the Talk Page (after his first day of manic editing), of which only one was directed to me. There were no discussions but a repetition of random wikipedia statements. His third post on Talk, he falsely claimed that I had removed or reverted his edits, which truthfully, did not touched a single one of them (you guys talk about accusations). His other posts were directed to User:ImperfectlyInformed. Interesting to see that you call this "debated ad infinitum". When it comes to your contributions to the "debate", I only count you once on Talk:Aspartame controversy. Now, of course it's plausible you could have made a Freudian slip and thinking of other accounts that hide the same people or friends, but I don't want to make more accusations. And it's exactly these twists in reasoning that I got fed up with. In the beginning Wikipedia was a great democracy, where everyone was equal, but just like with our democracy, eventually elites started to form who took certain privileges and hold each other's hands over each other's heads. "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" - George Orwell, Animal Farm Immortale (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Immortale, you don't help your case by raising comments like "my-scientific-career-is-over-but-at-least-I-can-make-myself-feel-important-on-Wikipedia" or referring to Orwell. Speaking only for myself, I generally trust MastCell's view on things. If you want to persuade me to even look at the dispute on the possibility that you might be right, you'd be well off to avoid such comments in the future. (And my career is nowhere near over.) Thatcher 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement by unresponsive new editor

Resolved

 – Edits reverted, user warned. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

92.10.126.204 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly cut-and-pasted this entire page into the Rwandan Genocide article. As a note to those unaware of the situation, the RC article gets an occasional anonymous genocide denier pop-up here and there and insert fringe theories about how "this was not a genocide, rather it was [insert_fringe_theory]". The above cut-and-pasted external article is exactly that and the IP editor has proceeded to comb through the entire RC article and add question marks behind every occurance of the word genocide or change the word genocide to "genocide/civil war". I reverted him twice and left a message on his talk page but he is not responding and keeps reinserting the copyvio and questioning the assertion of genocide within the article. I do feel that his edits are disruptive but I don't feel comfortable reverting further without a second opinion in case I'm wrong. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems wrong to me; consider that your second opinion. Revert and ask him to take up issues on the talkpage before making massive edits. Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted and issued a warning. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Block required: 70.23.234.194

Resolved

 – Stale vandalism, no action required. WP:AIV if resumes. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As per this WQA and this recent racist comment deserves an immediate block, IMHO. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an obnoxious person who would be entirely unwelcome here, but the edits are from a major ISP (Verizon) and came in a single clump six days ago. A block at this time would likely just inconvenience innocent parties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah. My bad. Been away so long, I trusted that a new post to WQA was related to a current situation. *bangs head on table* (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Account

Hi, I created the account Alouatta palliata palliata, but I don't like this username and want to choose a shorter one. So I want this account to be blocked indefinitely so that I can create a new username which will be my permanent account from now. Thanks. Alouatta palliata palliata (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• You may go to WP:CHU to have your username changed easily (while eliminating this old account, in a manner of speaking). Protonk (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use your old account of User:Otolemur crassicaudatus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I lost password. Alouatta palliata palliata (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You can have the new one emailed to yourself. Go to login, put in your username, select 'email new password'. //roux   17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have email enabled. Please block this account per user request. I will create the permanent account and will mention my previous identity in that account. I want to remove this account and its contributions. Alouatta palliata palliata (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really necessary (you could've just abandoned the account), but because you think it important, this is  Done –xeno (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/sockpuppetry at Jimbo's userpage

Resolved

 – Run of the mill vandalism and socking. Report to WP:SPI as needed.

//roux   18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's ongoing vandalism at User:Jimbo Wales, in frequent edits similar to this. I've reverted this vandalism four times (confessing to a 3RR violation) on Jimbo's userpage, so as much as I want to go further in fighting this vandalism, I can go no further. And here's another element: sockpuppetry. Over five accounts – Shakira 68 plus one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bikiwiki star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Some 1 AKA someone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I really don't care who (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and A s0ck of someone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) among at least two others – have performed this vandalism on the same page. I think Shakira 68 plus one is the sockmaster because it was the account that performed the vandalism first. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me} 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism-reversion; if it did, nobody would ever be able to get anything done. Jimbo's page is a fairly common target — I say let 'em continue: all he's doing is making our job easier. HalfShadow 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi Caspian Blue

Resolved

 – Tznkai has enacted the topicban, nothing more to be done here. Tan | 39 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I seek for administrative actions since Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made "racist/personal attacks against me "again" and harassed other editors. This guy has recently been blocked twice for wikistalking, incivility and harassment[61] and disruptive editing as opposed to consensus and BLP policy. Unlike his pledges[62], he has not been willing to change his attitude. From good faith, I had not reported his violations to AN3/ANI, but he even harassed me.[63] When an admin reported the matter to AN][64][65], I did not intentionally left my opinion because he was freaked out. Sadly, my good faith only feeds his disruption further and this analysis is a very acute summary of his behaviors.[66] Given his verbal attacks and behaviors today, I request a longer sanction or “topic-ban” to Korean related articles for him at this time.

• Racist/personal attacks /false accusation: Today after I removed his original research with no source from SeeYa, South Korean singers, he attacked me like "revert vandalism by known anti-Japanese troll" and the anti-Japanese motivation of the previous editor. I don't see any thing of which he accused. So I gave him warings[67] but he further falsely accused me that I'm assuming bad faith, wrongly templating and making personal attacks because of the warnings.[68]. I requested him to explain his attacks[69] but he further accused me of making a threat[70] Intead of answering to my questions, he even lectured about mannors.[71] He further has falsey accused me that I accused everyone of being a "racist" and attacked[72] This is very outrageous because in the article and talk page, I have been attacked by a block-evading banned user[73], based on my ethnicity and even an admin warned him[74][75]. I asked about his explanation[76], but he said he intentionally did and refused to apologize for his behaviors and even made further unpleasant accsuations[77].

Even more
Harassment Just like block for his wikistalking Korean editors one by one, I noticed that he suddenly followed Historiographer (talk · contribs) to SeeYa and then deleted info regaring the singers' naming.[78] Historiographer retored it with Korean news sources[79], but Sennen blanked the whole Korean sources as repeatedly insisting that only English sources should be used[80][81]. This is not only contradictory to his insertion of Korean sources to other articles but also trying to make a WP:POINT. Another user came with the correct policy on sourcing, he inserted his own "though" with no soruce. His such insertion is also contradictory to his deletion of unsourced/sourced.
Gaming/bullying: Is bullying and attacking "alleged sockpuppeters/socks" O.K before filing a SPI file? Because Sennen goroshi has been doing such to Wondergirls/Lakshmix/Ziggymaster and publicized his suspicion to everywhere for about one month[82][83][84][85][86][87]. He lied to an admin[88] that he has no experience with filing sockpuppet reports unlike his past[89][90][91][92], so asked his help and exchanged emails.[93][94] Along with this forum shopping, he left provoking comments over and over to him.[95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102] Then finally enraged Wondergirls attacked Sennen goroshi like this.[103] Although I have not agreed with his edits[104], I can't agree with Sennen goroshi's bullying. Anyway, Sennen reported him to ANI as playing himself as a victiom[105], and then Wondergirls was indef.blocked. Still, he did not file a SPI but still proceeded his behaviors to the accused editor(s)[106][107][108][109][110]][111][112][113] until I suggested him to do so[114][115]. This tactic wa previously done when Sennen tried to get rid of his opponents (1)First provoking his opponent to lose his temper, (2) waited for the user going nut, (3)reporting him to ANI, (4)and then the user was blocked/banned". Besides, when other editors reverted Sennen's, he warned them not to revert "sock's version" in threatenin tone.[116][117]

• Conclusion: This are just "current" issues on him so I believe Wikipedia does not allow this disruptive to have a privilege to edit to prevent further disruption. This guy clearly acknowledges what “racist attacks"[118], so I guess he takes reponsiblity on the same ground. Thanks--Caspian blue (d) 26 janvier 2009 à 01:17 (CET)

Response

It hardly seems worth responding, but I guess that someone might assume that silence equals acceptance, so here goes...

Calling Caspian Blue, an anti-Japanese editor

1. Caspian Blue is an editor who spends about half his time on wikipedia attempting to promote his own nation (South Korea) at the expense of Japan - numerous edits on ww2 related articles and removal of the Japanese influence on Korean culture - as much as I would call an editor with a pro-life agenda, an anti-abortion - I would call him anti-Japanese, in the same way that he calls me pro-Japanese. If his edits were only promoting his own nations, I might call him pro-Korean, but the great interest he takes in articles relating to Japanese war criminals, comfort women and the ww2 actions of Japan, not only in Korea, but also in other nations seems to point towards being anti Japanese.

2. I find it ironic that he would complain about such a comment, when so many of his edit summaries consist of comments such as rvv by Eichikiyama vandalism by anti-Korean propagandic vandal blanked the sourced material about the assassine of "Empress Myeongseon and rv by Bukubku (talk) whitewash by a Newbie with Pro-Japanese angenda here are some diffs [[119]] [[120]] [[121]] [[122]]

3. Perhaps comments such as the following can shed a little light on what has been said between the two of us in the past

Your pathetic personality

I can' tolerate your impudence any more. You keep insulting me with your dirty mean tongue. Stupid? I think you can't see any context in my comments. You are the meanest and pathetic person in the world I've encountered in my life. I pity you. If you have graduated from any university in the US, you would be required to take several humanistic and social science classes. Did you ever take any class in which Japanese war crimes would be understood among the international society? haha, even students from Japan said they felt shame of their ancestors because they didn't know and just learned with hugely edited textbooks. But you keep denying your origin and then that's making to look you stupid. You might be a Japanese-somewhere citizen. So what? You've produced offensive destructions on Korean-related articles and overly defended cruel Japanese war crime. In addition, you don't have any plausible arguments, then you choose to attack me with personal abuse that shows your true nature. Your English have been not near eloquence but close silliness and shallowness. So dream on!

[[123]]

note: the message was made by Caspian Blue's previous account.

Harassment

Again a comment that I find ironic, especially seeing the article given as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeeYa&action=history

I edited the article and was in a content dispute with other editors - no edit warring, constructive comments made by all involved. Then Caspian Blue decided to participate and reverted me - fair enough, he is entitled to do so. I do take offence to the accusation of harassment, considering that he had never edited that article before, however within about 30mins of me editing it for the first time, he has decided he wishes not only to edit the article, but to revert me.

I don't really mind this, if someone wants to take interest in my edit history, then fine - but for an editor to do so, and then to use that article as an example of harassment seems rather strange.

Attacking Sock Puppets

I made it clear that I considered certain accounts to be sock-puppets - I do not have extensive experience filing sock puppet reports, my only prior reports were rather lacking in evidence/diffs, so I thought if I voiced my suspicions that they might cease their actions without me having to go to the trouble of filing a report.

I did not make personal attacks against these accounts, even when I was sure they were sock-puppets.

To say that I made these comments to remove opponents is absurd - I made these comments and finally made a sock puppet report because these accounts were being used to bypass editing blocks, obtaining false consensus, making personal attacks against me (quote Sennen goroshi FUCK OFF you stinking JAPANESE, u have broken the 3-revert rule TWICE already and VANDALIZING Korean related articles for NO REASON. You are the BIGGEST VANDALIST I HAVE EVER SEEN) and most importantly these accounts were blatant sock-puppets.

For the record because of my report Lakshmix, Wondergirls and Kingka625 have all been indef blocked - these were no innocent victims that I attacked, these were abusive sock accounts, that got indef blocked for their actions.

Bullying

Telling sock-puppets that socks are not allowed is not what I consider bullying.

stating that I have 5 minutes to provide an explanation is bullying

I give you 5 minute to excuse[[124]]

coming to my talk page and demanding an apology is bullying [[125]]

Summary

I used an accurate term to refer to an editors bias, I voiced my suspicions about sock-puppets who got themselves indef blocked for sock-puppetry, I tske offence to Caspian Blue acting like a wounded victim, when he has done all of the above on so many occasions - when he accuses someone of sock-puppetry or bias he is the victim, when I accuse someone of the same, I get an ANI report against me.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can we just topicban these two the hell away from each other, already? While I'll admit this is the first CaspianBlue/SennenGoroshi thread in a few weeks, there has to come a point where we say "Right, enough already, stay away from each other or be invited to leave the project." //roux   03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say this, that is probably a good idea. I don't know exactly what topics you are thinking of, but I would be happy to stay away from Korean articles, if Caspian Blue was topic-banned from Japanese articles - with perhaps the condition that on Japanese related articles, I do not make edits concerning Korea - ie. for example I would not be allowed edit anything to do with the popularity of Korean barbeque on the Japanese food article - and vice versa - ie. Caspian would not be able to mention the popularity of the Korean artist BOA in Japan on the Korean music article. I am not going to act all pure and innocent, I think neither of us are - whether this topicban is temp or indef, it applied equally it might make life easier for myself, caspian and all the admins dragged into this drama. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Roux, you feel okay if I call him "Anti-Japnaese troll's vandalism motivated by agenda" "twice" just like Sennen goroshi insulted me? I don't respect your too much generosity toward incivility (but you requested a block to somebody for your alleged harassment that nobody agreed). I'm the one suggesting topic ban on him for his behaviors so far. If you do not comment to ANI, you will not see any drama here. That is my honest suggestion for your "tiresome".--Caspian blue 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So I'm one of the people involved in the whole SeeYa debate, simply because I was one of the editors. And just from even this, I agree with the above. It's just unnecessary drama. For example, with SeeYa...basically, what could have been fixed up by an experienced editor who had free time stretched out into multiple edits between these two. There was no need for User:Sennen goroshi to name the other editor an "anti-Japanese troll", as SG's edit clearly inserted an additional opinion into an already-opinionated sentence (in other words, it would have been better to remove the questionable sentence entirely). And User:Caspian blue did not need to threaten the other editor with a "5-minute" warning; that's just jumping the gun. I don't know about the tensions between these two, but if this is how it's gonna be like across all the articles that they edit...yeah. Not good. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, I feel compelled to agree - the SeeYa article was a content dispute, I was concerned about facts being included without English language citations being present, I argued the case that if there were no English language sources, then the facts were not notable enough for inclusion in English language wikipedia - I may have been right or wrong with that opinion - however it was a mere content dispute than got blown out of proportion by Caspian Blue's arrival - he had never edited the article before, and if I had not edited it I doubt he would have even looked at the article. From the attitude of SKS2K6 above, I have no doubt that if Caspian had not jumped into that article, we could have sorted this out on the discussion page and come to a conclusion that everyone was happy with. Most of my blocks stem from dealings with Caspian Blue and/or articles relating to Korean/Japanese disputes - most of Caspian Blue's numerous blocks stem from dealings with myself and/or articles relating to Korean/Japanese disputes - I have never tried to get around a block with an IP or sock, neither to my knowledge has Caspian - removing the ability for us to interact might be a good solution, as I think I have made some good edits, when not involved in the drama, as has Caspian. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You said you did not make edit war, but change your opinion. You just attacked me with no valid reason. So you're okay to be called "Anti-Korean troll motivated by pro-Japanese agenda". Sennen goroshi, most of your numerous blocks (you were blocked two more than me) are related to not only dealing with me and edit warring/POV pushing on Korea-Japan related articles but also your incivilty (Korean cuisien) and wikistalking. So my proposal for only Sennen goroshi's topic ban is very due cousrse.--Caspian blue 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sennen goroshi

This report is originally about Sennen goroshi's ongoing harassments and verbal attacks. I gave him several oppotunities for him to apologize his attacks, but he never did. Although Sennen goroshi tries to divert his behaviors from the main topic, I reply to his answers.

1.Regarding your excuse for the calling

You just did not called me an anti-Japanese editor but vandalism by known anti-Japanese troll and troll motivated by anti-Japanese sentiment after I removed your original reserach without source.

“ but unlike some other Asian musicians such as Ayumi Hamasaki they have had no success outside of their own country. ”

How is my removal of this that makes me "anti-Japanese troll"? I've never heard of such attacks except banned users. However, you instead lectured me about "my manners". Unlike your accusation, I’ve spend more than half of my time creating and editing articles based on reliable “sources” unlike you. Not only Korean/Japan-related articles, but also I've created/edited France/Germany/USA/China/Vietnam related artices while you've created 0 articles. Most of your edits are testing Wikipedia and blanked out contents with uncivil edit summaries (crappy, vandal, WTF, bullshit etc). And you pick up on Korean editors. Regarding my nationality (not ethnicity), have ever I said that I’m South Korean? You’re basically wrong on the assumption. Your accusation of me promoting for one side is just your diversion from the main topic; your disruption. You intentionally picked the word, troll and I wanted your apology.

2.Your support for sockpuppeters

You’re intentionally picked "my following responses to them only". Why didn’t you show the previous and preceding diffs? Bukubku called me doing "vandalism", and the others first attacked me more than that. Except, Bukubku, you have sided the mentioned sockpuppeter. You first deleted massive citations without proper reasons and then Amazonfire suddenly appeared to meatpuppet you (in fact, he is a sock of Azukimonka who was blocked one year ago and has been block-evading) Then he later admitted he self-reverted his edits after I pointed out to him.

• The sockpuppeter’s comment rv misleading citation by uncomprehending user[126]
• Sennen goroshi [127]’’’ Please base your edits on facts not rumours and anti-Japanese bias’’’
• Sennen's sock IP uncited BS removal [128]
• Sennen goroshi [129]
• undue weight. all this crap removed. nothing notable, just a occupying force, showing people who is in charge. enough of the Japan bashing crap please[130]
• undue weight . POV. bias. the usual Japan bashing crap[131][132]

3.Harassment

Since you brought up my comment after your various attacks one year and three months ago, I fresh up your memory. As soon as you created your account, you harassed people just like mentioned in your first ANI report. You violated WP:BLP as exposing personal information about your real life enemy for a month. (the article and contributions were deleted)

There were clearly edit warring at SeeYa because you first blanked out information on their naming with the reason that the removed one is unsourced and non-notable. Since it was referenced, you blanked out twice. That practice is very contradictory because you’ve used Korean sources many times to back your claims promoting your POV or reverted for other editors (generally proven as sockpuppeters) in dispute with me. You even admitted many times that you did not check Korean sources when reverting. Then, your deletions of the Korean sources from Historiographer's edits are all ironic of your own. Then after your attempts were failed by, you inserted unsourced original research. I’ve editing all Korean-related articles (including pop stars) while you don’t edit Korean entertainers. How could you explain your sudden edits to the article right after Historiographer significantly expand the article? This practice is just same as when you were wikistalking Kuebie.

4.Your lying regarding filing sock reports

I’m curious as to why you lied to an admin that you have no experience of filling it and then exchanged secret emails? Nobody agrees using sockpuppetry abusively. I even reverted to your edit on South Korea. Then all you gotta do is accusing me of assuming bad faith? Even though you’ve had suspicion on them for a month, you had not report him and has been exploiting your "just suspicion" all over the place for one month. You have enough experience with SSP reports (4 cases). Whenever I feel someone is abusing multiple accounts, I gather as much information/diffs as I can, hen file to RFCU or SSP. I wait until the result comes out. If they’re evading after the final confirm and blocks, then re-report to admins. That’s a common course as others do. I’ve seen you've been teasing other users (someone even accused of sockpuppetry). You wait until the accused users lose their temper, then you victimize yourself from verbal attacks. I suggested you to report SPI, and then you followed it. I’m criticizing your lying and behaviros against alleged sockpuppeters. Your way is just simply bullying.

5.Your usage of sock IPs

I'm just amazed at your behaviros towoard the sockpuppeter becuase you even violated 3RR with sock IP to evade block sanction[133][134][135][136][137][138]. 203.165.124.61 (talk · contribs) and 59.171.66.109 (talk · contribs). I see another irony of your comment.

6.Rape is a surprise sex

I don't think you should not edit only all Korea and Japan related articles but also even Wikipedia because of your titled view. You said Comfort women are Chon prostitutes that should be casually used and popularized. (Chon is a racial slur used only in Japan) You said Korean eating cute puppy flesh is barbaric. You even said "Rape is a surprise sex". At that time, you also gave me following comments like a "wish for me to die" and "mocking my English and intellect".

• how people with limited skills manage to perform simple tasks such as remembering not to stop breathing[139]
• I will have to learn Pidgin English in order to communicate with some users'[140]
• I think the whole communicating with adults scenario is a little beyond him.[141]

• More recently, LMAMF ("Lxck My Axx Mother Fxxker")[142]

As soon as I spot "your sockpuppetry" and said to you don’t blindly blanking cited information, you gave me the slur. I’m bemused at your ability to divert attention from your verbal attacks and to be out of any charge for them even though you report your opponents blocked with similar degree of insulting.

I don't believe your so-call contribution with “blanking”/”wikistalking”/harassment are improving Wikipedia. All of your contributions are just “disruption”.--Caspian blue 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I mean... 'Rape is a suprise sex'? I just... I don't even know where to begin... That is so wrong from any angle.. I think that needs to be on a t-shirt. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Topicban proposal

I'm guessing we're all sick of the Sennen/Caspian show, and various attempts at dispute resolution seem to have been fruitless. But my understanding is that both do contribute useful edits. So I'm proposing that for six months:

1. Caspian Blue is topicbanned from all articles relating to Japan, and all editing concerning Japan within other articles and projectspace, broadly construed;
2. Sennen Goroshi is topicbanned from all articles relating to Korea, and all editing concerning Korea within other articles and projectspace, broadly construed;
3. Sennen Goroshi and Caspian Blue are permanently banned from interacting with each other on their talkpages, except for neutrally-worded or templated notifications as required by policies and community norms;
4. Caspian Blue and Sennen Goroshi are encouraged to avoid interacting with each other at article talk pages and projectspace pages (especially AN and ANI), to comment solely on content when avoiding each other is impossible, and to invite a neutral admin to step in if the other one crosses the line, and not respond themselves;
5. Sennen Goroshi and Caspian Blue are specifically forbidden from starting any new AN, ANI, WQA, or similar threads about each other. Should such a thread be needed, they are required to find a neutral admin to handle the issue;
6. All of the above to be enforced by escalating blocks as per normal practice, which will reset the topicban duration (for the 'offender' only, not both).

Thoughts? //roux   05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very unfair. Please take the time to look at the claims of BOTH Caspian and Sennen above. It makes no sense to ban Caspian for making this report. If you just look at the contribution history of both editors you'll see that Sennen's makes little to no significant contributions to Japan related articles but systematically goes through all the Korea related articles engaging in POV pushing and engaging revert wars in dozens of Korea related articles. Caspian does not engage in such systemic POV pushing in Japan related articles and his contributions have been far more diverse. Just banning editors because of the constant conflict without looking at the details and cause of the conflicts will only exacerbate the problem.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, and nor does anyone else--anyone neutral, that is--who has contributed to this discussion. The fact of the matter is that we are all sick and bloody tired of seeing both Sennen Goroshi and Caspian Blue's names come up around here. For a while (sort of November-December), there was a new thread either started by or about Caspian Blue every week, or so it seemed. Enough disruption is enough. Wikipedia functions the same way a bar does: unless there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that one person is innocent and the other is solely at fault, we give both of them a spanking and kick them out. That is precisely what is being discussed here; both are at fault for the disruption, and so forcibly removing them from each other ends the disruption without us having to deal with yet another tedious episode of the Sennen & Caspian Show (Now With More Accusations!). //roux   04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Look the edition of page Talk:Yaeko Taguchi. Caspian Blue told like that rv by John Smith's (talk) the woman is almost unkno in South Korea.[143] However, look the page Yaeko Taguchi, most sources are South Korean News Paper Chosun Ilbo. 朝鲜日报中文网 is Chosun Ilbo Chinese version. 조선일보 is Chosun Ilbo Korean version. Caspian blue lose his mind things related with Japan. Now I am topic-banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs), so I cannot edit the page, even if Caspian blue's words is not truth. So I approve of his topicban. And some neutral person edit the page.--Bukubku (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, Bukubku and Sennen's edit is generally tend to POV about Korean articles. Especially, pastfor some time past, Bukubku raised some problem such as Empress Myeongseong, few of Korean Kings' posthumous name changed over the transom and Edit warring, Caspian file a protest against to him. So, may be Bukubku seem to be hostile attitude to Caspian Blue. His statement is based on some articles and claims. This articles only news articles and not received opinion. In spite of that, Bu and Sennen excessive insist its true. Therefore, It is not only wrong attitude against to the other user, but also point of view edit. So, I rather oppose to your view. --Historiographer (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bukbuku, you forgot to mention about User:PC's previous reverts of your exceeding assessement "triple".[144][145][146] The women is "almost unknown" to the public, that means she is not famous just like Kim Hyun Hee(no rating) and Choi Jin-sil(mid-importance). So she is not notable enought to be rated "high". I suggest you to read WikiProejct Korea's guidline. Since you want to get me topic-banned just like you, I bring a present for you.

Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research, Talk:Empress_Myeongseong#Misusage of primary sources by User:Bukubku.

You've misused primary sources over multiple articles and inserted "origianl research" so many times, and you have admitted your practice also "many times". I've patientionally waited for your English translation of your used sources and regardless of your attack against me, you disappointed me very much. Do't complain about Future's saction on you.--Caspian blue 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sennen and Caspian are both excellent editors that for some reason tend to turn stupid when they have to deal with each other. I've gone through both of their histories and aside from a few minor incidents, either one is a generally reasonable editor that has made multiple, excellent contributions. This is the second time now I've had to go through page upon page of past edits becaue of their fights, so I'm all for flipping a coin and indef banning the loser. However, since that idea generally hasn't gained consensus in the past, I will settle for the idea of the topicban proposal. Trusilver 07:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont beleive that 6months is a fair proposal as both editors do spend a lot of time correcting and improving articles. I would say a three month ban from both Japan and Korean articles for both as sometimes their arguements can stop other editors producing good input.--CorrectlyContentious 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as the devil inside of me might get a real thrill from seeing the editing rights of mine being decided with a coin toss, the sensible editor that lurks somewhere inside of me tells me that it would be too much of a risk to take - so assuming that I am not allowed to challenge editors to 1v1 on Quake III Arena for the right to edit, I would not whine too much if we were both topic banned - as it has been pointed out we are both capable of contributing to wikipedia and despite a topic ban limiting the scope of articles we are able to edit, if we both spend the time we spend making/dealing with ANI reports on actual editing, it might actually increase the amount of constructive editing that we do. I would also state that I would at no time contact any other editor through E-mail etc regarding Caspian's edits, as Caspian has voiced concern in the past regarding me contacting editors by Email in relation to articles we are editing. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that you have requested three sockpuppeters(Eichikiyama, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Lucyintheskywithdada), and others to send you Emails just right after I had discussion with them[147][148][149][150] (Lucy's talk page is deleted). Your following is also your typical "wikistalking". I must state that you also have time to exchange Emails with admins secretely for your never-ending-filing SPI until my suggestion to file it. You're also lying about me again. I did not contact editors to discuss regarding "you" at all. You're making another false allegation based on your "wishful thinking". --Caspian blue 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the proposal as written. one minor clarification, I usually take 'broadly construed' to mean talk pages also. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Roux You must forget the fact that I was attacked by him unreasonably, so I requested his apology to me, but he even mocked me further with false accusation. Also your claim that "all measures" are tried"? If I knew that you're intervening here, I might have reported him to RFC/User conduct not here, but it is a new thing to learn. When he has been sleuting, I felt somewhat relieved because his over-one year-wikistaking/harassing me are significantly reduced (not stopped because he stilled followed me to some articles beyond his interests). However, he moved onto another Korean editor just as his usual habit. That’s why I come here for administrative intervetion. However, you’re suggesting evaluating me in the same ground with Senenn goroshi? I certainly acknowledge that you’re sick of anything related to me, but not all. So please do not exaggerate your “own feeling” and “jumping to your own conclusion” without close investigation. Regardless of your own feeling, if there are repeated problems that can not be resolved by discussion between involved parties, here is the place for them. Please do not try to divert the main topic on Sennen goroshi’s behaviors. --Caspian blue 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I guess the subtext of my topicban wasn't clear. I'll be more clear: ENOUGH DAMN FIGHTING ALREADY. I don't think anyone here cares who did what first after the other one did something because someone else did this but hey that other guy did that allegation wikistalker incivil false j'accuse sockpuppet RAWR RAWR RAWR. Frankly, we could just throw your posts and Sennen Goshi's into a Markov generator, give it random diffs, and get the same level of meaningful content. The point of proposing a topicban is to get you both to STOP this nonsense and go contribute. Sennen has been completely open to the topicban and has issued a mea culpa regarding his own behaviour. It would behoove you to do the same and gracefully acknowledge that your behaviour is sorely lacking and that a topicban which keeps the two of you away from each other is a good thing for the project. Everyone who has commented on the topicban thus far has supported it, which should be a really giant clue smacking you upside the head. Enough is enough. I very strongly suggest that you agree to the same conditions that Sennen Goroshi is agreeing to. Sennen is showing a willingness to permanently end this disruption. You are not. I suspect that the community will eventually take a dim enough view of your refusal to end the ongoing disruption and revoke your editing privileges.//roux   04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because this report is initially about Sennen goroshi's behaviors (as you missed) and given history, the seemingly willingness is his tactic whenever he was on the corner. You missed to read that he even lied about me regarding "email". He never keeps his pledges to editors/admins not to wikistalk or harass me any more. I'm the one who should say "Enough is Enough". I really want to appreciate your "intervention" if you gave "proper proposal" or helpful comment for what has been occurred. In the sense, your proposal is very disadvantageous for only me: My edit numbers are much more than his. Much of his edits are "wikistalking me" and I have to deal with on going matters in Japan/Korea related articles. I really suggest that you're stop coming to ANI because I've seen you talked a lot "Enough is enough" and proposed "ban editors!" aside from my matters and expressed your "sickness" over dramas brought up here. why bo? I'm waiting for others comments. I also don't like double standard.--Caspian blue 04:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Typically, Caspian, you are now attacking the messenger and not the message. I think that speaks for itself. Enough fighting, enough sniping, either grow up and walk away from the dispute or have the community force you to do so. The choice is yours. //roux   04:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Typically, Roux, you don't realize your own incivility and attack. I must say that I strongly have offended by your comment from the start. If you want to help others, please be nice and neutral. Your first reply to me here is offensive as well. If you're sick about reports related to Sennen and me, then you can ignore it. Nobody requests you to do so. I said I'm waiting for others comment. --Caspian blue 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing ANI/AN cluttered nearly every week with some dispute between Koreans and Japananese editors over minor issues. These frequent frivolous requests have tired the patience of administrators to the point that they rarely receive replies for a good reason: they hold no basis. I think that at this time, it is best to consider a topic ban, and the suggestion above is a topic ban that I support. seicer | talk | contribs 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. However, this is essentially "NOT" about Japan-Korea disputes, but the user's behaviors. I don't comment here for a while.--Caspian blue 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea, which may seem bizarre at first. Caspian, try speaking kindly rather than with accusations and anger. Yeah, yeah, I know, he did it first, or yada yada, whatever: just try it. Hurling accusations at each other will get you nothing but more anger and accusations. Would it hurt you to attempt to be peaceful? Would you "lose face"? Do you not want to stop until your perceived "enemy" is "defeated"? Or would you rather be showing strength, to try to be a peacemaker for once? Try it. "I promise not to say anything deliberately hurtful to you again." Antandrus (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you new to WP:DRAMA around here? Shooting first and then asking questions later is the norm. I say, regardless of how well they edit elsewhere, this disruption is enough. I support the proposed topicbans above (you know, the point of this section) and ask that these two characters first try voluntarily disengaging from each other. If they aren't even willing to do that, we've have to force them to disengage from everybody. I suggest another new section for a discussion on the topicban and if they interrupt again to rant on each other, short blocks so that the community can actually work on something productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the proposed action is a topicban - which I agree with, due to my agreement, I will not be responding to any accusations or issuing any of my own. From prior experience I doubt if a nicely worded "please try to stay away from eachother" is likely to work. It sucks hugely that I don't have enough confidence in my ability to interact with the other editor concerned to say that no action is required, but I do know myself better than anyone else does, and I have had more experience interacting with Caspian Blue than most other editors. As sad as it is, we clash - hugely. Left to edit without the obvious distractions that we give eachother we can probably contribute more than we currently do. I think Caspian has a lot more to contribute than I do when it comes to Korean articles - and as someone who has lived in Japan for a long time, I have more to offer on Japanese articles than he does. What we both need to understand is that we are not having the god-given right to edit certain wikipedia articles taken away from us, we will just lack the privilige to edit certain articles for a while. We will probably come out of whatever period this topicban is, with a far more constuctive edit history for the topicban period, than in any other period of our editing history. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• So, can we wrap this up now? I see no real objections to the topicban from uninvolved editors. //roux   04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I havn't read enough to endorse, decline, or enact - but I do want to say the Wikipedia as bar analogy makes sense, and after glancing at the total length of this thread, I had the terrible urge to ban *someone* for sheer amount of arguments/bickering generated.--Tznkai (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need to scratch the itch, you could ban me for the time period of a sandwich. I'm peckish... //roux   04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban only for Sennen goroshi I love K-POP, girls's singer group and Korean history, so I edit related articles. I was surprised by Sennen goroshi because he suddenly followed me and erased information about SeeYa. I provided Korean references because I can find Korean sources easier. But he removed all Korean sources too and said "those are not English sourse". He did not edit the article until I edit. I think this is stalking. He may not know about the trio, but his insertion without source is not explainedd. I must say that Sennen goroshi should not attack Caspian blue by saying "troll". He has obviously strong anti-Korean because he removed inportant inforamtion for Japanese side. He does not talk about his edits much. I do not agree that Sennen goroshi made a good contribution. I don't understand why Roux suggests Caspian blue is also topic banned because he reported Sennen goroshi's attack and harassment to me. Roux's proposal is not jus wrong for solution.--Historiographer (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and I am sure most editors involved who are sympathetic with the Korean side of things would agree with you (hence yourself, Melonbarmonster and Caspian being the only people against the topic ban for the both of us) and most editors involved who are sympathetic with the Japanese side of things would have an opposite desire. But the admins who are free from links to Japan or Korea support the topicban going both ways. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the same sense, Roux is also an invloved party (not directly though but our history are based), so I don't think he should not bring the "poison well approach" to examine the real problem.--Caspian blue 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do us all a favour, okay? Address your own shortcomings and stop attacking others who point them out to you. It takes two to tango, and Sennen Goroshi is your favourite dance partner. If you're capable of doing so, address the topicban that we are here to discuss and stop bickering with other people. //roux   21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not attack me further. You've done enough.--Caspian blue 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party comment on Sennen Goroshi

This is not a mutual conflict and Caspian and Sennen are not on equal footing here. I know that for the admins here this KOrea/Japan bickering is exhausting but please take a closer look. Both editors have been involved in these Korea/Japan disputes. That is true. However, Caspian does not stalk others' edits and engage in POV disputes on Japan related articles! Sennen Goroshi on the other hand systematically engages in injecting Japan POV in more than a dozen Korea related articles constantly instigating revert wars and POV wars on a regular basis. Sennen Goroshi's contribution are almost exclusively on fighting POV battles on Korea related articles. Caspian's contributions are far more diverse.

Instead of trying to dismiss this conflict with a broad brush and banning both editors, please take a look at the claims reported above. Unfairly banning editors for fighting without hashing through the details of the conflict will discourage good faith editing and punishes those who try to follow the rules while incentivising those who are engaging in gamesmanship and POV pushing. That's just poor wiki policy.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is a pretty damning comment from an neutral third party. At least it would be if it hadn't been made by one of the parties heavily involved in the Japan/Korea disputes. Considering the amount of blocks this user has received on his account [[151]] and on his previous account [[152]] , I propose that his name is added to the topicban proposal with the same restrictions that are proposed for Caspian Blue - Melonbarmonster probably has a lot to contribute when it comes to Korean articles, however the amount of blocks against him makes it quite clear that he has the same sort of issues that Caspian Blue and myself have when editing any article that have a Korean/Japanese dispute. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems premature. Most blocks are from 2007, followed by a whole lot of nothing until two in August 2008--five months ago, now--and nothing since. Dredging up ancient block history is relatively pointless. //roux   04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, despite his previous history there has been little drama connected to Melonbarmonster recently カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Roux, you're also not a neutral party from the start. When Sennen gorosh was obviously blocked for one-week for his wikistalking/harassment/incivility against me and Kuebie (which report was ironically reported by a sockpuppter blocked by my RFCU and whom Sennen goroshi supported to attack me), you rather said negative comments against me. You and I have a (unpleaseant) history, so I don't think your suggestion and intention are not from impartiality.--Caspian blue 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite neutral, thanks; I think you're both a pair of nationalistic nitwits who would rather waste everyone's time with endless bickering and accusations rather than work on problems. Until now, that is. Sennen has indicated a very clear willingness to end all the disruption. Why haven't you? Sennen has agreed to the topicban, because it will end the disruption. You should do the same. //roux   20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Roux. you're clearly not as a neutral editor at all as other two editors here already voiced out on your proposal. Ever since we encountered and interactecd unpleasantly (your abadonment of the meditation was disappointing as well), you've commented negatively "only" agaisnt me without investing your time to find real problems. I think you're proceeding "poison well approach" on this issue. Since you exaggerate your "own" feeling" and speak out loudly, everybody who do not know well the issue stop digging to find problems. As much as you're sick and tired of seeing my name or Sennen goroshi, I'm tired of your mere unhelpful expression of your irratioan. Do not also exaggerate that every remedies are tried. You only have left your thoughts on "two cases" relating to Sennen and I so far including this one, so do not exaggerate your though. If there would be a remedy for us, "civility" sanction, not the unreasonable extansion to all articles of Korea and Japan. You have not even researched on the past and have no idea of Korea and Japan. In almost every articles regardling Korea and Japan, the countries are related to each other. Thus, your proposal is essentially to block me to edit all most all articles concerning cultur/history/geography/politics/society/ etc. You have to show that I'm editing wrongly. If I had content disputes, I don't bring it to ANI. Your proposal is "shut up, don't make more noises". As you also keep ignoring that Sennen was reported for his behaviros, and given his recent consecutive blocks, he wants to "share" the whole charge with me. That is the only way that he can divert attention from the issue on him. You have also emphasized that Sennen is following your proposal as if your belief that your proposal is reasonable and fair. That is not.--Caspian blue 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"shut up, don't make more noises" is exactly what I am saying here, and it seems that Tznkai agrees. The topicban has now been enacted, please abide by it. Cheers. //roux   21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont' worry, Roux. What a nice job you have done from "such alleged neutrality". I would bear in mind that I don't follow your past step.--Caspian blue 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Options going forward

My eyes burn, but I've read through more of this nonsense enough to see this is an intractable personal conduct dispute where both main parties have shown their inability to "get it." The generation of material here is enough to show the larger interest in arguing rather than any sort of peace. We (the larger community) are not your battleground and we (the administrators on behalf of the larger community) are mandated to control the behavior. These I think, are the options:

• I can enact the topic ban on behalf of the uninvolved administrators as described above.
• We can punt the issue to a pair of RfC/U - which will be vicious, nasty, and a waste of everyone's time, at the end of which people will probably end up banned.
• We can this at ArbCom, which will probably send it back to to RfC/U and blah blah blah. Let me assure you, this ends well for no one.
• Caspian Blue and Sennen goroshi can convince us that somehow, none of this is needed.

It should be said, before anyone tries, I am unlikely to be convinced that only one of these editors is disruptive - and I do not care which one is more disruptive - both are past the threshold.--Tznkai (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A note on the topic ban - I am not at this point prepared for an indefinite topic ban on both - I would prefer something measured in weeks or months.--Tznkai (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured six months should be enough to break the habit. I pondered adding in a clause that says "once this topicban is lifted, if either of you returns to the sniping and arguing, you will be indefblocked and community banned immediately," but figured that was just my lack of coffee talking. //roux   16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my opinion on this is very clear, I will not contest any decision to topicban the both of us. I have no interest in this drama being discussed any further here or anywhere else, I just want it over and done with カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this proposal to topic ban Caspian and Sennen. While I fully understand the annoyance that their constant bickering has caused, there needs to be a clearer violation of rules or warned misbehavior. You can't just ban them because they argue a lot and annoyingly make reports on these boards. Please consider the possibility that Sennen and Caspian have genuine and good faith disagreements with each other on these issues. You shouldn't punish editors for good faith disagreements, only the manner of their disagreement. That is why we have rules and principles that editors have to follow in engaging in good faith disagreements.

In this case, Caspian has filed a report. If his report is invalid, then his report should be thrown out. I don't see how an editor who files a report can be blocked even if the report is seen as being invalid by the admins here. How is filing a report on this board punishable behavior? I'm sorry but constant fighting or constant bickering is not punishable behavior in and of itself. The real issue should be whether rules have been violated in the process of their constant conflicts.

Please take the time to do this right instead of topic banning Caspian for filing an incidents report and Sennen for being reported.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support a mutual topic ban as defined by Roux in his points 1-6 above, with a duration of six months. The intent of the ban is to calm the dispute. Acceptance of the ban by both editors would be a contribution to wiki-peace. I would encourage Tznkai to go ahead and enact the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are ways of calming the dispute as it pertains to relevant articles. Punishing editors for having good faith disagreements or filing an incident report on this board is hardly punishable behavior. That's just bad policy.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Those ways haven't worked. And since you don't seem to be paying attention: the reason for this is that posts involving Caspian or Sennen or both are an almost weekly occurrence here. Tznkai summed it up best: this can either go to RFC/U (which will drag on and be awful), ArbCom (which will drag on and be awful), or we can take the simplest and most direct route: topicban both of them the hell away from each other and watch all the disputes disappear. This isn't 'good faith disagreements', it's 'endless bickering and poking each other without any reasonable purpose or outcome in sight.' It's not 'punishment for filing an incident report', it's 'enough of these damn threads every damn week already.' Several avenues have been tried, and behaviour doesn't change. Caspian wouldn't even engage in a goodfaith MedCab without attacking the other person involved. As someone else said above, Caspian and Sennen are generally decent editors who turn massively stupid as soon as they come into contact with each other. The solution, therefore, is to remove that contact. I am terribly sorry that the proposed solution doesn't allow you to get a boot in to an editor you don't like, and I am really sorry that the proposed solution makes the heinous mistake of treating two disruptive people the same, but welcome to reality. That's how it works here; it takes two to tango and they will be dealt with the same. //roux   19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Six months will pass and other editors besides Caspian or Sennen will come and go. The best way to discourage these inane disputes is to objectively enforce the rules consistently and fairly. Getting frustrated and topic banning out of personal frustration is poor policy and will only incentivize gaming and trolling from bad editors and punishes editors who make the effort to follow the rules. Proper distinctions have to be made. I don't mean to engage in sarcasm and frustrations with you. We're all here voluntarily right? Thanks for reading.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The final nail in the coffin is Caspian blue spending his time attacking roux instead of anything productive, or even an affirmative defense. Request for topic ban Accepted, Caspian Blue and Sennen goroshi are restricted as described by the above topic ban for the duration of six months.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I was attacked by Roux, so I defend myself. I believe that the proposal is stemmed from certain history with me, I point out. As I said, if remedy is "civility saction", I'm greatly accepted and follow. Because my report has nothing to do with "content disputes". --Caspian blue 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest incident in Sennen and Caspian dispute

PLEASE take a look at this latest spat which has culminated in this report. It's an obscure article about a Korean pop group SeeYa. Sennen shadowed User:Historiographer's edits to this article and started deleting Historiographer's edits removing and undoing a lot of uncontroversial edits that Historiographer had worked on for some time. If this isn't harassment by Sennen, I don't know what is.

This triggered a revert war as you can see here[[153]] with Sennen injecting POV such as "but unlike some other Asian musicians such as Ayumi Hamasaki they have had no success outside of their own country."[[154]] and reverting Historiographer's references[[155]]. This in turn caused Caspian and others to revert Sennen which culminated in this report and our current situation.

Sennen engages in this type of behavior chronically. If you look at his contributions history[[156]], you'll see that Sennen systematically goes through Korea related articles doing this. Caspian does engage Sennen in a lot of these conflicts but he DOES NOT systemically go through Japan related articles instigating these edit wars as Sennen does[[157]]. The nature of their involvement in these disputes is fundamentally different and they should not be treated the same.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's from three days ago. Which is, coincidentally, the day before this whole thread was started. I think we're all aware, thanks. //roux   19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant that this dispute was what lead to this report being filed. I'm not trying to give you a hard time but sincerely, I don't see how Caspian and Sennen's roles in this dispute can be seen as being the same.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one has to wonder why that is. You're ignoring the fact--again, one has to wonder why--that this dispute has been ongoing for months and months, and this is merely the proverbial straw. //roux   19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your point. And I think this incident clearly shows the anatomy of how these disputes are fueled. As annoying as it is, someone has to step in and figure out the substance of these disputes and enforce the rules. Objectivity and impartiality will kill the constant bickering. Ignoring the substance of these disputes and only seeing this in ad hominem terms will exacerbates the problem in the long run.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Roux, I've brought up not "content issue", but "behaviroal issues". However, you seem to ingore the fact and exaggerate your "own" feeling stemmed from our history.(your abadonment of meditation for your "retirement).--Caspian blue 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference desk comment

Hi,

With reference to this [158] edit, the editor claims to be doing is illegal (and as its an IP edit, it would be theoretically possible to inform the "victim")?

Cheers, davidprior ^t/_c 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Very sorry if this is the wrong place to mention this, but seeing this edit just made me a wee bit concerned

we're not the police... unless he's talking about creating some kind of immediate threat or harm (suicide, hacking the nuclear sites to start WW3, etc) I don't think we need to run around doing that. I believe there is one or more users extolling the virtues of illegal substances on their user pages too.. but its not violating any wikipedia policies or guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a history of trouble from this particular IP. Grsz¹¹ 01:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's standard practice to inform a user if they are the subject of an AN/I thread, just an FYI for next time. Secondly, the technical legality of my internet connections is frankly none of your business, and certainly not an issue that requires administrative attention; it's not Wikipedia's job to ensure people are abiding to the laws of whatever country they happen to be in. Indeed, there have been several cases where users committing possibly illegal activities have even been encouraged to do so. 82.43.88.87 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Codec pack "official" sites

I'm having trouble working out what the "official" site is for dubious-legality codec packs including the following:

• K-Lite Codec Pack‎
• QuickTime Alternative‎
• QT Lite‎
• Real Alternative

Anonymous contributors keep changing the official URL from codecguide.com to codecnews.com, and I can't find any definitive statement as to the actual creator of the codecs. Any insight would be most appreciated. - Mark 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

None of them look notable in the least, I'd just prod/AFD them. Mr.Z-man 02:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. —Travis^talk 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Codecs don't fit under any speedy criteria. Schuym1 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored per lack of sleep as noted in another section below. Sorry about that, folks. —Travis^talk 13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They could be speedied under G11 if blatantly promotional... – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems at The King's Consort

There is currently a problem at The King's Consort involving an edit war surrounding the dismissal of Robert King as music director (a high profile pedophilia case resulted in his removal). User:Jbl5988 (talk) has reverted at least four editors within a 24 hour period at least six times after being warned repeatedly about the 3RR rule. I would have just reported it to the 3RR board if this case also didn't potentially involve sockpuppets and/or COI. The following IPs, User:84.59.16.14 and 81.253.40.180, have made similar reversions and both trace back to Düsseldorf. Given the situation I thought it best to get help here. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• All three users have been notified of the discussion here. I had also left several prior messages about the problem on User talk:Jbl5988, asking him/her to please communicate with other editors on the article talk page, but there has been no response. Nor does the editor leave edit summaries. The only time an edit summary was left (by User:84.59.16.14), it was deliberately misleading, describing the deletion of an entire paragraph plus its references as an "important update" [159]. Voceditenore (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) 81. isn't participating in the edit-war whatsoever (unless there's been some edits that've had to be oversighted); 84. is. Jbl and 84. each blocked 24 hours for edit-warring; I suggest you take this up to WP:SPI. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

81 is definitely not edit-warring, and in fact supports the retention of the material. The other IP was User:84.58.241.211, who made the initial deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EstherLois

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

EstherLois is a sockpuppet of indef community banned User:Pastorwayne and is rapidly creating fresh categories. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean? EstherLois (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that you're believed to be a sock puppet of an editor who is not permitted to edit Wikipedia because of their disruptive history. Don't know about anyone else's view, but in my eyes this quacks, but not immensely loudly - perhaps that's because I don't have a great deal of knowledge of User:Pastorwayne's history, but from a comparison of the number, nature and type of edits they do look alarmingly alike..._Gb^T/c 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jc37 made a helpful summary of Pastorwayne's activity in User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne. I have notified Jc37 of this discussion to see if he wants to comment. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorwayne. Since the checkuser data on Pastorwayne is stale, the decision about EstherLois may have to be made on behavioral grounds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am certain this is PastorWayne (on behavioural grounds). A glance through EstherLois talk shows by the number of red-linked categories and by the number of irritated comments that EL's efforts are not wholly successful. (PW's crimes were to create religious categories of dubious value at such a rate that cfd was overwhelmed, and to pay no attention to the views of other editors. PW also never made edit summaries.) Occuli (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus the denial of awareness of the identical behavioral issues. I propose he be indef community banned for Pastorwayne-like disruption. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at Jc37's page, EstherLois has been listed there since at least January 2008 as an "active clone" of Pastorwayne.[160] This appears to be the first second report to any administrative venue about the user.[161]. The first report a couple days ago to WP:SP came up with a result of "stale". GRBerry 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

EstherLois was not particularly active at first; their first 500 edits took from Jan to Jul 2008. Their last 500 edits have occurred this week including over 100 new categories; and these are turning up at cfd with increasing frequency as indicated by their talk page and also by the above link. I expect EstherLois will now disappear and another 'new' editor will spring up and fiddle obsessively at great speed with religious categories. Occuli (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have indefblocked and sockpuppet tagged EstherLois. The duck quacked, and floats. Please note any other new accounts on ANI and I or other admins can respond... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another. Jojopuppy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) To me it's relatively obvious that User:Jojopuppy is another newly-created Pastorwayne sockpuppet—exact same type of articles being editing and exact same type of categories being created. Account created after last edit by EstherLois (which was the inquiry at the top of this section). Esther was working on Caribbean clergy categories earlier in the day and Jojo began working on Grenadian ones. However, Jojo's only made 8 edits. Should I post this at WP:SPI or is anyone else as confident about this as I am? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is PW (slightly disguised with edit summaries). Occuli (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Zzzzzap. Keep 'em coming... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

disruption on Battle of Holowczyn

After having been warned on Jan 25, Nikitn (talk · contribs) continues to edit war on that article, including this most recent edit in which he threatens to retaliate in another article if he doesn't get his way. I believe this calls for, perhaps not yet a block, but at least intervention. Looie496 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, enough is enough. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu wants to be unbanned

I present, for your reading pleasure, perhaps the latest chapter in a story long since commenced:

• a "hypothetical" conversation...
• ...pointing me to Wiarthurhu

Personally, I'm unwilling to recommend for unbanning someone who claims to have been simply blocked, when it appears to have been, based on my perusal of the boards, a community ban. I seem to be the second administrator approached on this topic.

On the other hand, this account appears to have some reasonable contributions over more than a year and has stayed under the radar.

I really don't care about the outcome, but I'm certainly not going to act unilaterally. Perhaps some folks who were around for the previous discussions regarding Wiarthurhu could chime in? Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So, essentially, a ban-evading sock puppet is requesting that its master account's ban be lifted? --Dynaflow babble 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems that way from here. We can't really do much if it was a community ban without said puppet revealing the identity of the master account. If as the sock says it was an editor of 2+ years good standing who wants to be unblocked then I think the reaction will most likely be a unanimous 'aww hell no'. Any editor with that much experience who is banned tends to accrue a significant amount of ANI action on the way. Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to the indef ban of the original count. It seems to me disproportionate. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand: He/she was community banned. After pleading he/she (for the purposes of this convo, he) was unbanned, and from the start violated the conditions of his unban. After a second chance he was caught using socks to work around it. Sounds proportionate to me. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that those posting above have pretty much summed it up accurately. I'm not seeing anyone either arguing for an unblock, or rushing to block the admitted sock account. So... is this a "don't ask, don't tell" consensus? Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by banned User:DavidYork71

Banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) has returned and continued disruption. Seeking independent review and action with the latest incarnation, ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs).

He shows up with various sock accounts to the GA article Project Chanology and/or its talk page with the exact same disruptive behavior each time, changing "ongoing" to "was", and other obviously disruptive edits - example.

Prior actions by other administrators: [162], [163], [164]

Most recent diff by ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs) - [165].

I think WP:RBI is the best way to go here. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A little history, for anyone with enough memory to handle the entire page at once: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71 Sadly (or perhaps thankfully!) he's pretty obvious when he shows up... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect this page

Resolved

 – page protected and edits oversighted, due to their nature - Alison ^❤ 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much IP vandalism, and a lot of edits that need to be removed from the edit history, too many edit conflicts because of the vandalism. AnyPerson (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For one hour, done. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314

Resolved

 – Manutdglory found to have a direct conflict of interest with regards Rick Warren and Saddleback Church - appropriate warnings placed at his talk page.--VS ^talk 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs) has made uncivil personal remarks to Manutdglory (talk · contribs)

Teledildonix314 made this highly inappropriate personal comment about me (below). Also see his above comments on the Rick Warren link. Oh yeah, he's also caused the Rick Warren article to be fully protected not once, but twice. Manutdglory (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And now Manutdglory is trying to push for violation of the 3RR. I would like to point out: Manutdglory has openly mentioned that they are a member of the Saddleback Church and thus it seems there is a Conflict Of Interest when they try to delete anything which might go against their personal preferences for how to portray the Church with puffery and WhiteWashing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn we just watched this show a couple days ago. And a few days before that. And the week before that. It's winter; we should be getting new episodes, not stale old reruns. Can't you two just leave each other the hell alone? //roux   06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to deal with him ever again. A few weeks ago, his behavior caused the Rick Warren article to be completely protected (see the history page), then after nearly getting blocked, he apologized and promised to refrain from editing the article. Yesterday he returned to editing the article which resulted in it getting fully protected a second time in a month. Then he starts attacking me again with personal uncivil comments. I'm all for being moderate, but how is any of this my fault? Manutdglory (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless Manutglory is an official of the church, I don't see where there is a conflict of interest. Such an interpretation would potentially prevent Catholics from editing articles about the Catholic Church or Catholicim, Jews from editing articles on the Jewish religion and culture, and Muslims from editing articles about Islam. I don't believe that's a reasonable interpretation of what WP:COI intends. That's not to say that the edits made by Manutglory are necessarily good or proper, just that they should not be rejected on the basis of COI. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you, Ed. I've asked Teledildonix314 for some kind of clarification on what he meant by his comments. If Manutglory is a member of the church, him edit warring to keep something out of the article on BLP grounds seems like a COI to me. If I were in that situation, I'd immediately take it to an admin's attention rather than risk COI allegations. It seems like we need more information on this one, and an admin's attention to whether or not this is firmly BLP enough to overlook 3RR.Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's edit warring, it's rather irrelevant what his motivations are, so invoking COI seems redundant. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Manutglory has had a history of editing that in my opinion sometimes seems directed toward adding peacock terms and numbers to articles about churches and church institutions, such as this edit. Beyond that, I've seen nothing to indicate which church he is affiliated with, if any. I should also point out that both recent instances of full protection of the Rick Warren article were at my suggestion at WP:RFP and were, of course, performed at the discretion of the administrators involved. It takes at least two to edit war. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't whether I am biased or not - it's that Teledildonix314 clearly made a highly inappropriate and uncivil personal comment regarding me. I have never "publicly" declared that I was a member of that church and I don't want personal information about my religion being broadcast all over Wikipedia. There is no difference between publicly "outing" someone's religion and "outing" someone's sexual preference on Wikipedia when it's clearly against their wishes. Teledildonix314 has repeatedly infringed upon my privacy, and that is why I made the complaint against him. Manutdglory (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know why he's accused you of having a conflict of interest in this matter? Dayewalker (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Only because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddleback_Church&diff=prev&oldid=234207404

Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• [EC] Manutdglory This edit seems to show that you did declare publicly that you are a member of the Saddleback Church and that you are gaining emails from Mr Rick Warren?--VS ^talk 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Given your edit summary Manutdglory can you tell us why we should not think that your edits at this page (and at Saddleback Church) are a Conflict of Interest?--VS ^talk 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously digging up a minor edit summary from months ago does not constitute "openly" wanting private information like my religion to be publicly smeared all over public Wikipedia pages, which Teledildonix314 has done. What is this - it's a clear violation of Wiki's privacy regulations! Manutdglory (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And Steve, as I already stated above, this doesn't have anything to do with conflict of interest. I reported Teledildonix314 for violating my privacy! Manutdglory (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He did not violate your privacy. See WP:PRIVACY. You clearly divulged your membership in an attempt to justify an edit. It is reasonable to bring that up surrounding concerns over a possible WP:COI. Please read the policies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 06:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC-OD) Sorry, but you claiming you're a member of the church and you received emails from Warren to justify your edits is a very valid point to bring up. You can't claim inside information, then be upset because people were listening. Teled is correct to bring this to our attention. Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[EC x 2] Sorry Manutdglory, as you know I have tried to assist you over the past few weeks/months but pointing to an edit summary that you personally wrote, which declares in your own words i'm a member of the church and got an e-mail from rick warren stating this - only members would know this (i.e. "inside information" is hardly a breach of privacy regulations - but it does seem to point heavily towards you having a strong conflict of interest.--VS ^talk 07:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, then why was I blocked for 24 hours simply for referring to someone as a "radical activist" when their personal pages and user history proudly demonstrate this? There's obviously a double standard and you know what I'm talking about. Manutdglory (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdented - I propose at this time to block Manutdglory for 3RR violations and should he return with edits in breach of COI to instigate a further block or alternatively a topic ban discussion. I will welcome other thoughts for the next little while please?--VS ^talk 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral wrt to the block, but this thread certainly should be closed as the statement from Teled, while not as friendly as it could be, isn't an "uncivil personal remark" nor a "highly inappropriate personal comment", as Manutdglory has claimed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second? What 3RR is he talking about? Manutdglory (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point Manutdglory. I withdraw that suggestion but will close this thread. I will also provide you with a caution regarding Conflict of Interest editing. Other editors will understandably be able to complain at ANI or at COI as the case may be should you again edit in breach of that guideline.--VS ^talk 07:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote to close the thread, and anyone who has edit warred over adding or removing the term on either page gets a block as usual. I don't see it as being a BLP violation, at the worst it's silly and the article will be deleted soon. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One more quick question - I'm being totally honest here and not trying to be smart. How am I more biased in editing a church article than someone who according to their user page is an atheist? Manutdglory (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• You will need to read and understand WP:COI to answer that question. I am now going to close this thread and provide you with a suitable warning per that guideline at your talk page.--VS ^talk 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to point out, as I have done multiple times before, that I'm still looking for some indication from you that you clearly understand that there is such a thing as Wikipedia policy, and that there is a distinction between editors, their beliefs and preferences, and the content of their edits. You seem to militantly avoid one of the cardinal rules around here, that being that you should comment on content, not on contributors. The problems that you seem to repeatedly have around here in my opinion really do center on your avoidance of policy and your insistence that everyone's edits must be a personal matter. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Because you're not just a member of the religion, you seem to be a member of that specific church who receives private emails and information from the pastor. Would you feel comfortable adding information that could be considered negative to the church's page? Have you done so in the past? Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have. And I don't even live in California anymore. Manutdglory (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please note this thread is closed. Manutdglory has been warned. All other interested editors should attempt to reach consensus on Rick Warren and Saddleback Church as those pages are currently fully protected. Editors involved should note that patience on incivility, edit-warring, potential 3RR violation etc has warn thin. Please move on nothing more to see here - try and find consensus at the article or if not then there are about 2.7+ million other articles that can use your useful support.--VS ^talk 07:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at users named Dukeclass#

No reason except gut feel, but we have a set of users Dukeclass1 to at least 6 (eg User talk:Dukeclass6). Is this normal username proliferation or silly sockpuppetry? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask at the users' pages. I'm willing to assume it's a class period mistakenly setting up an account for his whole class; only if there's no response would I suspect sockpuppetry. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nip some Wiki-stalking in the bud, hopefully

NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor heavily involved in the range of Israeli-Palestine articles, as am I. As we obviously have divergent points of view on the subject matter, there will be the expected disagreement tension. We can all expect and handle that. However, I become a bit concerned when this user suddenly appears in the middle of an editing dispute regarding notability in an article about a Seinfeld episode, with 3 edits; one a minor link adjustment [166], one a reversion of my previous edit [167], and one in the article talk page taking the view in opposition to my own [168]. Looking at it now, I realize that my last edits there were a week ago, even, so even more peculiar that Nocal100 would suddenly appear there and dust this off.

I've dealt with this sort of problem before, and would rather not go down this road again. The desired outcome here is not punitive, but rather that NoCal100 simply be admonished that following the edits of users with whom he has disagreements with and reverting them on subject matters in complete left field from where one normally encounters them is unacceptable behavior. Obviously everyone is allowed to edit anywhere in the project, but the possibility that another I-P editor just happens to find the same article of a TV show that I am editing on by chance is rather improbable. Special:Contributions/Tarc was clearly the road oft-taken here. Tarc (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone involved in the content dispute with Tarc, I saw the edit war this has set off. I have to say, this does seem to be a pretty clear cut case of wikistalking (or wikihounding, or whatever we're supposed to call it); a look thru NoCal100's contribs shows no interest at all in this kind of article, and a heavy overlap with Tarc on Isreal-Palestine articles. Although NoCal100 is actually agreeing with me, content-wise, out of an abundance of caution (no ZOMG involved admin! accusations), I'll ask another uninvolved admin to review what's going on, ask/tell NoCal100 to keep the battle mentality out of unrelated articles, and decide whether protection and/or 3RR warnings are appropriate for either editor. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one article is anything to raise a fuss over. Believe me, I know whereof I speak; I've had editors follow me to multiple articles, with very little in the way of consequence, let alone "admonishment." If he makes a habit of it, then come back. IronDuke 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Having been a focus of Zeq's CAMERA fiasco, I'm well-aware, hence the "nip in the bud" approach. This is a clear first step on a well-trod path of harassment that many of the I-P editors have had to deal with, from both "sides". I'd rather see it stopped now before mushrooming as past cases have. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a content dispute with Tarc at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni , where he is removing material sourced to a book published by a mainstream press and authored by two academics, claiming it is non-notable "cruft" - [169] and violating WP:BLP by calling those two academic "quacks". WP:HOUND is very explicit that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Given the seriousness of the BLP violations, I had a look at Tarc's contribution history to see if he is repeating these BLP violations elsewhere, and found The Serenity Now article, where surprisingly, Tarc is inserting true fancruft, sourced to a Youtube video into an unrelated article, against the consensus of multiple editors - a problem which I fixed. NoCal100 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Had a hunch that that was the angle which you were going to cast, but I sincerely hope that no one nibbles. This isn't about me, and others, who have dismissed the "sources" at that article as non-reliable frauds perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and these "academics" are anything but. It would be interesting to note that, while Mohammad Amin al-Husayni most certainly falls in to the I-P realm, NoCal100 had never touched that particular article until a few days ago as well, swooping into to revert to back to an edit made there by a new user, Tanbycroft (talk · contribs). This gets a little curiouser the more one digs. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have complained of NoCal's habit of stalking them. I haven't complained. I just noted it on my page. here, and I think once to Elonka. My own case is fairly obvious. I corrected him on his confusion of 'flout' and 'flaunt', and quickly afterwards he appeared on one of the rarest pages in the I/P area, that of Nafez Assaily, a Hebron pacifist, which I had written. It is extremely difficult to imagine that he came across that page in oany other way than by looking at my contributions, and going there to niggle, or assist the since-banned dogmatic editor who attacked that page. He appeared as attempts were being made to get the page deleted. His editing is obnoxiously uninformed. He rarely engages in dialogue of justifications of what he is doing. His preferred modus operandi is reverting. I, like Tarc, have worked the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page for some two years. I think I've revised intensively half of it. Sure enough, just as that page is disturbed by a newbie with no record of editing Wiki, and is challenged by both Tarc and myself, NoCal100 wheels in, and supports the newbie.

I imagine nothing will be done. I should hope, for the third time, that administrators in the area look at his methods, which are those of provocative attrition.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at Tarc's contribution history to see if he is repeating these BLP violations elsewhere, and found The Serenity Now article, where surprisingly, Tarc is inserting true fancruft,

That sir, is virtually an admission you tracked Tarc there. And worse still, the edit conflict at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni had nothing to do with the ostensible reason you introduced,i.e. WP:BLP violations. Whatever the virtues of the other text, Tarc, as I, and Imad Marie, were defending the al-Husayni article against cruft, which violated WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, as shown by detailed argument (to which NoCal hasn't deigned to reply to. He just keeps reverting three times a day). So, the excuse you supply is, by your own words, invalid. You supported a violation of two core policies on one page, and then chased one of the editors to another page to challenge him on a quite distinct issue, WP:BLP. Thanks for clarifying the plaintiff's case against you.-Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given NoCalton a 3RR warning re Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you haven't done the same for the other participants in that edit war - e.g User:Tarc (2 reverts in the last 24hrs, same as NoCal) or Nishidani. Or why no warning for User:Tarc's 3 reverts on The Serenity Now. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tarc, of course. But I presume an administrator does actually check the thread of talk. NoCal was asked to talk over the edit and justify it. The edit was ungrammatical. He still reverted, and would not give a rationale for the persistence as was asked of him. When it was pointed out he was restoring material he obviously hadn't read since it contained poor grammar anyone would sight, he told us to clean up the grammar ourselves of an bad edit he persisted in posting without correcting ( = 'I edit. You clean up after me, and don't revert it, except for improving it'). In other words, he refused to correct one of the many objectionable things about his edit. Remonstration finally got him to do this, but he still plugged away, and would supply no substantial reason other than his own definition of what is RS. It's one thing to be sucked into an edit-war reluctantly, while repeated requests for dialogue have been ignored. It is another to persist in edit-warring while showing a complete contempt for the objections raised by your interlocutors. One judges not just edit numbers, but attitude. Or I hope some administrators do this.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Talk page in question, your explanation does not seem to hold up to scrutiny. NC has provided numerous explanations for his edits - here, here, here and [170]. In contrast, User:Tarc has not participated in any Talk page discussion since January 22nd, and during that time has reverted the article 4 times, the last 2 within the last 24 hours. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to what Nishidani said: If one editor is reverting three or more times, and two or more editors are each reverting less than three times, I'll only warn the one, because to me that looks like that one person is reverting instead of discussing, which is disruptive. Hope this clarifies matters. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarc has thrice reverted on The Serenity Now - why no warning? On Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, The reverts of Tarc and NC appear to be on par - both have reverted 2 times in the last 24 hrs, and NC appears to have been discussing things much more actively and more recently on the Talk page. Your actions seem quite one-sided to me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about the importance of this user being issued a warning, feel free to issue one yourself. My reading of the article history - and I looked back further than 24 hours - is very different from yours. Bias on my part is certainly one of the plausible explanations for that difference. Per MastCell's excellent suggestion, I'm not going to follow that line of reasoning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, looked back further than 24 hours. As my post above indicates, I looked as far back as January 22nd, and found at least 4 Talk page contributions by NC, and none by Tarc. On the article itself, from Jan 18 until today, I found 6 reverts by NC and 8 reverts by Tarc. So yes, while your reading of the article history is very different than mine, it is not clear at all what your reading is based on, and it is that which I'd like you to explain. It is of course quite possible that bias on your part is the explanation for that difference, but if that is the case you should probably not be issuing one-sided warnings, certainly not in an administrative capacity. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into another Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive block row (which I refrained from weighting in on) where all the usual I-P ducks get in their respective rows and poo-fling, please. I have had a history with Canadian Monkey, dating back to the Rachel Corrie stuff from last summer. These attempts to get me warned, or worse, are appearing to be a bit petty. I reverted 3 times, which I have rarely, if ever, done previously, due to the egregiously bad faith that NoCal100 was displaying by even being at The Serenity Now in the first place, as detailed here. Obviously there's never a good excuse for revert multiple times except to protect BLP or remove vandalism (which this was not), but it is nonetheless the reason that I did it, and stopped at 3. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You came here with a self-proclaimed goal "that NoCal100 simply be admonished" - and you are now complaining that people are attempting to get you warned, over actions that you concede "there's never a good excuse for"? Please take the beam out of your eye before pointing out motes in others'. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

← Some suggestions, in no particular order:

• YouTube generally isn't a great source. Material should probably stay out of an article until properly sourced. Don't edit-war to reinsert poorly-sourced material; spend the effort on locating a better source instead.
• If someone pisses you off, don't follow them to an unrelated article to disagree with them. It's textbook Wikihounding, or whatever we're calling it these days, and it's obnoxious.

As for the rest, nothing short of a steel-cage match is likely to resolve it, so I'd suggest it be ignored. Serenity now, people. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this balanced response and insights. Though I have crossed paths with both Tarc and NoCal before, my interest in this thread is a personal one, relating to wikipedia policy, rather than in either one of these editors. I have very recently found myself hounded by an editor who exhibited more egregious behavior than the single-article-following which is the cause for this current complaint. The editor who was following me around to numerous articles was explicit about his actions, in one case undoing my edit with an edit summary that said 'I spotted this just now, and thought I'd revert you here too.' I posted a notice on this board - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Wikihounding by User:Nickhh, looking for nothing more than to get that behavior to stop, perhaps by having an admin pronounce, just as you have done, that "It's textbook Wikihounding, or whatever we're calling it these days, and it's obnoxious". Instead, the responses I got were 'I do not think any reasonable user would consider a review of the contribution page of someone you had contact with stalking.' and 'simply following the work of another editor and occasionally dropping in to oppose that editor is NOT harassment.'. Needless to say, as he was not admonished, that editor proceeded to follow me around to another article in the next few days, in order to oppose me there. Perhaps there could be some clarification on what wikihounding actually is, and why these two cases are being treated differently. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite so, and this is the point I was making earlier. As a person who has been wikistalked by experts (and my complaints met with yawns and giggles), reverting a copyvio(?) YouTube link is small potatoes. IronDuke 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the YouTube issue, there's a high probability that the video is a copyvio and so should not be linked at all: see WP:YOUTUBE. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably willing to concede that at this point, yes. Honest input into the matter was always desired, but the problem was that that was not given by the presence of Nocal100 on that article. As far as I can see, this is probably wrapped up, AN/I-wise. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Without comment on the merits of other issues, if the YouTube hosting is copyvio it must be delinked per WP:COPYRIGHT. YouTube itself is not a hosting service, not a source, and legitimate YouTube material must be weighed upon the reliability of the uploader. Durova^Charge! 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is copyvio an issue if a person or group releases it on youtube or similar venues themselves? I'm not clear on that. And if a reliable source could be found that covers the event, the video itself wouldn't even be needed. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Incivility

Per [[171]] and[[172]] I'm half of the mind to ignore, but this IP has been warned by an admin already [[173]] and he's wading into an area that already has some small amount of drama; if this stuff is allowed to fly, others might start taking their cues from this user.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For instance, like this new IP seems to be doing [[174]].Bali ultimate (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson

This user continues to attack other editors on his talk page, even while blocked.[175]. He already has several last warnings and one admin who is supporting an indef block. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, he certainly looks mad, but I was expecting something a lot more blatant and actionable when I saw this posting here. I don't see anything too out of the ordinary--no reason for unblock, but nothing to extend over. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the length of the block is too short for someone who had 2 last warnings and who knows how many other warnings. I just saw that he continues to be beligerant even after he's blocked. Shouldn't a block stop people from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia after they're blocked? I'm kinda new here so if I'm wrong, sorry.--Komrade Kiev (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They can still edit their talk page to request unblock. If they're not doing that, it should be protected until the block ends. Nm, block has ended. If he's still being crass/rude, a longer block is justified. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the original blocker (for the 48 hour duration), but am recommending (along with a few others noted on the subjects talk page) that an indefinite block is called for, as it is apparent that JPH is unable to restrain himself from making personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• He's emailed me asking me to adopt him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only counsel you to read his last adoption page. User:Jeffrey_Pierce_Henderson/Adoption Padillah (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a pretty long fuse if the editor shows any degree of being able to type and source, and my bullshit switch is hard to trip. My bullshit switch has been tripped and this is bullshit. Were it not for KC's offer, I'd 100% support an indef block. With KC's comments, I'm at 95%, and 100% feel that this is the absolute last chance thank you very much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and have to wonder, after being mentored and "not winning" is this simply an attempt to game the system? The user now knows they will be blocked but that a mentor will "defend them" if they need a little wiggle room. I'd counsel KC to become real familiar with JPH's edit history and his last adoption attempt to make sure he's not gettin' played. I'm starting to notice a pattern: Argument, contrite, argument, contrite... But, it's your call KC. Padillah (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by KC's comments on JPH's talk page, I'm guessing UCS will be weilded with a mighty stick. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this simply an attempt to game the system? Absolutely it is. Padillah ceased to be usefull to JPH once it was obvious that he was not going to get his way on Talk:Bench press with regards to having his friends "record" added to the page. To me JPH simply fired one mercenary (no offense Padillah) and has now hired another, with the end goal still being the same - to "win the argument". He even states on his adoption page "There is a cabal here, sir, and I am here to shut it down or be blocked in the process. All I care about is winning what I want." Anyone who opposes what he wants on Wikipedia is part of this "cabal" and is insulted. Look at Talk:Insanity. Then when he fears he's going to be blocked he's starts apologizing [176], then later he calls the same user a pest and racist [177]. His edit history is not of somone who is trying to improve Wikipedia to better mankinds knowledge - it's of someone who is on here for fun and drama. Hence the disproportionate ratio of real edits to Talk page edits. He has a strong POV on the issue [178]. Yes I know I should WP:AFG, but with an edit history such as this, how can one continue to assume the best? I will say this now: JPH will continue to disrupt Wikipedia until either a) He gets the edit he wants on the bench press article or b) He's blocked. --Quartet 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It irks me that he deletes neutral and civil advice from his talk page [179]. I don't see a reason to only accept advice and discussion from people he choses. Wikipedia is made up of a diverse bunch, you don't get to ignore people or their comments because you don't like them. That's a recipe for needless, stupid drama. I leave it up to KC to decide how to proceed, but frankly I don't think there's much point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He deleted it because he's not looking for advice - he's looking for drama. He knows he can't say anything to you as that will be seen as an attack (but we know what he thinks about you and your contributions [180] - so he'll be rude instead and delete your advice. Ignore it.--Quartet 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Never underestimate a user's willingness to persist in pushing a single item, for years if necessary. As with the Rick Reilly and Pioneer Courthouse Square situations, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

Resolved

Sorry I came here, but it's the best place to get the most replies. What's wrong with the watchlists? It's showing every edit made to pages. It used to show the last edit made to a page. Now it shows all of the last edits made. Also, is there a way to get rid of the rollback button on the watchlist? I'm afraid I'll click it accidentally a lot. :-P iMatthew // talk // 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Preferences -> Watchlist -> Expand watchlist to show all applicable changes (uncheck it). As far as removing the rollback button... Maybe with a monobook hack. Or I could remove your rollback if you like ;> –xeno (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Awful good thing there is a confirmation for the block button.--Tznkai (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, and I just checked that, not over an hour ago. I thought it was something else. Well, now that my stupidity has been established, thanks Xeno. If anyone finds a way to get rollback off of it, let me know! ;-) iMatthew // talk // 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

check out Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts and maybe make a request with the wikiproject if you don't find one. We have a lot of wizards who can hack you up a solution in a couple minutes. –xeno (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a quick and dirty script that does the trick. To use it, simply add the following line to your monobook: importScript('User:Gary King/hide rollback in watchlist.js'); Gary King (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:VPT#This week's software updates (permlink). –xeno (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist continuing misconduct

Resolved

 – Legitimate inquiries have been referred to more relevant venues. — Scientizzle 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist continues to generate complaints from editors who have better things to do.

• ScienceApologist has again been criticized for making personal attacks against individuals, see "BLP violation" and "Problem with Paton" [181]. Both User:KillerChihuahua and ScienceApologist have tried to justify the contentious remarks by confusing an author's sources with the individual. WP:BLP clearly forbids contentious remarks about individuals, even in talk pages. A previous ArbCom found against SA, that "ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories"[182] We may disagree with people, but we don't denigrate them.
• Since becoming the subject of an ArbCom case on Dec 29, 2009,[183] ScienceApologist has received complaints:

• In an earlier AN/I on a series of AfDs.[184], plus further complaints.[185][186]
• Restoring poor sources, even though discussed otherwise with another editor.[187]
• Tagging articles with poor or contentious category tags.[188]
• Trying to make major changes guidelines with no conensus.[189]
• Being disruptive.[190]
• 3RR warning.[191]
• Even more editor warring."Identified flying object"[192]
• Reverting other editors' changes without discussion."Atropa belladonna"[193]

• The current ArbCom case,[194], the long list of blocks,[195], and the many previous Arbcom cases,[196][197][198][199] shows that these are not isolated incidents, and ScienceApologist is not picked upon by just one or two disgruntled editors. --81.131.6.69 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Mr. Phi. Skinwalker (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy now. No accusations without proof... trace the IP.(olive (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I'd like to see this accusation against a banned editor justified; and SA's behavior needs to be investigated. Dreadstar † 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... dread, you are either defending an obvious IP sockpuppet, who is familiar enough with a dispute to cite diffs extending back months, or you are defending a user who was banned for repeatedly outing other editors. Nice going. SA's behavior has been investigated ad nauseum here and elsewhere, and I fail to see what yet another instance of forum shopping is going to accomplish. Skinwalker (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you've made a specific accusation and I'd like to see you prove it. If it's a sock of another user, then it should be dealt with properly; if it's not a sock of the one you accused, then your accusation needs to be withdrawn. Dreadstar † 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is nothing more than a dramatic thread, I'll point all parties to two active RFAR cases:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification

The more important question is, who is this IP a sock of? seicer | talk | contribs 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I asked for the accuser to make a checkuser request, instead of blindly accusing someone. Dreadstar † 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Going by the writing style, it's probably Davkal rather than MartinPhi. Shot info (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Davkal usually creates throwaway accounts, and doesn't use British Telecom IP addresses. Could be a proxy. Skinwalker (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but let's blame Martinphi or even me. Great. Dreadstar † 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing arbcom, or people could make an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ScienceApologist if they're really that concerned. I'm surprised there hasn't been one already with the amount of editors who, rightly of wrongly, have it in for SA. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed.(olive (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

SA is taking a break "Until 15 February 2009 due to being tired of one-sided enforcement and wikistalkers," so let's drop this now, let the arbitration finish, and see how he acts when he returns. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of these accusations are dated and were previously addressed. Others seem a bit bogus, for instance noting he received a "warning" accusing him of 3RR by an editor he was in dispute with. So? He works on contentious articles and has been closely and aggresively monitored. I think the title and tone of this section is inappropriate and provocative. If there is a specific complaint of wrongdoing let's hear it, or better yet take it up in the appropriate fora that are already dealing with the situation, but this looks like muckraking where the anonymous accuser is the one making trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Without commenting on anything else, this IP's post deleted a section.[200] I need to run out the door, so I'd appreciate it if someone could restore the thread. Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. NJGW (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing arb case. Evidence is best presented there. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Link to CU: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.131.6.69 Dreadstar † 03:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's like socks are all given pitchforks for mob behavior, but try to create a mob by stirring the manure piles ,to dig up old crap. BOR-ing. I think the most interesting thing here is the zealotry with which some people try to defend bizarre fringe theories and defend their honor on the internet. It's like arguing with pigs, but they keep on screaming nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a crazy den of pigs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

<ec> Should that be in WP:NOT? Not sure if it would pass the trades descriptions act, given the repeated tendency to enable fringe pov pushing. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist contacted me this evening to inform me of the intended wikibreak, although not its exact duration. Time off seems like a very good idea for him right now. A few suggestions: information relevant to any ongoing arbitration is best submitted at that arbitration, or via email to the Committee (which anyone can do and is the appropriate route for blocked/banned users or editors in good standing who wish to avoid associating themselves with the dispute). Sockpuppet suspicions are best routed through CU and/or SSP rather than upfront attempts to guess a username. SA was quite helpful via chat this evening researching historic astronomy data for potential featured picture candidates. A change of pace to low stress content work can be refreshing; might be a good idea on all sides. With respect, Durova^Charge! 09:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that, it's a good idea all round but perhaps rather impractical in light of the deadlines for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. No doubt teh drahmaz will continue. . dave souza, talk 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since these issues regard current arbitration cases rather than AE, that RFC isn't directly relevant. Durova^Charge! 09:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of a case I'd been ignoring while *gasp* getting on with article content work. The RfC does seem relevant in setting principles, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science looks like one I should add info to, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification ended up being referred to that RfC, unless I've misunderstood. Any other current cases? . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've mostly followed the former. Either way, with an open case addressing the matter it's possible the Committee may resolve this definitively. Or at least the RFC could settle out before the fringe science case ends up at AE. IMO for some time now the Committee has overused and poorly crafted its discretionary remedies. From early 2008 onward it's taken on overtones of passing the buck. There's even a proposal in Fringe Science to grant me extraordinary powers; I just won't have it. The arbitrators ought to be making those tough decisions, not a non-admin. Anyway, good night. Very late in this time zone. And best wishes. Durova^Charge! 10:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

← The appearance of IP's and socks presenting "evidence" against ScienceApologist is about as surprising as sunrise in the east, whenever he's involved in any sort of proceeding. A reasonably self-aware individual might eventually realize that this sort of obnoxiousness actually deflects attention away from SA's alleged misdeeds, and onto the even more disruptive behavior of some of his opponents. But then, self-awareness has always been in short supply on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mast Cell, you've got a good point about the self-defeating element of strange IPs popping up at an out of process venue to present detailed evidence (especially while they could present the same stuff legitimately to ArbCom). The way it's expressed, though, looks like a put-down. Hardly anyone rises to their better self in response to a put-down. Let's mark this thread resolved, since there's nothing much positive that can come out of it here. The referrals to other locations have already been made. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jameskrouse

Resolved

 – OP now doesn't "really care that much". Both articles taken to AfD, user now on final warning, all user's contributions being watched.

See Special:Contributions/Jameskrouse. User has created two articles (Paul Callan (attorney) and just today Devon reiff), both of which are blatant-self promotions of non-notable injury lawyers. I tagged the second one as per WP:CSD (which he later removed). I think the first article should be up for WP:PROD as well. §FreeRangeFrog 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They may indeed be self-promotion of some sort. But there appear to me to be claims to notability in Paul Callan (attorney) and in Devon reiff. I suggest that if you have real concerns, you take them to AfD. I doubt either will be deleted, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Paul Callan, but just out of curiosity, can you point out where notability for Devon Reiff was established in the article? Also, the author keeps deleting CSD notices and edits by bots related to the image he uploaded. If nothing else, he should be blocked while the article goes through AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what, on second thought, I don't really care that much. This is blatant enough to be evident, but if it's that much of a problem, and someone like you tells me "it probably won't work" based on who knows what criteria, then who cares. §FreeRangeFrog 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim you asked about is in the sentence "and is on both the board of directors and the executive committee of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association". What may be blatent to you is not to me. If that makes you flounce of in a huff, well, that's sad. But as you now "don't really care that much", and as the contributor has been asked not to remove deletion tags, I've marked this entry as resolved. If the contributor continues to remove tags, then further actions should be taken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken both articles to AfD and given the user a final warning about removing tags. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They look OK to me too, but I could go either way regardless. If there were no citations I would say to get rid of them, but both are cited, so I don't think they will get deleted.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, OK. Thanks, I guess. I don't get "in a huff" because I have a problem with attorneys at law or this particular user, but common sense tells me that this is nothing more than blatant promotion of a non-notable subject. The citations (IMO) simply do not establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you take your doubts about the articles to the two AfD debates. Self promotion is not (afaik) grounds for deletion, little as both of us might like it. Notability, per this discussion, is borderline. AfD is the place to seek to win the lack of notability article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the Devon Reiff AfD but not in the one for Paul Callan. A google search on the latter seems to support the article's claims re: OJ Simpson and so on. My comment about it going to PROD was biased by the author's editing history and attitude (removing tags) than anything else. I am not qualified to comment on whether or not the legal prowess of Mr. Callan is enough for inclusion here. §FreeRangeFrog 19:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible socks trying to disrupt article Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Resolved

 – Obvious sockpuppet blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guido-s Revenge(obviously not a new user) started makingPOV edits to the article Chronic fatigue syndrome.Jfdwolff blocked this user butIP 87.112.34.51 seems also to have edited the Guido-s Revenge user page. This follows about a month after IP 87.115.17.165 &IP 87.115.17.124 (same provider for all IPs I believe) made the same sort of disruptive edits to the article.[201][202] The editsaggravating becauseanother editor with a similar POV had been banned. However, it appears the new editor (similar name to the banned editor) and its puppets, are not the previously banned editor because they live in different countries. The new editor appears to want to stir ill will among the editors of a difficult to edit article. For this reason I am requesting if checkuser or other appropriate method could be used to stop the editor and puppets trying to disrupt the article?Ward20 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably want to check out WP:SPI. //roux   23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For now, WP:RBI seems to have worked, i.e. there's no disruption since Guido's Revenge was blocked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it's GDB anyway, he knows his edits have no chance of standing without sourcing and this is blatant WP:PROVEIT material. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war at Rick Warren

Resolved

 – Detail has been removed following the determination of consensus by a number of editors. Article has also been fully protected at this time.--VS ^talk 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war in progress at Rick Warren over - believe it or not - the inclusion, or not, of the origin of the term saddlebacking in the article. Multiple editors have now violated 3RR on the supposed basis that this is a WP:BLP issue, but the validity of that claim is not clear. Anyhow, I've requested temporary full protection over at WP:RFP but that board is backlogged some hours and I thought I should bring it to admin attention here. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for now, and will look into the 3RR/BLP issue shortly. Kevin (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar edit war is also in progress over at Saddleback Church over the same matter. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one of the perpetrators already filled me in. Thanks Kevin (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Give that I unilaterally disarmed and took my grievance to the admins, I think that calling me a perp is kind of harsh, don't you? Spotfixer (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Manutdglory (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Manutdglory also loves to call people "vandals" when they make edits which don't jive with his personal tastes. Manutdglory revealed himself as a member of a particular megachurch which is the subject of controversy, and he's been trying to WhiteWash articles which might criticize or suggest infamy about his church. Then Manutdglory declared other editors were unfit to make edits because of "Conflict Of Interest", while still making edits to the articles about his own church and pastor. This is a situation repeated several times in less than a month. Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you would also think then that 48 hour blocks all round is a bit harsh also. It's only the though that some may have acted under the belief that this is a WP:BLP issue that I haven't yet. And that possible saving grace does not apply to those reverting to add the section. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Input regarding whether User:Lyonscc had a genuine belief that this was a WP:BLP issue, or was just removing unliked material would be welcome here. I need to be offline for a couple of hours. Kevin (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is among the dumbest things I have ever seen. The term "saddlebacking" was allegedly coined less than a week ago - there's no way there should be an article on it. I don't know that it's a BLP issue, but it is a "remove stupid stuff from articles" issue. --B (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the term was coined over a month ago but it took awhile for the definition to be decided upon by Savage. It may be dumb but I am unconvinced that this does not merit an article. I am rather stunned at the urgency with which editors want this article done and added to tangentally related articles (the subject church and its head). With respect to Lyonscc's making this a BLP issue, I'll point out that this term is not specifically referring to Warren himself but is a play on the name of his church. Contentuous? Sure. Poorly sourced? It seems to have been mentioned in The Economist. But there is some divergence between the church and the living person, though of course when it comes to things religious and the casting of those things in an unflattering light, sometimes those things are improperly merged. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would note that I engaged on the talk page why I believed this was a significant violation of WP:BLP, specifically the section on speedy removal of poorly sources, contentious material. In this case, what was being inserted was a brand-new, made-up term for "the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities". I think any reasonable editor would agree that it was a) not notable to the subject of the BLP; b) poorly sourced (two opinion pieces, and an article referring to the opinion piece, noting that no definition yet existed for the term); and c) malicious/contentious. I tried to get the editors on the talk page to wait 24 hours for consensus, but they continued to revert, leading to my reporting this on a couple of noticeboards. I don't make a lot of edits to Rick Warren, but just happened to be reading my watchlist yesterday, and saw a lot of unusual activity. I have no axe to grind with this article - it's about a guy 2000 miles away that's not even in my religious denomination--Lyonscc (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail reading comprehension - I thought this was about the link in the article on the church itself. I didn't realize it was this edit from the bio on Rick Warren. No way in heck does this belong in a BLP and you were absolutely right to remove it. --B (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP problems at Peter Falk

I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on this. Editors keep adding an allegation that Falk suffers from Alzheimer's on the basis of allegations contained in an court affidavit filed by his wife. For various reasons, I do not regard this as a reliable source. Even if false, the allegations would appear to breach WP:BLP and WP:RS. Until this is resolved I have reverted those edits and fully protected the article. Any Admin is free to undo this if they feel I am incorrect. --Rodhullandemu 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm only asking because I don't know - not to be smart. The history tab of the article seems to show that the edits are from an IP address. (at least in last couple days) Don't those kind of things usually get a semi-protect first? Doesn't really matter to me, I don't have any information I could add to the article or anything. Ched (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had semi-protected it, that would leave me open to accusations of bias against the anon editor. Although, as an Admin, I could still edit through the full protection, I consider myself responsible enough not to do so. It's a matter of appearance, that's all; and the anon IP could still have registered an account and edited through semi-protection. --Rodhullandemu 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim is by Falk's daughter and seems to be widely and reliably verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem: it's a claim. Consensus at the talk page seems to be that it's insufficient to support a contention that Falk has Alzheimer's, and as a claim it's arguable self-serving and WP:UNDUE when it monopolises the "Personal Life" section. I don't think we print "claims" willy-nilly, wherever they come from. Isn't that the whole point of BLP? --Rodhullandemu 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know Falk was sick. If true, this is a worthy addition to WP. We should be sure it's true, first. Chergles (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• fully ednorse Rodhullandemus actions. I would have reverted and protected myself if they hadn't. This isn't acceptable sourcing. If its verifiable then the claim would have been widely reported in the press, since its not I'd say we have a BLP vio on iour hands. If notghing else, let the poor man keep some dignity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as dignity, the family may not want anyone to know about it until he passes away. So WP can wait until it's widely reported. WP is more of an encyclopedia making a report, not an investigative news reporter and intelligence agency. Chergles (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally removed the Alzheimers stuff so, naturally, I agree with Rodhullandemu. In addition to the sourcing issue (and, having had relatives with that disease, I find the allegation dubious), a possible WP:WEIGHT issue concerns me. This is a biography of modest length about a distinguished actor with a career dating back five decades. Doesn't seem proportional that his "personal life" section be dominated by Alzheimer's. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, has Falk or his agent come out and denied any of this yet? Ched (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just ran a Google News check, and that yielded this article [203] in Radar Online, indicating that his daughter's bid to put her father in a conservatorship is opposed by Mrs. Falk. As for Falk's medical condition, Mrs. Falk's lawyer said "Mr. Falk is a private man, and we won't be commenting on his medical situation." This just underlines how this is a tabloidish family squabble, with Alzheimer's tossed in the stew as a weapon by one side of the family. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Stetsonharry's comments above; neither have they commented upon Mr Falk's purported purchase of a second hand flying saucer from Area51 Dealerships and Laundry Services. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good heavens... yep, good call Rodhullandemu, hopefully the stupidity will quiet down in a few days. Ched (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:WELLKNOWN. Affidavits whose contents have not been published in solid secondary sources are off limits for BLPs. Once reports have appeared in good, solid, reputable sources, what these sources have said can be reported. Unfortunately, there do seem to be reports in first class sources that he is ill [204][205] Jayen466 22:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read your sources carefully: "according to his daughter" and "daughter says". Self-interest? You tell me. And, apparently, a single source. Please see discussion immediately below. --Rodhullandemu 22:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Yet the daughter's claims seem to have been reported widely, including the BBC. It is hard to argue that the BBC and Reuters don't fulfil WP:WELLKNOWN, as long as the wording remains clear that these are unconfirmed claims made in a particular context. But having said that, I would have no quibble with editors wanting to hold back until there is more definite news. Jayen466 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another story casting doubt on the claims. Jayen466 23:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; despite the strenuous attempts to avoid tabloid toss, it remains tabloid toss, as examplified by "As the tabloids continue to speculate wantonly about the 81-year-old Falk's "sad last days" and alleged Alzheimer's disease, his daughter, Catherine, has filed for conservatorship of her father." Toss about toss is still toss; we remain an encyclopedia, and the day we stop being one is the day I get my hat and get my coat, and fuck off out of here. --Rodhullandemu 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• My closest and most recent comparator to this situation is when allegations that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam were made in The Sun, a UK tabloid. Mr Jackson and his substantial team were silent on the point, yet the claim was picked up on by numerous secondary sources. Several editors sought to use this faux multiplicity of sources to somehow imply verisimilitude for the original, dubious claim. In a sense, this is what is happening here, although on a somewhat smaller scale. It seems possible, however, that there is an issue within the family, and we should not rule out self-interest in sourcing. As for the status of an affidavit, whereas there are sanctions for knowingly mis-stating the position, it is little more than a statement of "this is what we intend to prove". In that sense, we should not regard such documents as reliable sources; they are necessarily polemical. In Mr Falk's case, it is a little bit of a cleft stick, in that if he has sufficiently advanced Alzheimer's, he is unable to effectively refute the allegations- but that seems to be the whole point of the proceedings at hand. I still regard WP:BLP as being paramount here, less on the grounds of WP:V and [WP:RS]] than on the point of human dignity, which should prevail (per Argumentum ad Jimbonem). If we need to deal with this, we should do so with scrupulously sourced information, not mere allegations. --Rodhullandemu 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no question that his daughter filed papers on the matter, on or about 12/16/08. The missing piece is independent verification that he really does have alzheimer's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a claim, and introduced in what appears to be a fierce family dispute by the daughter, who is not on good terms with the mother. I do not know if that specific claim is disputed, but given that this is an ongoing legal matter I think that it is probably best to wait until there is legal confirmation. Mr. Falk is kind of caught between the two. It is not a fair situation. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia should leave this alone until we have that "just one more thing". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of those above; this looks like a classic example of when not to use a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source to evaluate the material in the primary source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apa aff os

• Apa aff os (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned by this editor's contributions. They seem to have gone to a fair bit of trouble to get this complicated URL exactly right before posting it at Barack Obama. Harmless hijinks, routine spam/SEO efforts, or something more sinister? I can't tell. Posting here for some more tech-savvy opinions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like simple spam to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Icanbuy.com spamming

Resolved

Edicanbuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is extremely desperate to have the spamtext currently viewable at User:Edicanbuy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appear somewhere on Wikipedia. He has created/recreated Icanbuy.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) three times in the last three days, and when G11'ed there for the third time, created Talk:Icanbuy.com (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) to host the same content. When that was G11'ed, he recreated it on his userpage. However, between the time Talk:Icanbuy.com was speedy-tagged and when User:Edicanbuy was created, Edicanbuy was given a 4im warning about creating inappropriate pages, specifically referencing the icanbuy.com article. Can someone block this account and salt the pages in question? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, spam connected with his newly-created article Building Industry Association. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by PMDrive1061 as G12, copyright infringement, but it's already been recreated] on the user's talk page. That would be three disruptive acts after a final warning and no helpful contributions whatsoever. --Dynaflow babble 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Black Kite 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption on Rick Santorum

Resolved

 – Closed - thread does not provide evidence relating to the complaint, despite a request to the creator.--VS ^talk 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We've got people edit-warring and announcing that they will violate WP:3RR. Mayday, mayday! Spotfixer (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No such problem. Spotfixer sought to include material which was not cited, and another editor took it out. No announcements of 3RR, unless Spotfixer is declaring intents here. The material was, in fact, not cited, and probably shouldn't be in. (it's about the relative GHits and Yahoo hits of a certain terminology related to the Senator, which isn't relevant for purposes of this AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean Santorum (sexual neologism)? AnyPerson (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Want to add some signal to your noise? ThuranX (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Caution please Thuranx - comment on content not on the editor. I request you please strike through the above attack comment.--VS ^talk 00:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you referring to me? I pointed out an article that is in Wikipedia, and asked you if you are objecting to an edit in the Rick Santorum article which relates to that other article that I pointed out. And your assumption of my age is not only insulting to me, but an assumption of bad faith, and an insult to the many teenaged editors who do fine work on Wikipedia. Racism and sexism are not allowed on Wikipedia, but apparently ageism is all right? If you have a problem with Santorum (sexual neologism), then I suggest you nominate it for deletion, otherwise, it's perfectly within the rules of Wikipedia to refer to it. AnyPerson (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX has removed the comment that I objected to, not striking through it, so my comment now makes no sense, but see the page's history. I note that ThuranX has yet to explain his objection to linking to a valid Wikipedia article. AnyPerson (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to reply, VirtualSteve implied that I should leave this be, but now to get attacked for removing the offending attack? Then here is my Response:

And other than shock value, what, exactly does saying it here do? It's irrelevant WHAT it is, what IS relevant is the facts of the case, which can be told without mentioning it. Just because Wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean we can or should be vulgar for its own sake, and since that particular term is the subject of extreme and near constant disruption, I chose to focus on the circumstances of the case, not on the word, because it was irrelevant. Shame that that sort of behavior now results in warning and blocks, instead of editors and admins actively examining the case brought here. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That was good advice from VS, I think. Kevin (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TALK#Own_comments AnyPerson (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So anyways, Anyone else have any comments on the actual case presented? ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Having found a couple of minutes to look at this - at this time I do not see any material to support Spotfixer's claim that We've got people edit-warring and announcing that they will violate WP:3RR. Diff's please Spotfixer?--VS ^talk 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • That's what I said in the beginning. ThuranX (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If you have no response Spotfixer - I am prepared to close this thread.--VS ^talk 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

need IP block for ban-evading editor

 Done 31 hours --VS ^talk 03:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give a short block to 208.89.102.31 (talk · contribs). He's indef-blocked editor User:JedRothwell, evading his topic ban from Talk:Cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:RasterFaAye‎

RasterFaAye‎ (talk · contribs)

This recently created account has been used exclusively to remove {{PROD}} templates from articles, usually leaving nothing more than a boilerplate edit summary like "not uncontroversial" or "_____ is notable" if an edit summary is left at all. This user makes no attempt to improve these articles or explain his/her reasoning on the talk page. Several editors have kindly and not so kindly informed this user that his/her approach is problematic and needs to change, but there has yet be an improvement. It may turn out that some of the de-PRODed articles are salvageable (though most are most definitely not, IMHO), but the issue here is this user's approach.

I also note the this editor's contribution history has several hallmarks of an abusive sock puppet: the first two edits are to create a user page[206] and talk page[207], and before s/he's made even 50 contributions s/he's already referring to AFD discussions.[208] Doesn't look like a "new" user to me. Yilloslime (t) 05:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if this is a new user, RasterFaAye is amazingly quick to learn, and it would be nice if the prod removals had longer explanations. But many longterm editors use similarly terse summaries; we just don't have the reputation for this account here to base one's respect for these deproddings yet. I delsort most of the prods of academics and the academic prods appear to me to not be indiscriminate, but picking ones that have some chance of keeping at AfD. RasterFaAye is also commendably deprodding articles which have been inappropriately reprodded after being contested earlier or surviving an AfD, and these two types together account for most of the recent removals I believe.John Z (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for assessment of my conduct: warning someone when I'm involved in a content dispute

Bittergrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I've placed a very stongly worded warning to User:Bittergrey on the talk page of Diaper fetishism (including suggestions a topic ban was possible) after he restored this geocities link as a source. However as I'm the one who removed the link this is a content dispute.

Nor is it a new content dispute. While I had no real recollection of this editor, in January 2006 his first ever edit was reverted by me in a only a few minutes.

So, Admin Corps, I'd like a quick sanity check on my conduct. Thank you.

brenneman 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NB: I have advised the user of this thread.

I note that you didn't threaten to use tools yourself against this user. On that basis, I don't think the warning is a problem. However, insofar as this is a content dispute, I myself must admit to a bias, since I agree that a geocities link shouldn't be used as a source. Hmmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so hope my commenting here is acceptable. This, to me, does seem to be over-the-top. The source in question is a user group survey that is now web archived. This can be used in the article if it is attributed as such so the reader understands its use. The reference desk or RS noticeboard may be able to help if that is indeed the source that needs to be used. I wonder if a "kinder, gentler" approach would make more sense and get better results? To me it seems like they will be blocked from editing if they oppose you and I'm not sure that's the way to bring about stronger sourcing on the article. Are we publishing false or misleading information? If so maybe peel specific statements to the talkpage and state this can be re-added if sourced to wikipedia standards or reworded to match the sources already cited. Bittergrey has this as a focus of their work here so prompting them to improve the article would make sense, instead they have been publicly, well, threatened. I've seen many articles under attack and it's no fun to stress over what someone else decrees as your work as a volunteer editor. Even if you didn't intend to do that, it might feel that way. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just an automatic archive of an unreliable source. It doesn't remotely belong in this article. Its an unreliable source allegedly holding a survey about some subject. Its not remotely scientific and there is nothing to back any of the claims made in the survey. Its probably one of the worst sources that could ever go in to an article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This admin has now accused me of "consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate" but is "to worn out" to give examples. Am I alone in thinking that evidence should have been found _before_ the accusation was made? BitterGrey (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I either need to find easier users to deal with or quit bringing my conduct here for review. - brenneman 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No...you are just not hearing what you want to hear. Tiptoety ^talk 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. It seems that the admin thought the survey reference I put back in was a link to my survey. My survey <original research> is at http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys/</original research>. The British survey is long closed and archived. Dave didn't have the time to keep it running. Mine is active and being run in the US. I would hope that administrators would set a good example and check references before deleting them, as well as checking accusations before making them. Those that don't understand the need to lead by example shouldn't be in leadership.BitterGrey (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, a geocities link absolutely fails WP:V and WP:RS. Its a self-published source and unless you can demonstrate that the author of the content is a published and recognized expert in the world of diaper fetishism, then it doesn't belong near this or any other article.--Crossmr (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing is one issue, the incivility regarding improving sourcing is another. -- Banjeboi 13:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for extra eyes

Borderline content dispute, possibly not appropiate for ANI, but...

Snowspinner/Sandifer appears to have some problems with my recent edits to Tori Amos and Talk:Tori Amos. In short order I've been blindly reverted, called a "blatant lie[r]", accused or personal attacks, and told that he'll not discuss his edits on the talk page and that any further edits by my he'll consider personal attacks.

Given that Snowspinner has in the past both blocked me without warning over a content dispute and brought arbitration against me without any previous attempts at dispute resolution, I feel placing a notice here is appropiate.

I'd appreciate an objective set of eyes (or six) on the situation, as well as welcoming any input on my conduct. (As always.)

brenneman 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Aaron, you accused me of canvassing when I pointedly did not mention the article or direct anyone towards it, and you suggested that one of the problems with a source was that it was only "ostensibly" peer reviewed, which, given that you knew full well I had been the editor of that source, was a suggestion that I might be committing serious professional misconduct. Frankly, I've got to wonder what you *expected* me to do, especially given that this was a basically settled matter that, after discussion and editing a while ago, had stabilized on what appeared to be consensus. So showing up and reactivating a settled discussion by throwing mud at me, especially given a past history of conflict seems to me... well, to be honest, I'm really having to stretch to assume good faith here. Were it not for the fact that I can't think of anything I've done in years to piss you off, I'd assume this was just retaliation for something, but honestly, I'm at a loss. Perhaps you can explain - why reactivate a settled dispute on an article you've shown no prior interest in via mud-slinging against a user you have a checkered history with? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was a request for additional input. This is neither the article talk page nor my talk page. Please use an appropiate venue. - brenneman 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Very little about this seems appropriate to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you might want to reforumate your comments about the peer review the article has undergone. Phil does have a point there.Geni 01:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From an uninvolved admin - Phil, Aaron, all I see here are wrongs. I've full protected the article for 3 days to end this back and forth (though Aaron already stated he was done reverting). I can see no logical reason not to formally warn both of you - everyone involved has enough experience to know not to edit war, and yet you clearly did, up to and including stopping use of the talk page and sterile reverts recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Locking the Amos article prevents other editors from being able to edit it. Wouldn't it be better instead to block Phil and Aaron for a day or two? That would be better for the encyclopedia if we believe the encyclopedia to be more important than the feelings of a couple of warring editors who should know better. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that protection is not needed here, brenneman has agreed to stop edit warring and I think Phil is a smart enough guy to stop too. If they keep it up, then I will block. So, I don't really see a need for protection here...but that's just me. Tiptoety ^talk 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? Block me for a day or two for edit warring? If "they keep it up"? This appears to be a wildly inaccurate, given that I

• Stated on the talk page my intetnions to edit the article,
• Edited the article per my stated intention,
• Missed (while section editing) a single blind revert by Snowspinner, which I at once noted on the talk page
• Made a single revertion,
  • after being told on the talk page the other editor would not discuss it
  • I said in the edit summary I wouldn't revert again
  • I said in the edit summary I would open a thread here
  • I opened a thread here, and
  • I continued to use the talk page.

(diffs for all the above happy to be provided if requested.) In contrast, Snowspinner has been blindly reverting changes to this section since December 10th, including three times today. Please, please tell me you're kidding.

brenneman 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be basically two reverts [209] [210] plus you two have traded insults [211]. So, I think Tiptoety is correct. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Brenneman, maybe I was not clear enough. Had you been edit warring, you would already have been blocked. The statement I made above was an attempt to say: "if they continue down the road they are on, then a block for edit warring will be the correct course of action." Tiptoety ^talk 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I been placed on 0RR Parole that I'm not aware of? I'm dissapointed by the level of attention placed on this prior to commenting. My first reversion (Revision as of 10:22) of his blind revert was missed in section editing (as I state that right above this) and when I noticed it I at once placed a note on the talk page "Care to discuss instead of reverting?". As I also state right above this. Snowspinner's response was "no, I don't want to have anything to do with you" and he continued blindly reverting. Also, I fail to see how the third link provided shows me trading insults.

To be frank, I feel as though I attempted to deal with someone agressive and belligerent in a reasonable manner and I'm getting a trout for it. I'm open to suggestions as to how this could have been handleded differently, given the long-term and agressive editting combined with the combative discussion style on the talk page.

Here are Snowspinners recent edits to the page: [212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220]. That's twelve blind reverts. Three today, while stating that he would not discuss it. While "wrestle with pigs both get muddy" etc, is the suggestion that Snowspinner be allowed to force his prefeered version onto the page? (This is becoming a content dispute, but I'm also questioning the level of adminstrative responsibility at play here.) I can easily imagine a new usr in my situation saying something like "Are you all fucking nuts?" and then getting blocked for incivilty.

brenneman 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaron, so far you've (accidentally or not) insinuated egregious professional misconduct on my part, made a false accusation of canvassing, and now you seem to suggest that two month old edits are "recent." I'd say quit while you're ahead, but, well, that ship has sailed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please at least unprotact the page for the courtesy of other editors? - brenneman 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop - and mark this as resolved. Admins should be setting an example for us regular editors, not bickering over a single web-page. I'm sure this Tori person is a wonderful singer and all, and you're both obviously very passionate about the subject, but it's only one web-page out of 2.7 million on wiki (not counting the billions beyond wikipedia). We're damn lucky to have the Internet, and wikipedia to begin with. You don't have to like each other to work together, just respect the process. This one page won't put food on your table, do your laundry, or fix your car. Remember: The needs of the community, outweigh the needs of the page. In a world filled with hate, starvation, hunger, and war - this kind of stuff just seems so trivial to me. Be nice, enjoy your life and what you've got. Now if someone wants to slap some sort of block or ban on me because I got too bold - I'd be bummed, but the sun will still come up in the morning, and my grandkids will still love me. (forgot sig) Ched (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Complex thread from WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Editor blocked for 48 hours.

• 75.108.73.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalism after recent release of block. User had previously been on a month-long block for edits like these, user continues to vandalize pages and has been given a full-set of warnings. User doesn't seem to be changing behaviour after warnings and block. Requesting admin attention, please. NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 22:55
  • Vandalism continues well after the last warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:09
    • Vandalism continues with the user removing warnings from his talk page. Admin assistance is requested. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:31
      • I'm sorry, can you point me to what edits are vandalism here? I don't quite see what the issue is that needs to be reverted and blocked. Thanks, either way (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (not reverted by me), 11 (also not reverted by me). So....there are some vandalism there. Plus the block log showing this isn't a new thing for this anon user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:38
          • I'm not 100% convinced this is pure vandalism. Why is it vandalism to remove the (19xx-present) in the infobox? I don't think the removal of the subsection headers is necessarily vandalism either since it seems odd to have that subheading in such a small section as it is. either way (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, other users and one other admin think it is. 90% of stations have the (19xx-Present) text in the infobox. Removing it in one page and adding it in another (which this user has done) is pure and blantant vandalism. The "Digital Transition" section would only go under the "Digital Transition" header, not anything else. Removing it is pure and blantant vandalism....which again, other users and one other admin thing it is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:51
              • The (19xx-Present) text isn't displayed on the infobox on the WikiProject page, so that's why I ask. He could be doing it to conform to what's on the WikiProject page. either way (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Metros...I have to ask, are you trying to make excuses for this guy? Someone who after a full set of warnings today, a couple dozen in the past months, and several blocks....this isn't a user who is interested in "conforming" to a WikiProject. To me, these seem like User:BenH style edits (a blocked user, by the way) but a checkuser wasn't able to confirm (nor deny) that. Why are you defending him when you are so quick to block the others on this page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:57
                  • I'm not defending, just saying I'm not convinced it's vandalism. either way (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • What would convince you? Because all those warnings, blocks and reverts obviously aren't. I am being serious, what would convince you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:02
                      • Edits that look like pure vandalism. You can warn and revert someone without it being pure vandalism. This is my final say on this, I leave it to other admins to decide. either way (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                        • I kinda figured you would do this. You are letting your issues with me cloud your judgement. Any uninvolved admins, assistance would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:33
• I'm also not convinced; at the very least, this isn't blatant vandalism. Have you asked the IP to explain their edits? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Many times, the anon user either doesn't answer or removed the post from the talk page. Not the best of making me feel good about the user's edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:50

---

The above thread was getting into back and forth a bit much and beyond the scope of simple matters for the WP:AIV board. Posting it here for additional eyes. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To some it up from my view point, as a declining admin, I don't believe that the IP is committing obvious vandalism (as per the AIV standard). I don't believe that the removal of dates from the infobox is obvious vandalism, especially when the WikiProject doesn't include it in its infobox. This is why I declined it on AIV, though Neutralhomer will insist that I declined it for personal reasons against him which is a false accusation. either way (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, ain't getting in the middle of it with you again Metros. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 01:21

I ask you again, please stop calling me that. If I wanted to be referred to as Metros, I would have retained that name. either way (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not blatant vandalism on a first run through of the contributions. Please see WP:VAND#NOT. Editing against consensus, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. are NOT vandalism. And I'll note that it is not warnings, admonitions or declarations that make edits vandalism. It is the content of the edits. Looking again more closely in a sec. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • HOW is this vandalism? Ditto this. Hell, show me one edit that is blatant vandalism. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Because it is removing sections of text for really no reason what-so-ever. In a couple days or weeks, the user will come back and rewrite it the way it previously was. This is what this user does....writes, rewrites, writes, rewrites the same thing over and over and over and over to multiple pages. One admin already considered it vandalism and blocked the user for a month. Several users (outside myself) have considered it vandalism and warned the user, tons of edits have been reverted by other users....so it isn't just me who things this is vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 01:59

I see a lot of template warnings with no rationale on the IP's talk page. Why not write out your rationale for reverting on the user's talk page? If the user continues editing in the same fashion without replying to your message, I'd consider that to be disruptive. A Train^talk 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did write a "hand written" message at the very very bottom. Essentially saying "please stop or you will be blocked" and the user has continued. I haven't been able to get any response from the user except for blanking the page or just plain ignoring the warnings. I have honestly tried. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 02:12

All right, after a second look, I think the anon user is being decidedly uncooperative. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, failure to communicate with other editors about contentious edits is unequivocally disruptive. I'll block the user for 48 hours and invite them to respond to messages on their talk page. No prejudice against unblocking if the user explains his/herself. A Train^talk 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • It isn't vandalism. They have a specific editing style and as A train points out, they are extremely uncooperative. But uncooperative, disruptive, tendentious, even pathologically incorrect writing, isn't vandalism. It isn't a bad faith defacement of pages. The questions "should we block this user" and "are the edits of this user vandalism" are not one and the same. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • As a note on the "other users have said this is vandalism". I'm not trying to string you up here. I'm not trying to say "you, Neutralhomer, are screwing up". Those admins and editors who marked his contributions as vandalism may have been wrong as well. Maybe he did make some vandalism right before being blocked (distinct from the edits we have been shown). But pointing to that determination doesn't justify one made in the present. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • If you want to call it disruptive editing over vandalism that is fine with me. Whichever you call it, it is annoying as hell and having to see the same things over and over back and forth on a page is annoying to say the least. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 02:40
            • It is more than a semantic difference. Calling something vandalism, especially sending it to AIV, sets into motion a process whereby editors and admins act fairly mechanically. AIV is built for speed, not nuance. It isn't designed to judge the merits of contributions, just to literally check that you aren't fibbing when you say "this editor added "poop" to Bob Dole after a final warning, here is the diff". When you introduce non-vandal edits into that mix we slow down the whole process and we run the risk of blocking an editor without a fair look at their contributions. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I said it was fine to call it "disruptive editing" over "vandalism". I still consider the edits to be vandalism and I think others have too. Since a 48 hour block has been started maybe that will get it through to the editor that edits like his might not be the greatest. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 04:23

• Here is a clear example of what I am talking about. The user added information here and removed the same exact information moments later here. While I am aware this conversation has been marked resolved, this is an example of the vandalism I am talking about above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 06:42
• As the previous blocking admin, I would comment that the editing by the ip of itself is difficult to denote as vandalism on the face of it - but it is certainly disruptive and nonconsensual. However, following my prior review of their editing, it is my opinion that it is beyond WP:BOLD to unilaterally change a format already agreed upon by a group of editors/project, to not discuss the proposed changes, to ignore entreaties to discuss, disregard warnings, and to wait out sanctions and then continue doing the same thing. This is an editor with no interest in the encyclopedia, other than to have their preferred subjects reflect their preferred presentation (and they are not even consistent with that). When they resume their disruptive practices upon the block expiry I shall be blocking them for six months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)